Retrofuturist's Brief Sutta-Based Refutation of Abhidhamma

[Spiny Norman]

Greetings Spiny,

A couple of problems with your interpretation:
1. There is no reference to "rupasanna" in the stock description of rupa. Sanna belongs in the nama aspect of nama-rupa, not the rupa aspect.

Correct, there is no reference to it, nor am I saying that such explicit reference is there. What I am saying is that it is synonymous or equivalent to the stock phrase "the form derived from", because this form is derived via the factors of nama... feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention.

2. The stock description of rupa is used in nama-rupa, which incudes the four great elements. So using your terminology, both noumena and phenomena are included in nama-rupa. So arguing that rupa is only phenomenal in nama-rupa is a stretch.

This was addressed here. There is no standalone rupa, independent of nama, in paticcasamuppada.

Metta,
Paul.

IMO the actual text supports "mentality and materiality" better than your interpretation, which is "mentality and phenomena" or something?
And I don't see the relevance of your standalone argument here, given that nama and rupa are not described as co-dependent.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Spiny,

IMO the actual text supports "mentality and materiality" better than your interpretation, which is "mentality and phenomena" or something?

Nama literally means name, and its constituents are outlined in the Sutta. Of course, you're welcome to follow the lead of Classical Theravada and ignore the clear and precise Sutta definition so as to extend nama to include all mental factors, including consciousness, such that it becomes mentality.

As a reminder, none of this topic is intended to convince you of anything, "it is an attempt to logically and factually demonstrate to those who evangelize the Abhidhamma, that there are indeed valid reasons for disagreeing with it, and that these reasons do not require a full and comprehensive reading of the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka and its associated commentaries". If I was interested, I'd ask whether you bundle vinnana in under Nama like the Abhidhamma, but that's not my interest here in this instance.

And I don't see the relevance of your standalone argument here, given that nama and rupa are not described as co-dependent.

It's vinnana and nama-rupa which are co-dependent. It's the nama and rupa of nama-rupa which are inextricably intertwined. Again, if you find satisfaction in your interpretation, then I have no interest in quarrelling with that, as it's irrelevant to the purpose of this topic.

All the best.

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

Greetings Mike,

OK, so when the suttas say "earth" they mean dirt?
When they say "water", they mean the stuff in the ocean?
When they say "fire", they mean this?

They mean what they meant in the prevailing venacular of the mahabhuta schema. As I said to Ceisiwr earlier, the mahabhuta predates the Buddha, and as I said to you, unlike prevailing concepts such as kamma and loka, he had no need or want to redefine it.

What has been said here and prior addresses your subsequent comments.

Metta,
Paul.

OK, so if you take them from "the prevailing vernacular" they are clearly not as obvious as "when they say fire they mean fire", etc. ...

Would you be so kind as to give us a reference or an explanation of definitions in the prevailing vernacular?


Mike

[Spiny Norman]

Greetings Mike,

However, I don't see where the mahadhatu are defined in the suttas, so I wonder how we can actually know what is meant without looking at contemporaryish records (such as the commentaries). Perhaps you could explain your reasoning.

My reasoning is that:

- When someone means earth they say earth
- When someone means fire they say fire
- When someone means water they say water
- When someone means air they say air
- When someone wants to transform the straightforward meaning into something else, they need to define it
- Obvious things not being defined means they are not in need of such definition

Your "wonder"-ing about the meaning of something clear and obvious, not being able to be understood unless it is re-interpreted by someone who lived one millennium after the Buddha is symptomatic of Theravada's malaise and the extent to which it has become beholden to Buddhaghosa.

Metta,
Paul.

OK, so when the suttas say "earth" they mean dirt?
When they say "water", they mean the stuff in the ocean?
When they say "fire", they mean this?

And when they say "air", they mean a cool breeze?

And rūpa is those four mahābhūtā, and rūpa "derived" from those?

It's not very obvious to me how to take those as "things" (noumena) when reading the sutta descriptions: https://suttacentral.net/mn28/en/sujato

And what is the fire element?
The fire element may be interior or exterior.
And what is the interior fire element?
Anything that’s fire, fiery, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes:
that which warms, that which ages, that which heats you up when feverish, that which properly digests food and drink, or anything else that’s fire, fiery, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual.
...

and

And what is the air element?
The air element may be interior or exterior.
And what is the interior air element?
Anything that’s wind, windy, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes:
winds that go up or down, winds in the belly or the bowels, winds that flow through the limbs, in-breaths and out-breaths, or anything else that’s wind, windy, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual.
...

Mike

As you'll know the four great elements are an ancient classification of the material world. It's not the only such classification. The closest modern equivalent I know to the mahabhuta is the four states of matter, ie solid, liquid, gas and plasma.

Meanwhile rupa appears to mean the material stuff we actually experience, eg houses and bodies. Houses are mostly earth element, while bodies are a mix of elements.
I was suggesting in the other thread that rupa really refers to the stuff we appropriate, eg "my house" and "my body", but that isn't the usual understanding.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

OK, so if you take them from "the prevailing vernacular" they are clearly not as obvious as "when they say fire they mean fire", etc. ...

Only because you're taking an English language interpretation of fire, rather than the Indian interpretation of fire, in its capacity as an element.

Would you be so kind as to give us a reference or an explanation of definitions in the prevailing vernacular?

Here you go.

See also the first paragraph of Spiny's response to you, which I agree with.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ceisiwr]

It’s worth noting that the mahabhuta started out as deities in the Upanishads, thus being rather abstract. The suttas that talk about internal elements in relation to organs are teaching which organs etc show the qualities of earth element etc. It’s a phenomenalist teaching. Phenomenalism is an empiricist argument. The Buddha was an empiricist, as is the Abhidhamma to a large degree. If the Buddha did suddenly adopted substance metaphysics, which is essentially what a noumenon is or lends itself towards, then he was an inconsistent thinker. Personally I don’t think he was inconsistent. The 4 elements are abstract qualities of material (or physical) experience.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ceisiwr,

If the Buddha did suddenly adopted substance metaphysics, which is essentially what a noumenon is or lends itself towards, then he was an inconsistent thinker.

This proposition is inconsistent.

The Buddha taught the suffering and the end of suffering. There can be craving and clinging to what one believes is noumena or phenomena. The end of craving and clinging amounts to the end of suffering.

Metta,
Paul.

[DooDoot]

Common Abhidhamma Argument #1 - Mentality and materiality are paramattha dhammas (i.e. ultimate dhammas)

Sutta Reponse: Never in the Suttas are materiality referred to as "dhammas". Dhammas are phenomena, whereas materiality is noumena. Instead, materiality is represented in the Sutta via mahabhuta (great elements).

The Abidhamma says:

Atthi rūpaṁ mahābhūtaṁ, atthi rūpaṁ na mahābhūtaṁ

There is form that is of the (four) great essentials; there is form that is not of the (four) great essentials.

https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila#pts-vp-pli13

[Spiny Norman]

Greetings Spiny,

IMO the actual text supports "mentality and materiality" better than your interpretation, which is "mentality and phenomena" or something?

Nama literally means name, and its constituents are outlined in the Sutta. Of course, you're welcome to follow the lead of Classical Theravada and ignore the clear and precise Sutta definition so as to extend nama to include all mental factors, including consciousness, such that it becomes mentality.

As a reminder, none of this topic is intended to convince you of anything, "it is an attempt to logically and factually demonstrate to those who evangelize the Abhidhamma, that there are indeed valid reasons for disagreeing with it, and that these reasons do not require a full and comprehensive reading of the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka and its associated commentaries". If I was interested, I'd ask whether you bundle vinnana in under Nama like the Abhidhamma, but that's not my interest here in this instance.

And I don't see the relevance of your standalone argument here, given that nama and rupa are not described as co-dependent.

It's vinnana and nama-rupa which are co-dependent. It's the nama and rupa of nama-rupa which are inextricably intertwined. Again, if you find satisfaction in your interpretation, then I have no interest in quarrelling with that, as it's irrelevant to the purpose of this topic.

All the best.

Metta,
Paul.

I'm just going on what the suttas say, and
I'd have no problem with calling nama something other than "mentality".
I still think that the inclusion of the mahabhuta in nama-rupa is a major problem for your phenomelist interpretation. This inclusion also allows for the possibility that the rupa aspect here means actual human bodies.

My general point is that the suttas themselves can be interpreted in different ways, regardless of what the Abhidhamma says.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Spiny,

I still think that the inclusion of the mahabhuta in nama-rupa is a major problem for your phenomelist interpretation.

You may, but the Abhidhamma quoted by DooDoot above doesn't appear to share your objection. It makes the same distinction I've been making between the two aspects of rupa.

My general point is that the suttas themselves can be interpreted in different ways, regardless of what the Abhidhamma says.

Agreed, which is why I think it is unwise to grant any individual or tradition an intellectual monopoly over their interpretation. As you explain above, you don't automatically fall into line with orthodoxy either.

Metta,
Paul.

[Spiny Norman]

It’s worth noting that the mahabhuta started out as deities in the Upanishads, thus being rather abstract. The suttas that talk about internal elements in relation to organs are teaching which organs etc show the qualities of earth element etc. It’s a phenomenalist teaching. Phenomenalism is an empiricist argument. The Buddha was an empiricist, as is the Abhidhamma to a large degree. If the Buddha did suddenly adopted substance metaphysics, which is essentially what a noumenon is or lends itself towards, then he was an inconsistent thinker. Personally I don’t think he was inconsistent. The 4 elements are abstract qualities of material (or physical) experience.

If the Buddha was a full phenomenalist, why did he bother to include the mahabhuta, which as you say, lend themselves to a nounenal interpretation?
And taking this to its logical conclusion, why even bother with rupa, when he could have just talked about sense-objects?

If you go for a swim, water isn't just an "abstract quality".

[Srilankaputra]

Greetings Srilankaputra,

Common Abhidhamma Argument #1 - Mentality and materiality are paramattha dhammas (i.e. ultimate dhammas)

Sutta Reponse: Never in the Suttas are materiality referred to as "dhammas". Dhammas are phenomena, whereas materiality is noumena. Instead, materiality is represented in the Sutta via mahabhuta (great elements). As for mentality, that will be addressed below.

Getting this back to pali, are you saying that in the Suttas,

'rupa' stands for 'phenemona'

And

'Mahabhuta' stands for 'noumena' ?

Not quite. See here.

Metta,
Paul.

Unfortunately the redirection did not make clear to me your wording in Argument #1

What I want to determine is, whether you have valid sutta based argument. Can you please provide pali terms for what's highlighted below.

Sutta Reponse: Never in the Suttas are materiality referred to as "dhammas". Dhammas are phenomena, whereas materiality is noumena. Instead, materiality is represented in the Sutta via mahabhuta (great elements). As for mentality, that will be addressed below.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Unfortunately the redirection did not make clear to me your wording in Argument #1

See the paragraph starting with the words "As I said..."

Metta,
Paul.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Can you please provide pali terms for what's highlighted below.

Sutta Reponse: Never in the Suttas are materiality referred to as "dhammas". Dhammas are phenomena, whereas materiality is noumena. Instead, materiality is represented in the Sutta via mahabhuta (great elements). As for mentality, that will be addressed below.

Pali terminology has been provided there and throughout where relevant. The rest is suttānuloma using the English language, much of which doesn't have direct correlation to specific Pali words.

Metta,
Paul.

[Srilankaputra]

Greetings,

Unfortunately the redirection did not make clear to me your wording in Argument #1

See the paragraph starting with the words "As I said..."

Metta,
Paul.

That's not what I'm asking right now. Just the pali terms for what's highlighted below.

Sutta Reponse: Never in the Suttas are materiality referred to as "dhammas". Dhammas are phenomena, whereas materiality is noumena. Instead, materiality is represented in the Sutta via mahabhuta (great elements). As for mentality, that will be addressed below.