Kathāvatthu: An exploration of the text and its meaning

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Kathāvatthu: Satipaṭṭhānakathā ???

Post by DooDoot »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:10 am It is all going to boil down to what something being "an application" in mindfulness entails.
Yes
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Kathāvatthu: Satipaṭṭhānakathā ???

Post by DooDoot »

SarathW wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:12 am I am sorry to say that your understanding of Satipathana is completely incorrect.
Some Buddhist don't believe in 'rebirth' in relation to kamma :roll:
SarathW wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:12 amin Satipathana we contemplate on internal not external even though we see it as internal external.
:rolleye:
"In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, not clinging to anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself.

MN 10
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Kathāvatthu: Satipaṭṭhānakathā ???

Post by Coëmgenu »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:08 amWhen those others, or their modern-day counterparts are not here to represent themselves, it feels like a very one-sided and somewhat academic discussion.
I generally agree with this, but also note that the Kathāvatthu actually does in some places seem to do a pretty good job of recording both sides of a debate, like in "Of the Deathless as an Object by which we are bound," if I'm remembering the title right, especially given the age and antiquity of the text. That debate is a little bit more two-sided. That the voices of opponents are preserved at all is a testament to the document and the culture that produced it. I could easily imagine a worse record of the debate that didn't have the opponents voices at all and simply had an omniscient narrator give a long credo outlining orthodoxy of beliefs of the sect that produced the record. That there is a back-and-forth at all is meeting a sort of "bare minimum" that many other sectarian texts from other religions (I am thinking of Christian heresiologists here) fail to meet. Certainly, this back-and-forth is mostly in the Theravadin's favour. The Andhaka does not convincingly argue his point, or what he said has been lost to history. Perhaps this was a moment when the Theravadins felt that their debater had indeed gotten the Andhaka in a corner over an eccentric consequence of a doctrine his school held. Perhaps not.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Dweller
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:14 pm

Re: Kathāvatthu: Brahmacariyakathā ???

Post by Dweller »

Well, Mara is one. And many are under his influence, bound by sensual desire.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Kathāvatthu: Satipaṭṭhānakathā ???

Post by Coëmgenu »

Na vattabbaṁ— “sabbe dhammā satipaṭṭhānā”ti? Āmantā. Nanu sabbe dhamme ārabbha sati santiṭṭhatīti? Āmantā. Hañci sabbe dhamme ārabbha sati santiṭṭhatīti, tena vata re vattabbe— “sabbe dhammā satipaṭṭhānā”ti.

Sabbaṁ dhammaṁ ārabbha sati santiṭṭhatīti sabbe dhammā satipaṭṭhānāti? Āmantā. Sabbaṁ dhammaṁ ārabbha phasso santiṭṭhatīti sabbe dhammā phassapaṭṭhānāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Andhaka: Then is it wrong to say “all things are applications in mindfulness”?

Theravādin: Yes.

Andhaka: But is not mindfulness established concerning all cognizable things?

Theravādin: Yes.

Andhaka: How then, good sir, can you deny what I affirm: “All cognizable things are applications of mindfulness”?

Theravādin: We have said that mindfulness is established concerning all cognizable things: now, are all cognizable things applications of mindfulness?

Andhaka: Yes.

Theravādin: Contact is established with respect to all cognizable things: are then all such things applications in contact? For this is that to which you have committed yourself. Again, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness, each of these is established with respect to all cognizable things: are then all such things applications in feeling, in perception, etc.? For this must equally be admitted.
My amateur Pāli is stretched by this text, but I think I figured out the correspondence vaguely.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Kathāvatthu: Satipaṭṭhānakathā ???

Post by Coëmgenu »

Does "sati satipaṭṭhānā, sā ca satīti" correspond with "you must equally admit that mindfulness itself is an application in mindfulness?" Whose Pāli here is good enough to identify that?
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Kathāvatthu: Satipaṭṭhānakathā ???

Post by SarathW »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:08 am Greetings,
Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:04 am
SarathW wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:55 amAgree.
That is how I understood it.
If we are at all correct, the "heresy" underlying the proposal might be something like that sammāsati can transform an impure/unwholesome dhamma into a pure/wholesome dhamma, even if it is something traditionally unwholesome like the examples given before. This allows the Āndhaka to also possibly have room for belief in micchāsati, but to them the difference between sammāsati and micchāsati would be irrespective of the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of the object of mindfulness.
Maybe, but it all sounds like straw-men to me, because what constitute "points of controversy" nowadays don't seem to have any correlation to what's presented in the Kathāvatthu. It appears traditions are good at explaining their own positions, but less so (either through lack of comprehension, or intentional sleight-of-hand) when it comes to explaining others. When those others, or their modern-day counterparts are not here to represent themselves, it feels like a very one-sided and somewhat academic discussion.

Metta,
Paul. :)
I don't think so.
The objective of my reading of KV is to understand and clarify the Theravada point of view on matters. In my opinion, KV is an indispensable sutddy guide.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Kathāvatthu: Satipaṭṭhānakathā ???

Post by Coëmgenu »

"Theravādin: Contact is established with respect to all cognizable things: are then all such things applications in contact? For this is that to which you have committed yourself. Again, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness, each of these is established with respect to all cognizable things: are then all such things applications in feeling, in perception, etc.? For this must equally be admitted."
I think this means that the Theravādin understands the Āndhaka's statement of "Sabbe dhammā satipaṭṭhānāti" as meaning that specifically satipaṭṭhāna, not just sati, is a universal cetasika. Whether this is functionally any different from the Sabbāthivādins considering sati a universal cetasika I can't say. The objection here is specifically that now all things that are caught up in "all cognizable things" have to have paṭṭhānas. This one is a bit harder to follow.
Theravādin: Then must you also admit that all cognizable things constitute mindfulness, the controlling faculty and force of mindfulness, mindfulness that is perfect, that is a factor of enlightenment, the “sole conveying” path “leading to extinction”, to “enlightenment”, to “disintegration”, are “not bound up with the intoxicants”, “not akin to the fetters, ties, floods, bonds, hindrances, contagions, graspings, corruptions”; you must admit that all cognizable things constitute the “ten recollections”, namely of the Buddha, the Norm, the Order, morals, pious liberality, the devas, “mindfulness in respiration”, “reflection on death”, “mindfulness concerning the body”, “reflection on peace”. But this you deny.

Again, you must equally admit, given your first affirmation, that the eye-organ constitutes an application in mindfulness. And if you are driven to admit that it does, then you must admit everything for it, which, as I claim, you must admit for all cognizable things. The same argument holds for the four other sense-organs, for the five objects of sense, for lust, hate, dullness, conceit, error, doubt, sloth, distraction, impudence, indiscretion.
This here however seems to be objecting moreso to just "sati as a universal" than "satipaṭṭhāna as a universal." Because the Theravadins define "sati" as exclusively wholesome in the Abhidhamma framework, the Āndhaka claiming sati as a universal cetasika means to the Theravādin that there is a universal cetasika that is innately wholesome, and innately and always related to or even equivalent to the various kinds of sati like “ten recollections” etc. given in the text.

A key to figuring out what exactly the Āndhaka is saying will be figuring out why the Theravādin believes that "sabbe dhammā satipaṭṭhānā" necessitates "phassapaṭṭhānā."
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Kathāvatthu: Satipaṭṭhānakathā ???

Post by DooDoot »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:11 am A key to figuring out what exactly the Āndhaka is saying will be figuring out why the Theravādin believes that "sabbe dhammā satipaṭṭhānā" necessitates "phassapaṭṭhānā."
Possibly a learned Venerable can help us understand the meaning of "sabbe dhammā satipaṭṭhānāti?"
Dhammanando wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:26 am :thanks:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Kathāvatthu: Brahmacariyakathā ???

Post by DooDoot »

SarathW wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:33 am There are some evil Devas such as Kali as per Sri Lankan belief. Perhaps this is something to do with Hinduism.
The "deva" sound like kings, queens, etc, in this world.
that they are matricides, parricides, murderers of saints, shedders of holy blood, schismatics; that they all take life, steal, are unchaste, liars, slanderers, revilers, idle talkers, given to covetousness, ill-will and erroneous opinion.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Kathāvatthu: Brahmacariyakathā ???

Post by DooDoot »

i thought to add Issariyakāmakārikādikathā to this topic:
Points of Controversy
23.3 Of Self-governed Destiny
Controverted Point: That a Bodhisat (or future Buddha) (a) goes to an evil doom, (b) enters a womb, (c) performs hard tasks, (d) works penance under alien teachers of his own accord and free will.

Theravādin: PTS cs 23.3.1(a) Do you mean that he so went and endured purgatory, the Sañjīva, Kālasutta, Tāpana, Patāpana, Sanghātaka, Roruva, and Avīchi hells? If you deny, how can you maintain your proposition? Can you quote me a Sutta to support this?

PTS cs 23.3.2(b) You maintain that he entered the womb of his own free will. Do you also imply that he chose to be reborn in purgatory, or as an animal? That he possessed magic potency? You deny. I ask it again. You assent. Then did he practise the Four Steps to that potency—will, effort, thought, investigation? Neither can you quote me here a Sutta in justification.

https://suttacentral.net/kv23.3/en/aung-rhysdavids
The above is strange because MN 123 appears to say the Bodhisat entered his mother's womb with sati-sampajanna:
‘Mindful and aware, the being intent on awakening passed away from the host of Joyful Gods and was conceived in his mother’s womb.’

‘sato sampajāno, ānanda, bodhisatto tusitā, kāyā cavitvā mātukucchiṁ okkamī’ti.

https://suttacentral.net/mn123/en/sujato
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Kathāvatthu: Satipaṭṭhānakathā ???

Post by DooDoot »

Ekādhippāyakathā

Points of Controversy
23.1 Of United Resolve
Controverted Point: That sexual relations may be entered upon with a united resolve.

Theravādin: PTS cs 23.1.1Do you imply that a united resolve may be undertaken which does not befit a recluse, does not become a bhikkhu, or that it may be undertaken by one who has cut off the root of rebirth, or when it is a resolve that would lead to a Parajika offence?

Or when it is a resolve by which life may be slain, theft committed, lies, slander, harsh words, idle talk uttered, burglary committed, dacoity, robbery, highway robbery, adultery, sack and loot of village or town be committed? … .

You must be more discriminating in your use of the term “with a united resolve”!

https://suttacentral.net/kv23.1/en/aung-rhysdavids
Does the above refute to common idea mutual sexual consent is OK? :shrug:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Kathāvatthu: Satipaṭṭhānakathā ???

Post by DooDoot »

Khaṇikakathā - is this refuting solipsism or mind only? :shrug: :twothumbsup:
Points of Controversy

22.8 Of Momentary Duration

Controverted Point: That all things are momentary conscious units.

Theravādin: PTS cs 22.8.1Do you imply that a mountain, the ocean, Sineru chief of mountains, the cohesive, fiery, and mobile elements, grass, twigs, trees, all last only so long in consciousness? You deny … .

PTS cs 22.8.2Or do you imply that the organ of sight coincides for the same moment of time with the visual cognition? If you assent, I would remind you of what the venerable Sāriputta said:

“If, brother, the eye within be intact, but the object without does not come into focus, and there is no co-ordinated application of mind resulting therefrom, then a corresponding state of cognition is not manifested. And if the organ of sight within be intact, and the object without come into focus, but no co-ordinated abdication of mind result therefrom, a corresponding state of cognition is not manifested. But if all these conditions be satisfied, then a corresponding state of cognition is manifested”?

Where now is your assertion about coincidence in time?

PTS cs 22.8.3The same Suttanta reference may be cited to refute you with respect to time-coincidence in the other four senses.

Pubbaseliya, Aparaseliya: PTS cs 22.8.4But are all things permanent, enduring, perduring, immutable?

Theravādin: Nay that cannot truly be said … .

https://suttacentral.net/kv22.8/en/aung-rhysdavids
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Kathāvatthu: An exploration of the text and its meaning

Post by DooDoot »

Abyākatakathā - similar to Buddhaghosa, is the Abhidhamma bringing mental kamma into "sila" or "ethics"? :coffee:
Points of Controversy
22.6 Of the Unmoral

Controverted Point: That all dream-consciousness is ethically neutral.

Theravādin: You admit, do you not, that a dreamer may (in dreams) commit murder, theft, etc.? How then can you call such consciousness ethically neutral?

Uttarāpathaka: If I am wrong, was it not said by the Exalted One that dream-consciousness was negligible? If so, my proposition holds good.

https://suttacentral.net/kv22.6/en/aung-rhysdavids
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Kathāvatthu: Brahmacariyakathā ???

Post by DooDoot »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:54 am The above is strange because MN 123 appears to say the Bodhisat entered his mother's womb with sati-sampajanna:
‘Mindful and aware, the being intent on awakening passed away from the host of Joyful Gods and was conceived in his mother’s womb.’

‘sato sampajāno, ānanda, bodhisatto tusitā, kāyā cavitvā mātukucchiṁ okkamī’ti.

https://suttacentral.net/mn123/en/sujato
Again, Dhammābhisamayakathā:
Points of Controversy
22.4 Of Penetrating the Truth
Controverted Point: That an embryo is capable of penetrating the truth.

Theravādin: PTS cs 22.4.1You are implying that an embryo can be instructed in, hear, and become familiar with the Doctrine, can be catechized, can take on himself the precepts, be guarded as to the gates of sense, abstemious in diet, devoted to vigils early and late. Is not the opposite true?

PTS cs 22.4.2Are there not two conditions for the genesis of right views—“another's voice and intelligent attention”?

PTS cs 22.4.3And can there be penetration of the Truth by one who is asleep, or languid, or blurred in intelligence, or unreflective?

https://suttacentral.net/kv22.4/en/aung-rhysdavids
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Post Reply