Ākāsa-Dhātu

[DooDoot]

Your two quotations are excellent. So what is your reply to last comments by the opposition to Theravadin?

Unlike you, I can't comprehend the translation clearly.

[Pulsar]

SarathW wrote

There are six elements as per Buddhism. Earth.air,water a, fire,space and consciousness.

My dearest Sarath, are you aware 'There are six elements as per Upanishads too', the very same ones you just listed?
What is your take on that?
Doodoot's response to you warms my heart,

Unlike you, I can't comprehend the translation clearly.

• that streak of honesty, his ability at impartial analysis, on occasion, without the self attaching to it

like what a Kalama might have done, after listening to Buddha.
Warm regards!

[robertk]

https://groups.io/g/dsg/message/140653 The Vis. gives the characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause, as it does in the case of all 28 rupas. It is ruupa, thus, it has the three characteristics.

I’m in work at the moment so I can only give a brief reply, but if this space has the 3 marks then wouldn’t it be an ultimate reality? In his Compendium of Abhidhamma Ven. Bodhi seems to argue the opposite, with said space being conceptual.

It's a bit perplexing isn't it. In fact there was a discussion back in 2004 where Bhikkhu Bodhi made some comments on a letter sent by Sarah Abbott:
https://groups.io/g/dsg/message/31149?p ... ,0,5680207

Dear Nina & All,

--- nina wrote: > Dear Sarah,
I appreciate B.B.'s answer on space.
....
Sarah:> yes, I'll send more links to posts as he requests.
.**********
Further discussion and comments (yesterday) from Bhikkhu Bodhi [I�ve
inserted indicators to clarify who�s writing and note that >> indicates
earlier comments]:
....
S:>> While I'm writing, we're also discussing space
(akasa
rupa) in detail and questioning a comment in CMA:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/31140
....
BBodhi:>> I'm not at all sure. This requires further
investigation. I must have had
some source for my statement (unless it came from
Ven. U Rewata Dhamma and I
just incorporated it into my commentary). I'll have
to check up on this.
....
S:>You may have referred to a comment by Ven ~Naa.namoli
in Vsim V111, n68 or elsewhere. I refer to it in this
post:
http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammas ... 20500.html
....
BBodhi:>> Of course, any further comments you care to make
would
be greatly appreciated. In Karunadasa's article on
Time and Space, I also believe there may be errors
in
his treatment on space in this regard.
.....
S:>In addition to the ones I gave last time, further
letters by Nina on Space (akasa rupa)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/28945
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/29030
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/31051
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/31207
....
Bhikkhu Bodhi: On the status of the space element: I tried to do some research on
this, but could not come up with a conclusive answer. You may be correct.
I had always assumed that the defining mark of a paramattha-dhamma
according to the Theravada Abhidhamma system is sabhAvato vijjamAna
("existing through intrinsic nature"), but your challenge makes me think
this may not be correct. It would not be enough, though, merely to bring
forth rational arguments, as Nina does; one would have to quote texts that
establish that space is paramattha without being sabhAvato vijjamAna. Such
distinctions are unlikely to be made even in the Abhidhamma commentaries
(though I might be wrong). One would have to go down to texts of a still
more technical nature, like the Abhidhamma tikas (sub-commentaries), and
it is difficult to find anyone who knows these well. If you have contact
with Lance Cousins (former president of Pali Text Society) or Rupert
Gethin (current president), they might be able to provide you with the
answer. Here I don't have access to these texts, and the headache makes
delving into such abstruse but interesting questions difficult.< end BB�s
comments>

Metta,

Sarah
======

[robertk]

To preface any further comments , we should probably ask is it useful to know these complicated issues? I think the answer is a qualified “it can be”. That is if it applies to life now and leads to a clearer view of how anatta, how sunnata, the world really is.
In the visuddhimagga tika there is a phrase: “Sabhāvadhammo hi gambhīro , na pannati” “ a dhamma, with sabhava is profound, not concepts”- so it is hard to know, hard to understand dhammas. Concepts are what we usually know.

Do we stay at the level of concepts about elements or is it possible to know another world – that of elements and khandhas and ayatanas, of namas and rupas.

I think that studying ākāsa-dhātu (not boundless space), if it is to have use, should be leading in that direction. And Ākāsa-dhātu is worth knowing about as every tiny kalapa must be separated by space element.

And yet space is an element that is not produced by kamma, citta, utu or ahara. This worries some people – and it is true that it does not have the same ‘weight” as paramatttha dhammas like the 4 mahabhuta rupas for instance.

Kalapas - trillions in what is referred to as a body - arise and pass away. So along with them space element too arises and vanishes
Perhaps reflecting on this helps us to see how useless it is to cling to body. And the fact that we still cling shows how deeply rooted is attachment and ignorance and self view.
But this is only thinking - a much lower level then the experience of a reality directly, but better than remaining blind.

i like Buddhaghosa’s comment
: XVI 85
As long as a man is vague about the world,
About its origin, about its ceasing,
About the means that lead to its cessation,
So long he cannot recognize the truths

And most of us, certainly me, are still vague, still learning about the origin..

[mikenz66]

Greetings,

In Suttaworld, the term conditioned (sankhata) appears to always signify something mentally constructed. Mostly, but not exclusively "conditioned" by avijja. If there was no avijja there would simply be thusness (tathata) and suddhaṃ saṅkhārasantatiṃ.

Whilst in Suttaworld, Nibbana is the only phenomena regarded as unconditioned, and again, it's something mentally unconstructed.

Does that change in Abhidhammaworld? Is the breadth of application for what it means to be sankhata larger or different? To me it seems difficult to relate to talk of things which are not mentally originated (such as space) as being sankhata or asankhata, unless we are talking about some kind of mentally fabricated experience of space, rather than space itself.
...

Do the suttas really have such a mental/physical separation?

The eye is old action (kamma). It should be seen as produced by choices (sankhata) and intentions, as something to be felt....
Cakkhu, bhikkhave, purāṇakammaṁ abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ vedaniyaṁ daṭṭhabbaṁ ...
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.146/en/sujato

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike, all,

I believe mental is correct (since avijja is not physical), but the distinction I was specifically trying to make is between that which is done by a person subject to avijja, versus that done by "forces of nature". If you wanted classical terminology to represent the distinction, you could probably use the niyamas (in the case of your sutta, kamma-niyama), but I trust the distinction as it pertained to my previous post is now clear.



Speaking of which, potentially the literature about the niyamas might provide detail about the topic at hand?

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

... the distinction I was specifically trying to make is between that which is done by a person subject to avijja, versus that done by "forces of nature".

That's a somewhat more reasonable distinction. I don't think a separation of "mental" and "physical" makes much sense in the suttas and abhidhamma. That appears to be a modern Western concept, and I think it would be astruggle justifying it from the ancient texts. And clearly the Dhamma is not just about the internal. There is dependence on contact, the coming together of, for example eye and sights (forms); The internal and external elements are just elements; and so on.

Not to mention the stutta I quoted, which could be roughly summarized as "we're just old kamma".


Mike

[robertk]

Earlier I said that it is not originated by kamma, citta, nutrition or temperature. Yet nina notes that because it delimits those rupas that are concrete matter it is considered to be still reckoned as originated by all 4.

Nina Van Gorkom:

Though it is not concrete matter and an asabhava rupa, it is bound up with concrete matter since it delimits them. It delimits the groups originated by kamma, citta, nutrition and temperature and therefore reckoned as originated by these four factors.

So it is classified in various ways. The Commentaries are quite amazing in the way they show various aspects of these anipphanna rupas
(non-concrete) rupas. It helps to see the intricacies and subtleties of rupa .

Sarah abbott:
https://groups.io/g/dsg/message/63930

S:This akasa rupa is 'not directly produced' (appa.nihita) - it depends on
the rupas in the kalapas for its arising. It is asabhava for the same
reason (i.e. it doesn't have its own arising and falling away like sabhava
rupas) and it is therefore 'not easily known'. (See Vism, XVIII, 16 where
it indicates that the 10 apa.nihita or asabhava rupas are 'not suitable
for comprehension since they are merely the mode-alteration and the
limitation-of-interval').

It does however have "the characteristic (lakkhana) of delimiting material
objects, the function (rasa) of showing the boundaries, the manifestation
of showing their limits, state of being untouched by the four great
essentials and of being their holes and openings as manifestation, the
separated objects as proximate cause (padatthana)" (Atthasalini, 'Derived
Material Qualities).

It lasts for the same time as the other rupas it delimits and arises and
falls away with them. Like the inseperable rupas, the akasa rupa is said
to be produced from the same causes as those rupas (citta, kamma,
temperature (utu) and nutriment (ahara).

[robertk]

according to the Visuddhimagga
the ten appanihita, the asabhava rupas (that is, bodily intimation, verbal intimation, the space element, and the lightness,
malleability, wieldiness, growth, continuity, aging, and impermanence of
materiality) are "not suitable for comprehension since they are merely the mode-alteration and the limitation-of-interval". XVIII 13 Purification of View


So why mention these types of rupa at all?
I think because there is so much ignorance and clinging that , for some types, these additional explanations help to understand more about how anatta every aspect of life is.

so in Majjhima nikaya we have:
M. 115 Bahudhātukasutta — Bhikkhu Sujato

But sir, how is a mendicant qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’?”

“There are, Ānanda, these eighteen elements: the elements of the eye, sights, and eye consciousness; the ear, sounds, and ear consciousness; the nose, smells, and nose consciousness; the tongue, tastes, and tongue consciousness; the body, touches, and body consciousness; the mind, thoughts, and mind consciousness. When a mendicant knows and sees these eighteen elements, they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.”

“But sir, could there be another way in which a mendicant is qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’?”

“There could, Ānanda. There are these six elements: the elements of earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness. When a mendicant knows and sees these six elements, they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.

Kittāvatā pana, bhante, ‘dhātukusalo bhikkhū’ti alaṁvacanāyā”ti?

“There are, Ānanda, these eighteen elements:
“Aṭṭhārasa kho imā, ānanda, dhātuyo—
the elements of the eye, sights, and eye consciousness;
cakkhudhātu, rūpadhātu, cakkhuviññāṇadhātu;
the ear, sounds, and ear consciousness;
sotadhātu, saddadhātu, sotaviññāṇadhātu;
the nose, smells, and nose consciousness;
ghānadhātu, gandhadhātu, ghānaviññāṇadhātu;
the tongue, tastes, and tongue consciousness;
jivhādhātu, rasadhātu, jivhāviññāṇadhātu;
the body, touches, and body consciousness;
kāyadhātu, phoṭṭhabbadhātu, kāyaviññāṇadhātu;
the mind, thoughts, and mind consciousness.
manodhātu, dhammadhātu, manoviññāṇadhātu.
When a mendicant knows and sees these eighteen elements,
Imā kho, ānanda, aṭṭhārasa dhātuyo yato jānāti passati—
they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.”
ettāvatāpi kho, ānanda, ‘dhātukusalo bhikkhū’ti alaṁvacanāyā”ti.

“But sir, could there be another way in which a mendicant is qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’?”
“Siyā pana, bhante, aññopi pariyāyo, yathā ‘dhātukusalo bhikkhū’ti alaṁvacanāyā”ti?

“There could, Ānanda.
“Siyā, ānanda.
There are these six elements:
Chayimā, ānanda, dhātuyo—
the elements of earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness.
pathavīdhātu, āpodhātu, tejodhātu, vāyodhātu, ākāsadhātu, viññāṇadhātu.
When a mendicant knows and sees these six elements,
Imā kho, ānanda, cha dhātuyo yato jānāti passati—
they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.”
ettāvatāpi kho, ānanda, ‘dhātukusalo bhikkhū’ti alaṁvacanāyā”ti.

[DooDoot]

Do the suttas really have such a mental/physical separation?

The eye is old action (kamma). It should be seen as produced by choices (sankhata) and intentions, as something to be felt....
Cakkhu, bhikkhave, purāṇakammaṁ abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ vedaniyaṁ daṭṭhabbaṁ ...
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.146/en/sujato

Sujato's translations are not necessarily the suttas. The above translation appears wrong; particularly the translation "produced".

[DooDoot]

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

Actually, my impression is the Kathāvatthu does not recognise two different types of space.

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 … .

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

[Pulsar]

Doodoot: it is a treat to see a comment by you as I walk into one of these forums, early morning.
I see why you say V. S's translation of SN 35.146 is wrong, I get it. The thing is translators are busy translating many suttas..
and sometimes a word they use leave a wrong impression, not that the translator misunderstood the sutta.
These sorts of deep and profound suttas cannot be grasped by those who have a superficial understanding of DO.
So it is not the translator as such, but the reader???
Let me bring in a gentler translation... to be read with compassion.
SN 35.146

"Bhikkhus, I will explain to you past kamma, new kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention to what I am about to say."-"Yes, venerable sir," the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said the following:

"What, bhikkhus, is past kamma? Eye ... ear ... nose ... tongue ... body
... mind should be understood as past kamma, formed by conditions, born of volitions, the basis for sensations. This is called 'past kamma.'

When Buddha says eye, ear, body in these kinds of situations, it is never the physical eye, ear, body, for soteriological purposes. The teacher's reference leads to the eye consciousness, etc. the factor that matters.
The "body" in first establishments of mindfulness "body" is never the physical body as such
...but the 6 ayatanas signifying gates of entry, eye, ear etc located on the body.
So although the physicality is a necessary basis, what is of interest is the consciousness emanating from that gate i.e. soteriological outcome.

"Bhikkhus, what is 'new kamma'? Actions with the body, language and mind in the present moment, that is called 'new kamma.'

Sometimes in the canon, kamma is presented as action...but those actions begin with volition.

• Kamma is primarily volition.

"Bhikkhus, what is the cessation of kamma? When one achieves liberation through the cessation of actions (now this is better understood as intention, my note) with body, language, and mind, this is called 'cessation of kamma.'
"Bhikkhus, and what is the path to the cessation of kamma? It is this Noble Eightfold Path, that is, Right Understanding .... Right Concentration. That is called 'the path that leads to the cessation of kamma.'"

So in the end it is all in the mind, it is mind originated, one who restrains the mind, to begin with
wins the game. Is this not how Dhammapada begins?

Mind is the forerunner of all (evil) states, Mind is chief; Mind made are they. If one speaks or acts with wicked mind, because of that, suffering
follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught-ox.

Thanks, Dearest DooDoot for your input. At least one person is interested in what you have to say. Your comments are appreciated.
With love

[DooDoot]

When Buddha says eye, ear, body in these kinds of situations, it is never the physical eye, ear, body, for soteriological purposes. The teacher's reference leads to the eye consciousness, etc. the factor that matters.

Thank you Pulsar. Yes, I agree. The below I think says the following:

It ought to be viewed that old kamma is the eye subjected to conditioning (by the mind) and intentions [in the past]; something to be felt [in the present]....

Cakkhu, bhikkhave, purāṇakammaṁ abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ vedaniyaṁ daṭṭhabbaṁ ...

SN 35.146

Keep in mind, in SN 22.79, the term 'abhisaṅkhataṁ' ('past participle) is explained as the operation of sankhara khandha in 'generating' ('abhisaṅkharoti'; verb) mental formations, views, intentions, cravings, attachments, etc, towards each of the aggregates:

Kiñca, bhikkhave, saṅkhāre vadetha? Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati. Kiñca saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti? Rūpaṁ rūpattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, vedanaṁ vedanattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, saññaṁ saññattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, saṅkhāre saṅkhārattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, viññāṇaṁ viññāṇattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti.

And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Therefore, SN 35.146 appears to say past kamma is mental fabrications & intentions made (in the past) in relation to the eye, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind (in the past); that have the result of being "felt" in the present.

SN 35.146 does not appear to say the physical eye, ears, nose, tongue & body are produced/created from intentions, as though the mind, like a biblical god, can produce physical things.

Kind regards

[mikenz66]

Doodoot: it is a treat to see a comment by you as I walk into one of these forums, early morning.
I see why you say V. S's translation of SN 35.146 is wrong, I get it. The thing is translators are busy translating many suttas..

I don't see much difference between the translations of Bhikkhu Bodhi and Bhikkhu Sujato Here is another sutta with a similar passage, SN12.37, and a comparison and commentary.

“Nāyaṁ, bhikkhave, kāyo tumhākaṁ napi aññesaṁ.
Sujato: “Mendicants, this body doesn’t belong to you or to anyone else.
Bodhi: “Bhikkhus, this body is not yours, nor does it belong to others. [110]

[110] Spk: Since there actually is no self, there is nothing belonging to self; thus he says, “It is not yours” (na tumhākaṃ). And since there is no self of others, he says, “Neither does it belong to others” (na pi aññesaṃ). See too 22:33 and 35:101.

Purāṇamidaṁ, bhikkhave, kammaṁ abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ vedaniyaṁ daṭṭhabbaṁ.
Sujato: It’s old deeds, and should be seen as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt.
Bodhi: It is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. [111]

[111] Spk: It is old kamma (purāṇam idaṃ kammaṃ): This body is not actually old kamma, but because it is produced by old kamma it is spoken of in terms of its condition. It should be seen as generated (abhisaṅkhata), in that it is made by conditions; as fashioned by volition (abhisañcetayita), in that it is based on volition, rooted in volition; and as something to be felt (vedaniya), in that it is a basis for what is to be felt [Spkpṭ: because it is a basis and object of feeling].

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.37/en/sujato and Bhikkhu Bodhi's SN translation.

Mike

[DooDoot]

I don't see much difference between the translations of Bhikkhu Bodhi and Bhikkhu Sujato

[111] Spk: It is old kamma (purāṇam idaṃ kammaṃ): This body is not actually old kamma, but because it is produced by old kamma it is spoken of in terms of its condition. It should be seen as generated (abhisaṅkhata), in that it is made by conditions; as fashioned by volition (abhisañcetayita), in that it is based on volition, rooted in volition; and as something to be felt (vedaniya), in that it is a basis for what is to be felt [Spkpṭ: because it is a basis and object of feeling].

The sutta does not ever say the eye, ears, etc, are kamma vipaka. The sutta appears to literally say "old kamma is the eyes, ears, etc, mentally conditioned & willed in the past; that is felt in the present".

For example, in the past, the eye was often, even habitually, used by the will & conditioned by the mind to look for & refute posts of MikeNZ66 on Dhammawheel. Therefore, in the present, when a post of MikeNZ66 is seen on DW, pleasant feeling arises in anticipation of refuting more posts based on guru worship rather than based on yoniso manasikara.

From this pleasant feeling, habituated from past kamma, new (good, enlightened, Noble) kamma is made in the present. This new Noble kamma soon becomes old kamma and the process continues on, of refuting posts of wrong view.

In short, the ideas of Spk, VBB & VSj appear to have no basis in observable reality or Sanditthika Dhamma.