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?
in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?
in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
www.audtip.org/audtip: Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?
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
www.audtip.org/audtip: Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6491
- 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?
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)
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?
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 youDhammanando 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
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
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6491
- 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?
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:
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?
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.
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 amNo.
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
www.audtip.org/audtip: Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?
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.”
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.”
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6491
- 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?
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)
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Re: in Abhidhamma book 2 Vibhanga, what does it mean to be derived from suttas versus derived from Abhidhamma?
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?
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 pmI 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
www.audtip.org/audtip: Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages