The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pondera wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:31 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:46 am
Pondera wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:33 am [Self view is no less a “real” fabrication than the skhandas them selves.
The dhammas are what truly exist. Concepts like the self or “a house” or “a dog” do not.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
All dhammas exist conditionally - that includes the reality pertaining to the label “dog” “house” and “self”.
Concepts aren’t dhammas. They neither exist nor not-exist. There are concepts of the real (dhammas) and the unreal (self, house, dog).
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by BrokenBones »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:06 pm
Pondera wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:31 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:46 am

The dhammas are what truly exist. Concepts like the self or “a house” or “a dog” do not.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
All dhammas exist conditionally - that includes the reality pertaining to the label “dog” “house” and “self”.
Concepts aren’t dhammas. They neither exist nor not-exist. There are concepts of the real (dhammas) and the unreal (self, house, dog).
Part of your statement says the concept of self does not exist?

This doesn't sound right to me.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Ceisiwr »

BrokenBones wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:01 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:06 pm
Pondera wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:31 pm



All dhammas exist conditionally - that includes the reality pertaining to the label “dog” “house” and “self”.
Concepts aren’t dhammas. They neither exist nor not-exist. There are concepts of the real (dhammas) and the unreal (self, house, dog).
Part of your statement says the concept of self does not exist?

This doesn't sound right to me.
Nominally existent, but not a reality themselves though they can correspond to reality. Concepts have no sabhava which manifests in arising, persisting and ceasing. This means they neither rise nor fall. Existence in terms of past, present and future do not apply to them. Neither are they conditioned nor unconditioned. Not falling into either category of conditioned dhammas or the unconditioned means they are not real. This is what makes Jhana possible, since the mind has to focus on something stable in order to truly become calm, tranquil and absorbed. With anapanasati you focus on the concept rather than the ultimate realities involved in breathing, which would make it an insight practice instead.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Pondera »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:06 pm
Pondera wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:31 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:46 am

The dhammas are what truly exist. Concepts like the self or “a house” or “a dog” do not.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
All dhammas exist conditionally - that includes the reality pertaining to the label “dog” “house” and “self”.
Concepts aren’t dhammas. They neither exist nor not-exist. There are concepts of the real (dhammas) and the unreal (self, house, dog).
The dog is made of rupa. The house is made of rupa. Ultimately the term “house” or “dog” is conventional and merely points to a distinguishable entity.

For you to strip a “dog” of identity or fundamental reality is nihilism.

Give me a “dhamma” that is real, that does not suffer, that is not impermanent?
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pondera wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:34 pm
The dog is made of rupa. The house is made of rupa. Ultimately the term “house” or “dog” is conventional and merely points to a distinguishable entity.
What entity?
For you to strip a “dog” of identity or fundamental reality is nihilism.
Nihilism denies that actions have consequences. A dog does not really exist. Pondera does not really exist. Ceisiwr does not really exist.
Give me a “dhamma” that is real, that does not suffer, that is not impermanent?
Nibbāna.
Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbāna is an objective state which is deathless, absolutely endless, unconditioned, and unsurpassed. Thus as fourfold the Tathagatas reveal the ultimate realities— consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbāna.
- Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha
Just because saṃsāra is beginningless and endless, one should not have any concept of time regarding nibbāna. Again, just because innumerable Buddhas, Solitary Buddhas, and Noble Disciples have entered parinibbāna, one should not associate nibbāna with numbers.

The idea of the endless cycle of rebirth pertains only to mental and material phenomena that are subject to the process of arising and cessation, or momentary births and deaths. Don’t let that lengthy process linger in your mind when you consider nibbāna. For nibbāna is real, whereas time is a concept. Saṃsāra is infinite, but nibbāna cannot be said to have any beginning at all. One is apt to get confused since nibbāna is the very antithesis of saṃsāra. Saṃsāra is an endless process that defies measurement. Nibbāna exists in the ultimate sense, whereas the existences of beings are always changing and do not remain for a moment. Do not think of nibbāna with any reference to the transient world. Do not wonder about the present location of the former Noble Ones. For example, as a train moves along, trees at a distance seem to be moving along with it, but in fact the trees are stationary. Similarly, saṃsāra moves on like the train, but nibbāna is motionless like the distant trees. The reflection of the moon at its zenith would appear in every ray of water, if rays were placed in every house in Asia. The number of moons reflected in the rays has nothing to do with the actual moon. The reflections are like those who have passed on to nibbāna, and nibbāna is like the moon.

This, then, is a short explanation about nibbāna or deliverance, with particular emphasis on the fact that nibbāna is not for any “person” to enter.
- Ledi Sayādaw
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Pondera »

I.e. “all things are empty of inherent being”

Hmm. Where have I heard the Dalai Lama say that before?

Why don’t you just stop beating around the bush and convert to Mahayana already.

Concerning all Dhammas, the suttas (once again) make it clear (whereas the Abhidamma does not). Ahem. Note the following.
"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."
MN 22
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Pondera »

Give me a “dhamma” that is real, that does not suffer, that is not impermanent?
Nibbāna.
Obviously. You pick the one and only “dhamma” that is unconditioned. (if it can even be called a “dhamma”).

Give me a conditioned dhamma that is not subject to change?
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pondera wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:04 am I.e. “all things are empty of inherent being”

Hmm. Where have I heard the Dalai Lama say that before?

Why don’t you just stop beating around the bush and convert to Mahayana already.
Depending upon your flavour Mahayana would say that even the dhammas are empty of existence and so are only nominally existent. That isn’t the position of the Abhidhamma, which you seem to know little about here. That’s fine though, if you are looking to learn. The dhammas truly exist. They are ultimately real. In Mahayana they are not.
Concerning all Dhammas, the suttas (once again) make it clear (whereas the Abhidamma does not). Ahem. Note the following.

"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

MN 22
I’m not sure how the commentaries read this, but the agama parallel frames this in terms of not taking the Dhamma as self. This makes sense, rather than the more usual Madhyamaka type interpretation.
Obviously. You pick the one and only “dhamma” that is unconditioned. (if it can even be called a “dhamma”).
You asked a question and I gave you the correct answer. Now you complain.
Give me a conditioned dhamma that is not subject to change?
Well by definition all conditioned dhammas are subject to change. Rupa, citta and so on but not concepts.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
BrokenBones
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by BrokenBones »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:11 am
Pondera wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:04 am I.e. “all things are empty of inherent being”

Hmm. Where have I heard the Dalai Lama say that before?

Why don’t you just stop beating around the bush and convert to Mahayana already.
Depending upon your flavour Mahayana would say that even the dhammas are empty of existence and so are only nominally existent. That isn’t the position of the Abhidhamma, which you seem to know little about here. That’s fine though, if you are looking to learn. The dhammas truly exist. They are ultimately real. In Mahayana they are not.
Concerning all Dhammas, the suttas (once again) make it clear (whereas the Abhidamma does not). Ahem. Note the following.

"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

MN 22
I’m not sure how the commentaries read this, but the agama parallel frames this in terms of not taking the Dhamma as self. This makes sense, rather than the more usual Madhyamaka type interpretation.
Obviously. You pick the one and only “dhamma” that is unconditioned. (if it can even be called a “dhamma”).
You asked a question and I gave you the correct answer. Now you complain.
Give me a conditioned dhamma that is not subject to change?
Well by definition all conditioned dhammas are subject to change. Rupa, citta and so on but not concepts.
So... concepts are un-conditioned?... not subject to change?...
Unicorn nibbana... here I come!
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Ceisiwr »

BrokenBones wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:23 am

So... concepts are un-conditioned?... not subject to change?...
Unicorn nibbana... here I come!
No. They aren’t conditioned nor unconditioned. Neither are they subject to change, because they aren’t real.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Pondera »

You asked a question and I gave you the correct answer. Now you complain.
I’m not complaining. I’m saying you took the easy way out.
Give me a conditioned dhamma that is not subject to change?

Well by definition all conditioned dhammas are subject to change. Rupa, citta and so on but not concepts.
Is a wall a “concept”? Try walking through one. Seriously. It’s a good way for you to learn. :tongue:
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pondera wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:29 am
Is a wall a “concept”? Try walking through one. Seriously. It’s a good way for you to learn. :tongue:
Whilst “earth element” is a concept it’s one which relates to the ultimately real earth element. The earth element is an ultimate reality, the concept isn’t.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Pondera »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:31 am
Pondera wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:29 am
Is a wall a “concept”? Try walking through one. Seriously. It’s a good way for you to learn. :tongue:
Whilst “earth element” is a concept it’s one which relates to the ultimately real earth element. The earth element is an ultimate reality, the concept isn’t.
“Ultimately real”?

Under what conditions do you view the earth element as a concept, versus “ultimately real”?

Besides the fact that you’ve read it in a book, under what authority can you say “this earth rupa is ultimately real” and “this earth rupa is just a concept”?

How is this NOT simply semantics?
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Dhammanando »

Multiple posts removed that violate the terms of service for the Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums.

Note that for discussion purposes the Abhidhamma Piṭaka and Pali commentaries are treated as authoritative in these two sub-forums. When replying to a post here, if your intention is to make the case that the Abhidhamma or commentaries are in error (e.g., that they conflict with so-and-so's conception of what early Buddhism taught), then copy the post you're replying to and paste it into a new thread in some other forum, e.g., General Theravada or Early Buddhism.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pondera wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:01 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:31 am
Pondera wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:29 am
Is a wall a “concept”? Try walking through one. Seriously. It’s a good way for you to learn. :tongue:
Whilst “earth element” is a concept it’s one which relates to the ultimately real earth element. The earth element is an ultimate reality, the concept isn’t.
“Ultimately real”?

Under what conditions do you view the earth element as a concept, versus “ultimately real”?

Besides the fact that you’ve read it in a book, under what authority can you say “this earth rupa is ultimately real” and “this earth rupa is just a concept”?

How is this NOT simply semantics?
There is the concept “earth element” and the reality earth element, which is hardness etc. The earth element is real because it has sabhāva, or is born from its own conditions and has a conditional or causative effect. In this scenario, walking into a wall the hardness would be the reality of the earth element which exists beyond the mere concept “earth element” or “wall”. A wall doesn’t really exist. Only the dhammas are real which are known via direct experience. Distinguishing the concept from the actual reality is part of the practice.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Post Reply