in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
Post Reply
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?

Post by frank k »

usually when it says Suttantabhājanīya (derived from suttas), you can find corresponding sutta text that matches exactly.
But sometimes I believe there are some things that can't be found in the suttas at all.

In the Abhidhamma bhajaniya sections, of course we expect to find many things that aren't in the suttas.

Am I correct in assuming that Suttantabhājanīya (derived from suttas), both in source pali text and interpretation, should match the pali sutta nikyas exactly?
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?

Post by frank k »

frank k wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:17 pm usually when it says Suttantabhājanīya (derived from suttas), you can find corresponding sutta text that matches exactly.
But sometimes I believe there are some things that can't be found in the suttas at all.

In the Abhidhamma bhajaniya sections, of course we expect to find many things that aren't in the suttas.

Am I correct in assuming that Suttantabhājanīya (derived from suttas), both in source pali text and interpretation, should match the pali sutta nikyas exactly?

If the Abhidhamma experts on this forum can't answer, can you refer me to a specialist please?
I'm asking a pretty reasonable basic question here, someone should know the answer.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?

Post by Dhammanando »

frank k wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:17 pm Am I correct in assuming that Suttantabhājanīya (derived from suttas), both in source pali text and interpretation, should match the pali sutta nikyas exactly?
No.

To understand the arrangement in the Vibhanga and the distinction between suttabhājaniya and abhidhammabhājaniya I recommend you download U Thittila's translation and read R.E. Iggledon's lengthy introduction, esp. pages xxix onwards.

https://archive.org/details/vibhanga_202009
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?

Post by DooDoot »

Dhammanando wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 7:14 am To understand the arrangement in the Vibhanga and the distinction between suttabhājaniya and abhidhammabhājaniya I recommend you download U Thittila's translation and read R.E. Iggledon's lengthy introduction, esp. pages xxix onwards.

https://archive.org/details/vibhanga_202009
Venerable Dhammanando. Could you kindly explain or define what the point of controversy is in the Satipaṭṭhānakathā (namely, sabbe dhammā satipaṭṭhānāti?)? The translation on SC is difficult for me to understand. Thank you
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
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?

Post by Dhammanando »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 11:49 am ]Venerable Dhammanando. Could you kindly explain or define what the point of controversy is in the Satipaṭṭhānakathā (namely, sabbe dhammā satipaṭṭhānāti?)? The translation on SC is difficult for me to understand.
The subject of the debate seems easy enough to understand: the Andhakas hold that the dhammas that are the objects of mindfulness are themselves mindfulness. The Theravādins disagree

What's puzzling, at least to me, is how on earth anyone could come to hold such an absurd view. With most of the Kathāvatthu debates one can easily empathise with how the paravādins came to arrive at the views they did, but in this case it seems quite a mystery. Then the other difficulty is following the reasoning in Moggalliputtatissa's refutation, which to me is clear enough in a few places but mostly rather opaque.

Sorry I can't be of much help here. If you haven't already seen it, here's the commentary:
1.jpg
2.jpg
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?

Post by frank k »

Thanks Bhante. I read the introduction as you suggested, up to the point where it started summarizing each of the 18 vb's, and from there I skimmed, and read only a few of the vb summaries in full (especially the bojjhanga and jhana vb).

May I ask how you came to your conclusion, that an interpretation of Suttantabhājanīya (derived from suttas) need not match corresponding passages from the suttas themselves (reading and interpreting on their own without Abhidhamma framework).

That's not the impression I got from reading Iggledon's intro. According to him, what the Buddha said in the suttas was suppose to match an ordinary person's understanding of the conventional world, using conventional dictionary of the time (for example, not redefining 'body' as "collection of mental factors").
So in order for Abhidhamma framework not to contradict the suttas, for example with 'body', you would have to say in Abhidhamma framework mode it would be understood you need to posit some new intermediary ideas to bridge the physical and the "mental factors only" body arising from the physical, and sometimes to redefine existing terms like 'kaya' (body) when in Abhdhamma framework mode. But for ordinary people hearing the standard sutta instructions on jhana, the Buddha was using ordinary dictionary words and expecting them to understand and interpret it the conventional, unambiguous way (kaya = physical body).

In the Bojjhanga Vibhanga, it is clear 'kaya'/body has a conventional meaning under Suttantabhājanīya,
https://lucid24.org/sted/ebt/not/te-ab/ ... ml#tophead
and under Abhidhamma analaysis section, 'kaya' gets redefined as collection of mental factors.
(compare kaya passaddhi of both sections in link provided).
The translation is slightly modified from Ven. U Thittila translation, where he erroneously translates kaya as "body [of mental factors]" under the sutta section. That is absolutely a wrong translation and interpretation, and we know that because if you look under jhana vibhanga, when Abhidhamma pitaka authors wanted to gloss 'kaya' differently under jhana (in the sutta analysis section no less!), they do. When they don't gloss 'kaya' as 'body of mind', then it must be using the Buddha's conventional definition of kaya = physical body.
Dhammanando wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 7:14 am
frank k wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 4:17 pm Am I correct in assuming that Suttantabhājanīya (derived from suttas), both in source pali text and interpretation, should match the pali sutta nikyas exactly?
No.

To understand the arrangement in the Vibhanga and the distinction between suttabhājaniya and abhidhammabhājaniya I recommend you download U Thittila's translation and read R.E. Iggledon's lengthy introduction, esp. pages xxix onwards.

https://archive.org/details/vibhanga_202009
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?

Post by Ceisiwr »

frank k wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:15 pm
(for example, not redefining 'body' as "collection of mental factors").
Even today “body” has different meanings.
“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
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?

Post by Dhammanando »

frank k wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:15 pm May I ask how you came to your conclusion, that an interpretation of Suttantabhājanīya (derived from suttas) need not match corresponding passages from the suttas themselves (reading and interpreting on their own without Abhidhamma framework).
I understood (or perhaps misunderstood) the question in your OP to mean something like, "Is the suttabhājaniya exposition intended to be merely quotations from the suttas and exegesis of the same?" It was to this (imagined) question that I replied in the negative.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?

Post by frank k »

Thanks Bhante, unfortunately I can't edit the OP to make the question more clear.
What I'm really driving at, is to what extent are the 18 Suttantabhājanīya sections (derived from suttas) in the 18 Ab Vb's supposed to be in agreement with the suttas?
The introduction to the English Vb translation which you suggested I read, as far as I can tell would say they should be in complete agreement, as well as using pali words in the conventional way any ordinary person of the time of the Buddha can understand.
It would be under the 18 Abhidhamma bhajaniya sections where they would redefine conventional words and add new concepts to make sutta formulas coherent in the Abhidhamma framework.
I'm going to study the 18 Suttantabhājanīya sections in detail soon, but from my first pass looking through it, other than jhana vibhanga nothing stood out in terms of violating that assumption (18 Suttantabhājanīya sections agrees with straightforward sutta interpretation).

What are your thoughts on this Bhante?

Dhammanando wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 11:53 pm
frank k wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:15 pm May I ask how you came to your conclusion, that an interpretation of Suttantabhājanīya (derived from suttas) need not match corresponding passages from the suttas themselves (reading and interpreting on their own without Abhidhamma framework).
I understood (or perhaps misunderstood) the question in your OP to mean something like, "Is the suttabhājaniya exposition intended to be merely quotations from the suttas and exegesis of the same?" It was to this (imagined) question that I replied in the negative.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
Post Reply