Ākāsa-Dhātu

[Ceisiwr]

In SN 25.9 we find this:

“Mendicants, the earth element is impermanent, perishing, and changing. The water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element are impermanent, perishing, and changing."

Yet in the commentaries space is classified as a paññatti. I'm aware that the ākāsa-dhātu is treated as non-concretely produced matter, as a superimposition due to concrete matter, but that still would put it at odds with this sutta. Is there any explanation of this? I'm also aware that the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika granted a form of space sabhāva-dhamma status, which they classed as being unconditioned. I'm also aware that they recognised a ākāsa-dhātu which was separate from this. I believe the Kathāvatthu also recognises two different types of space, from the Theravādin position. How is the teaching that space is a concept with the ākāsa-dhātu having the 3 marks?

[DooDoot]

It would be useful to define the term used, such as "paññatti", and to quote the sources of the premises in the OP.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I believe the Kathāvatthu also recognises two different types of space, from the Theravādin position.

Further to DooDoot's observation, details of these "two different types" would appear particularly pertinent.

I am not an expert in Abhidhamma, but it would appear that if space is to be understood as a "derived element" then it would be characterised or derived from the absence of fire, wind, water and air. As such, it would appear to be a conceptual negation, rather than a thing with any positive qualities of its own, for what would they be? In other words, I contend it could not be understood or experienced on its own, independently of conceptual negation of the mahabhutas.

Metta,
Paul.

[SarathW]

There are six elements as per Buddhism. Earth.air,water a, fire,space and consciousness.
Then there is a Arupavacara realm named Akasaanantayatana.
If we do not perceive at least two objects there is no space. space is a result of self view.
Space of an atom also consist of air,earth,water and fire.

[DooDoot]

Points of Controversy

6.6 Of Space

Controverted Point: That space is unconditioned.

Theravādin: If space is unconditioned, as you affirm, you must class it with Nibbāna, or you must affirm two [sorts

of] unconditioned—and so two Nibbānas—all of which you deny … .

Can anyone make space where there has been no space? Then one can make that which is conditioned unconditioned—which you deny … So, too, for the reverse process … .

Again, if you admit that birds go through space, moon, sun, and stars go through space, supernormal movement is worked in space, the arm or hand is waved in space, clods, clubs, a supernormally moved person, arrows are projected through space, you must state as much about movement through or in the unconditioned—which you cannot … .

Again, if people enclose space when they make houses or barns, do they enclose the unconditioned? Or when a well is dug, does non-space become space? Yes? Then does the unconditioned become conditioned? Or, when an empty well, or an empty barn, or an empty jar, is filled, does “space” disappear? If so, does the unconditioned disappear?

Uttarāpathaka, Mahiṁsāsaka: If then it is wrong to say space is unconditioned, is it conditioned? You deny. Then it must be unconditioned

https://suttacentral.net/kv6.6/en/aung-rhysdavids

[DooDoot]

Points of Controversy

6.4 Of the Four Immaterial Spheres of Life and Thought

Controverted Point: That the sphere of infinite space is unconditioned.

Theravādin: Are you implying that it is in this respect identical with Nibbāna, the Shelter, the Cave, the Refuge, the Goal, the Past-Decease, the Ambrosial? You deny … Then you cannot so class it. If you affirm, we may then have two Unconditioneds, two Nibbānas … .

Ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ asaṅkhatanti? Āmantā. Ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ bhavo gati sattāvāso saṁsāro yoni viññāṇaṭṭhiti attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Āmantā. Asaṅkhataṁ bhavo gati sattāvāso saṁsāro yoni viññāṇaṭṭhiti attabhāvapaṭilābhoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

You admit, do you not, that the sphere of infinite space is a form of rebirth, a destination, an abode of beings, a sequel in living, a matrix of birth, a station for reborn consciousness, an acquiring of individuality? Then is the unconditioned to be so described? Of course not … .

Atthi ākāsānañcāyatanūpagaṁ kammanti? Āmantā. Atthi asaṅkhatūpagaṁ kammanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe… atthi ākāsānañcāyatanūpagā sattāti? Āmantā. Atthi asaṅkhatūpagā sattāti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Is there karma which brings us to rebirth in that sphere? “Yes”, you say. Then is there karma which brings about rebirth in the unconditioned? Of course you deny … There are beings who for their deserts are reborn in that sphere of infinite space, but are there any who for their deserts are reborn in the unconditioned? Of course you deny … .

Ākāsānañcāyatane sattā jāyanti jīyanti mīyanti cavanti upapajjantīti? Āmantā. Asaṅkhate sattā jāyanti jīyanti mīyanti cavanti upapajjantīti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe… ākāsānañcāyatane atthi vedanā saññā saṅkhārā viññāṇanti? Āmantā. Asaṅkhate atthi vedanā saññā saṅkhārā viññāṇanti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe… ākāsānañcāyatanaṁ catuvokārabhavoti? Āmantā. Asaṅkhataṁ catuvokārabhavoti? Na hevaṁ vattabbe …pe….

Do any beings become born, decay, die, decease, and spring up again in that sphere? Yes? But surely not in the unconditioned … .

Does mind in its four constituents exist in that sphere? Yes? But hardly in the unconditioned … You cannot call the latter a plane of life with four constituents, as is the former.

Na vattabbaṁ— “cattāro āruppā asaṅkhatā”ti? Āmantā. Nanu cattāro āruppā anejā vuttā bhagavatāti? Āmantā. Hañci cattāro āruppā anejā vuttā bhagavatā, tena vata re vattabbe— “cattāro āruppā asaṅkhatā”ti.

Opponent: But did not the Exalted One say that the four Immaterial spheres are imperturbable? Surely then we may call them unconditioned.

https://suttacentral.net/kv6.4/en/aung-rhysdavids

[Coëmgenu]

I'm also aware that the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika granted a form of space sabhāva-dhamma status, which they classed as being unconditioned. I'm also aware that they recognised a ākāsa-dhātu which was separate from this. I believe the Kathāvatthu also recognises two different types of space, from the Theravādin position. How is the teaching that space is a concept with the ākāsa-dhātu having the 3 marks?

The ākāśadhātu in Sarvāstivāda is conditioned by rūpa. The ākāśa between your fingers is conditioned by their rūpa. The dark space at the entrance of a cave is conditioned by the rūpa of the rock around the entrance. The ākāśa of "the sky"/"the heavens" is conditioned by the rūpa of the horizon. All this is citing the Mahāvibhāṣa from Ven Dhammajoti's Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma publication.

In Sarvāstivāda, so-called "unconditioned space" is strictly a meditative attainment that is perceived in yogic equipoise. No "empty space" that the worldling sees with the eyeballs is unconditioned. I don't know if that helps.

[Ceisiwr]

I'm also aware that the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika granted a form of space sabhāva-dhamma status, which they classed as being unconditioned. I'm also aware that they recognised a ākāsa-dhātu which was separate from this. I believe the Kathāvatthu also recognises two different types of space, from the Theravādin position. How is the teaching that space is a concept with the ākāsa-dhātu having the 3 marks?

The ākāśadhātu in Sarvāstivāda is conditioned by rūpa. The ākāśa between your fingers is conditioned by their rūpa. The dark space at the entrance of a cave is conditioned by the rūpa of the rock around the entrance. The ākāśa of "the sky"/"the heavens" is conditioned by the rūpa of the horizon. All this is citing the Mahāvibhāṣa from Ven Dhammajoti's Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma publication.

In Sarvāstivāda, so-called "unconditioned space" is strictly a meditative attainment that is perceived in yogic equipoise. No "empty space" that the worldling sees with the eyeballs is unconditioned. I don't know if that helps.

It does. Thanks. I hadn't got around to reading that section.

[Ceisiwr]

...

Perhaps Robert could shed some light on this? How do you interpret the sutta?

[robertk]

...

Perhaps Robert could shed some light on this? How do you interpret the sutta?

Yes, I will look it over and post in a day or 2 - just travelling right now, but will be free by friday.

[Ceisiwr]

...

Perhaps Robert could shed some light on this? How do you interpret the sutta?

Yes, I will look it over and post in a day or 2 - just travelling right now, but will be free by friday.

Thanks.

[DooDoot]

Oh well, i posted two Abhidhamma quotes but looks like no one is interested.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Oh well, i posted two Abhidhamma quotes but looks like no one is interested.

Well, I read them both. I didn't really see the relevance of the second as it seemed to relate to arupa-jhanas etc., and the first just reminded me of the pitiful debates sectarians have where they quarrel with strawmen of their own making. Unsurprisingly, that did not have the taste of liberation.

Metta,
Paul.

[DooDoot]

Well, I read them both.

Thanks Paul. I suppose i was saying when folks claim they have read Abhidhamma, they give the impression like having travelled on foot throughout South East Asia rather than the reality of merely reading Lonely Planet's SE Asia On A Shoestring or Wikipedia. While the translations of the Abhidhamma I posted may not be 100% clear, they are worthy of discussion or clarification given they were mentioned vaguely in the OP.

[Pulsar]

DooDoot wrote

Oh well, i posted two Abhidhamma quotes but looks like no one is interested.

O my dearest DooDoot, I love your name, how can anyone misspell it? One has to be an idiot, I liked Element better.
Regarding space I agree with Paul's response. So someone is interested, and now more than one person.
As for your last comment, my current thought is, only a space cadet would be looking into space described by Abhidhamma. Space is not included in Bahudhatuka first 18 categories.
Neither in the first section of Samyutta Nikaya on Elements, Dhatusamyutta. When "space" is present in some suttas, I believe it was inserted by a powerful abhidhammikas, later into the Pali canon.
As for abhidhamma I have read it as far as Yogacara. Last I remember Vasubandu completely rejected space.
I can understand why.
I have heard V. Sujato and R. Gethin call Vasubandu, a brilliant Buddhist philosopher. Apparently he was originally only Buddhist, moving from Sarvastivada (maybe not quite) but at least very knowledgeable, good enuf to dismiss the silly aspects of it, then labelled Sautrantika, finally labeled Mahayana, under the spell of his brother.
But his abhidhamma analysis is worth a read, even if you disagree...
DD wrote

While the translations of the Abhidhamma I posted may not be 100% clear, they are worthy of discussion or clarification given they were mentioned vaguely in the OP.

Space is worth considering as you write in your last comment, but it takes you to a dead end street, if your sole interest is in liberation from suffering, mine is.
With love