Language, Reality and dhammas

[confusedlayman]

I see..and this is said where in the texts.

Validate yourself... and it might be given in ultimate reality talking works of any buddhist masters

Mod note: from the guidelines for this forum: The Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums are specialized venues for the discussion of the Abhidhamma and the classical Mahavihara understanding of the Dhamma. Within these forums the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries are for discussion purposes treated as authoritative. These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature.

Posts should also include support from a reference, a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view)

Let me link to this book.
http://www.abhidhamma.org/development/w ... anaket.pdf

There are objects which are real and there are objects which are not real. Objects
can be experienced through six doors and they can be classified as sixfold:
Visible object (ruparammana) can be known through the eye-door.
Sound (saddarammana) can be known through the ear-door.
Odour can be known through the nose-door.
Flavour can be known through the tongue-door.
Tangible object can be known through the body-door. ,,,...

As to sound, this is the reality that appears through ears. It is the object of vithicittas which arise depending on the earsense, the sota-pasada-rupa. It appears through
the mind-door after there have been bhavanga-cittas in between. There have to be
bhavanga-cittas after each process of cittas. Thus, there must always be bhavangacittas in between a sense-door process and a mind-door process. When we hear a
sound and know the meaning of what is heard there are different processes. When one
knows the meaning of a word there are mind-door processes of cittas which think of
that word. These cittas are different from cittas of the ear-door process which
experience the sound which has not fallen away yet.

Ok. I will post suttas from upcoming post.

[confusedlayman]

still the incident of breaking skull with cricket bat comes under conventional reality perception

nonsense. perception (sanna) does not break skull. Rupa (form) breaks skull. The Buddha said:

And why, bhikkhus, do you call it form? ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form. Deformed by what? Deformed by cold, deformed by heat, deformed by hunger, deformed by thirst, deformed by contact with flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and serpents. ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi

If my blow to your skill makes you unconsciousness, there is no perception but the blow has the power to make you unconsciousness or non-perceptional.

Validate yourself... and it might be given in ultimate reality talking works of any buddhist masters

It is best to not tell others to do what you yourself do not do. It is worse to lie about others. The Buddha said:

158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.

159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .budd.html

do you know anything without perception?

[DooDoot]

do you know anything without perception?

irrelevant. the nature of rupa is rupa and not perception.

'A boil,' monks, is another word for this body composed of the four properties, born of mother & father, fed on rice & porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing & massaging, breaking-up & disintegrating. It has nine openings, nine un-lanced heads. Whatever would ooze out from it would be an uncleanliness oozing out, a stench oozing out, a disgust oozing out. Whatever would be discharged from it would be an uncleanliness discharging, a stench discharging, a disgust discharging.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Buddha taught five aggregates and not one aggregate or Yogacara Mind-Only:

“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it form? ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form. Deformed by what? Deformed by cold, deformed by heat, deformed by hunger, deformed by thirst, deformed by contact with flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and serpents. ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form.

4“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling? ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling. And what does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pain-nor-pleasure. ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.

5“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception. And what does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception.

6“And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned volitional formations as volitional formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations.

7“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness. And what does it cognize? It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter, it cognizes pungent, it cognizes sweet, it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes salty, it cognizes bland. ‘It cognizes,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi#sc3

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings everyone,

I’m still acquainting myself with the Abhidhamma so forgive me if I have misrepresented some or all aspects of it.

As I understand things so far there is conventional reality and ultimate reality. Conventional reality is comprised of concepts and language, for example “person” or “house” but these things have no reality. The only things that can be said to exist are dhammas, such as earth or vedanā. My question then is if the everyday world doesn’t exist but is mere convention, designation and words then do the words themselves exist or not? Are words dhammas? If they are dhammas, what do they refer to? If they aren’t dhammas then how can we say anything about dhammas, since to say anything about dhammas involves words but words aren’t real?

The speaking is conditioned by citta. Citta is real. The sound is real. The words and ideas are concept.

Thanks Robert. So if words aren’t real, we can’t really say anything about dhammas?

[robertk]

Greetings everyone,

I’m still acquainting myself with the Abhidhamma so forgive me if I have misrepresented some or all aspects of it.

As I understand things so far there is conventional reality and ultimate reality. Conventional reality is comprised of concepts and language, for example “person” or “house” but these things have no reality. The only things that can be said to exist are dhammas, such as earth or vedanā. My question then is if the everyday world doesn’t exist but is mere convention, designation and words then do the words themselves exist or not? Are words dhammas? If they are dhammas, what do they refer to? If they aren’t dhammas then how can we say anything about dhammas, since to say anything about dhammas involves words but words aren’t real?

The speaking is conditioned by citta. Citta is real. The sound is real. The words and ideas are concept.

Thanks Robert. So if words aren’t real, we can’t really say anything about dhammas?

Not at all.
The mind, by nature, is continually constructing concepts about experience. And the Buddha relied on concepts to describe the nature of dhammas, realities.

Look at this :
http://www.abhidhamma.org/development/w ... anaket.pdf

The Abhidhammattha Vibhavani (Book 8) distinguishes between six kinds of
concepts that are names, nama-pannatti (see Visuddhimagga VIII, note 11).
1. Vijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is real, for example
the words rupa, nama, vedana (feeling), or sanna (perception) 10
.
2. Avijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is not real, such as
the words Thai or foreigner. These concepts do not represent absolute realities, citta
and cetasika which are nama, and rupa. Thai or foreigner are not real in the absolute
sense, they are conventional realities, sammutti dhammas. Could akusala
citta11 (unwholesome consciousness) be Thai or foreign? Akusala citta is a paramattha
dhamma (a reality), it is a dhamma which has its own characteristic, it is not Thai or
foreign.
3. Vijjamanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of the non-existent based on the
existent. There is the expression "the person with the six abhinnas."12 The six
abhinnas are real but person is not real. Thus this concept stands for what is real and
for what is not real.
4. Avijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of the existent based on the nonexistent. There is the expression "woman's voice". The sound is real, but the woman
is not real.
5. Vijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is real based on what is
real. There is the term cakkhu-vinnana (eye-consciousness). Cakkhu (eye) is a reality,
namely the cakkhu-pasada-rupa (eyesense, a reality sensitive to colour or visible
object), and vinnana (consciousness) is also a reality, namely the reality which
experiences.
6. Avija amanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is not real based on
what is not real. There is the expression "the kings son". Both king and son are not
real, they are sammutti dhammas, conventional realities.

Without vijjamana pannattis - concepts which describe realities - the Buddha had no way to convey meaning.

[Ceisiwr]

The speaking is conditioned by citta. Citta is real. The sound is real. The words and ideas are concept.

Thanks Robert. So if words aren’t real, we can’t really say anything about dhammas?

Not at all.
The mind, by nature, is continually constructing concepts about experience. And the Buddha relied on concepts to describe the nature of dhammas, realities.

Look at this :
http://www.abhidhamma.org/development/w ... anaket.pdf

The Abhidhammattha Vibhavani (Book 8) distinguishes between six kinds of
concepts that are names, nama-pannatti (see Visuddhimagga VIII, note 11).
1. Vijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is real, for example
the words rupa, nama, vedana (feeling), or sanna (perception) 10
.
2. Avijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is not real, such as
the words Thai or foreigner. These concepts do not represent absolute realities, citta
and cetasika which are nama, and rupa. Thai or foreigner are not real in the absolute
sense, they are conventional realities, sammutti dhammas. Could akusala
citta11 (unwholesome consciousness) be Thai or foreign? Akusala citta is a paramattha
dhamma (a reality), it is a dhamma which has its own characteristic, it is not Thai or
foreign.
3. Vijjamanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of the non-existent based on the
existent. There is the expression "the person with the six abhinnas."12 The six
abhinnas are real but person is not real. Thus this concept stands for what is real and
for what is not real.
4. Avijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of the existent based on the nonexistent. There is the expression "woman's voice". The sound is real, but the woman
is not real.
5. Vijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is real based on what is
real. There is the term cakkhu-vinnana (eye-consciousness). Cakkhu (eye) is a reality,
namely the cakkhu-pasada-rupa (eyesense, a reality sensitive to colour or visible
object), and vinnana (consciousness) is also a reality, namely the reality which
experiences.
6. Avija amanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is not real based on
what is not real. There is the expression "the kings son". Both king and son are not
real, they are sammutti dhammas, conventional realities.

Without vijjamana pannattis - concepts which describe realities - the Buddha had no way to convey meaning.

Ok thanks. That’s something to think over.

[robertk]

Without vijjamana pannattis - concepts which describe realities - the Buddha had no way to convey meaning.

Ok thanks. That’s something to think over.

yes. and while thinking take the case of hearing just the word 'dhamma'.

The sound of that short word is actually many arisings and passings of rupas - elements, realities. Naturally we think immediately of the meaning of the word, the concept- but there can be awareness of the actual momentary elements - the moments of sound, the moments of hearing, the moments of thinking..

[Ceisiwr]

Without vijjamana pannattis - concepts which describe realities - the Buddha had no way to convey meaning.

Ok thanks. That’s something to think over.

yes. and while thinking take the case of hearing just the word 'dhamma'.

The sound of that short word is actually many arisings and passings of rupas - elements, realities. Naturally we think immediately of the meaning of the word, the concept- but there can be awareness of the actual momentary elements - the moments of sound, the moments of hearing, the moments of thinking..

[confusedlayman]

Without vijjamana pannattis - concepts which describe realities - the Buddha had no way to convey meaning.

Ok thanks. That’s something to think over.

yes. and while thinking take the case of hearing just the word 'dhamma'.

The sound of that short word is actually many arisings and passings of rupas - elements, realities. Naturally we think immediately of the meaning of the word, the concept- but there can be awareness of the actual momentary elements - the moments of sound, the moments of hearing, the moments of thinking..

awareness also changed each moment..

[robertk]

Ok thanks. That’s something to think over.

yes. and while thinking take the case of hearing just the word 'dhamma'.

The sound of that short word is actually many arisings and passings of rupas - elements, realities. Naturally we think immediately of the meaning of the word, the concept- but there can be awareness of the actual momentary elements - the moments of sound, the moments of hearing, the moments of thinking..

awareness also changed each moment..

[polaris]

this teaching is actually asking you to be more grounded


grounded means to recognize the reality of reality

If you can keep things simple. I read this many years ago so if my memory has not deserted me I will try to explain it here.
Conventional reality is what we deal with everyday. We call a rose a rose and it's a flower but the ultimate reality is that the flower has no name and it is not a flower only that we classify it as a flower and give it a name called Rose.
If someone called me a bastard I don't get angry because that's not the ultimate reality it is just a word someone use to make me angry.
We give a name to everything but those names are not the ultimate reality.

[cappuccino]

We give a name to everything but those names are not the ultimate reality.

Three marks of existence