Thanissaro has not read the Abhidhamma??

[Pulsar]

robertk earlier asked me

Do I think sound, for example, is a mental activity?

and I answered a couple of comments ago. Let me revisit sound, in case my response was unclear. Abhidahmma treats sound and light as a solidity or materiality, you wrote earlier. Here is what you wrote

Dear Pulsar, Sound, colour, light, hardness,
odour and so are all materiality in Abhidhamma.

Now, to explain my position on sound (which is neither a solidity nor a mentality) let me bring an excerpt from Samyutta nikaya. SN 35.246. Its parallel is SA 1169.
I have got into the habit of studying the Samyukta agama parallel, when I study a Pali sutta, since many times I find errors such as deletions, and additions by Pali translators.
I recall VBB saying Samyutta nikaya is closest to Buddha. He even wrote AN, DN and MN were written for non-buddhists.
But let us leave that aside, and examine sound.
An excerpt from Sutta on the Simile of the Lute condensed.

Suppose a king hears the sound of a lute for the first time,
and found that sound tantalizing, intoxicating, entrancing,
and demands those who serve him to bring
the sound.

Now dear robertk, according to abhidhamma sound is physical, right?
If sound is physical, the servant should be able to bring him this beautiful sound. Can he bring the sound to the king? Why can't he bring the sound?
Even ordinary people will say "that is impossible" because it is the lute that made the sound.
Lute itself is unable to make the sound, can it?
Lute is fetched however, King is taken aback, insists on only the sound. The king is told that the lute is made of many parts, the king gets hold of the lute and breaks it apart.
Yet no sound?
In relation to Sound cognized by the ear, what exactly was the king requesting?
Can you figure it out? what did Buddha mean when he taught that Nama-rupa creates ear consciousness?

• What is the rupa of the ear, in relation to the creation of auditory conssciousness?

With love

[robertk]

robertk earlier asked me

Do I think sound, for example, is a mental activity?

and I answered a couple of comments ago. Let me revisit sound, in case my response was unclear. Abhidahmma treats sound and light as a solidity or materiality, you wrote earlier. Here is what you wrote

Dear Pulsar, Sound, colour, light, hardness,
odour and so are all materiality in Abhidhamma.

Dear Pulsar
Abhidhamma does not treat sound as solidity.

Solidity (pathavī) is only experienced through the body door, never through the ear door. And sound is only known through the ear door, never the body door. Different worlds.

[robertk]

robertk wrote

"Abhidhamma adds multiple doors" I don't recall saying that? If I did it must have been a typo as Abhidhamma only has six doors (dvara)

I apologise, for my SNAFU. I can scroll back later and find your comment. I thought you wrote for example that rupa enters the eye door as solidity/materiality, and then moves through several doors at which point it becomes mentality. Later...added.
I found your comment that refers to multiple doors.
Here it is

However, the Abhidhamma commentaries explain that initially there is cakkhuviññāṇa (taking rupa as object), and then there are many mind-door processes which do not have rupa as object.

With love

And mind-door is one of the six doors.
Here are the six
eye door, cakkhudvara
ear-door, sotadvara,
nosedoor, ghanadvara,
tongue-door, jivhadvara
bodydoor, kayadvara
mind-door, manodvara.

There is no additional door.

[robertk]

robertk earlier asked me

Do I think sound, for example, is a mental activity?

and I answered a couple of comments ago. Let me revisit sound, in case my response was unclear. Abhidahmma treats sound and light as a solidity or materiality, you wrote earlier. Here is what you wrote

Dear Pulsar, Sound, colour, light, hardness,
odour and so are all materiality in Abhidhamma.

Now, to explain my position on sound (which is neither a solidity nor a mentality) let me bring an excerpt from Samyutta nikaya.
Now dear robertk, according to abhidhamma sound is physical, right?

yes sound is physical not mental. However your statement is confusing. You say sound is not solidity - which of course it is not, as solidity is an entirely different reality from sound.
Or when you use the term solidity do you mean materiality - it is hard to follow what you are saying?

As a general clarification in Abhidhamma there are truly existent mentality and materiality and there are concepts which have no existence. Sound is classified as materiality (rupa), but it is a different type of material element than solidity.

[robertk]

Now dear robertk, according to abhidhamma sound is physical, right?
If sound is physical, the servant should be able to bring him this beautiful sound. Can he bring the sound to the king? Why can't he bring the sound?
Even ordinary people will say "that is impossible" because it is the lute that made the sound.
Lute itself is unable to make the sound, can it?
Lute is fetched however, King is taken aback, insists on only the sound. The king is told that the lute is made of many parts, the king gets hold of the lute and breaks it apart.
Yet no sound?
In relation to Sound cognized by the ear, what exactly was the king requesting?
Can you figure it out? what did Buddha mean when he taught that Nama-rupa creates ear consciousness?

• What is the rupa of the ear, in relation to the creation of auditory conssciousness?

With love

The Visuddhimagga (XX, 96) explains how rupa, in this case sound, is entirely conditioned and impermanent.

`...But just as there is no store, prior to its arising, of the sound that arises when a
lute is played, nor does it come from any store when it arises, nor does it go in
any direction when it ceases, nor does it persist as a store when it has ceased, but
on the contrary, not having been, it is brought into being owing to the lute, the
lute's neck, and the man's appropriate effort, and having been, it vanishes-so too
all material and immaterial states, not having been, are brought into being,
having been they vanish.'

the Abhidhamma writer Nina van Gorkom adds:
https://www.theravada.gr/wp-content/upl ... -Sense.pdf

It is beneficial to be reminded that the Nama and rupa which appear in our daily
life arise because of conditions and then fall away. If we consider this thoroughly
there will be less inclination to keep on thinking about what is past already. In
this way there will be less forgetfulness of what appears now. You don't have to
do anything special to be aware, there are objects impinging on the six doors
time and again. When you touch water, which is too hot heat, presents itself. You
may think, "This water is too hot", and then there is thinking. Hot water is a
concept we think of, but heat is a reality, a rupa, which impinges on the body
sense, it can be directly experienced. The rupa which is heat, the Nama which
experiences heat or the painful feeling can appear again and again, in between
the thinking. These are all different phenomena, which do not stay, which are not
self. There is no person who has painful feeling; there is a Nama which feels.
Painful feeling arises because of its own conditions. When there are not the right
conditions for it it cannot arise.

[robertk]

Buddha's awakening had to do with realizing that rupa is a mental activity, unlike in the non buddhist traditions of the day, whose thinking differed

Is the following sutta indicating that rupa is a 'mental activity'?
In the Mahāhatthipadopamasutta .
https://suttacentral.net/mn28/en/bodhi? ... ight=false

“What, friends, is the fire element? The fire element may be either internal or external. What is the internal fire element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is fire, fiery, and clung-to; that is, that by which one is warmed, ages, and is consumed, and that by which what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets completely digested, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is fire, fiery, and clung-to: this is called the internal fire element. Now both the internal fire element and the external fire element are simply fire element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
[...]
The material form in what has thus come to be is included in the material form aggregate affected by clinging. [...]The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.’ At that point too, friends, much has been done by that bhikkhu.

“If, friends, internally the ear is intact but no external sounds come into its range…as in §§27—28…At that point too, friends, much has been done by that bhikkhu.

“If, friends, internally the nose is intact but no external smells come into its range…At that point too, friends, much has been done by that bhikkhu.

“If, friends, internally the tongue is intact but no external flavours come into its range…At that point too, friends, much has been done by that bhikkhu.

“If, friends, internally the body is intact but no external tangibles come into its range…At that point too, friends, much has been done by that bhikkhu.

[Ontheway]

Try reading Vimuttimagga in comparison with Visuddhimagga , then perhaps you will see where are the differences .

Vimuttimagga contains teaching that is not align with Buddhist ethics, like rejecting food from low caste people.

Certainly this is not accord to Buddha's teachings on compassion. And it is not produced within the line of Mahaviharavasins. In this way, Visuddhimagga is much more reliable.

[asahi]

Try reading Vimuttimagga in comparison with Visuddhimagga , then perhaps you will see where are the differences .

Vimuttimagga contains teaching that is not align with Buddhist ethics, like rejecting food from low caste people.

Certainly this is not accord to Buddha's teachings on compassion. And it is not produced within the line of Mahaviharavasins. In this way, Visuddhimagga is much more reliable.

This rejecting food has nothing to do with the teaching contents . Have you finished reading Vimuttimagga ? If you did surely you would know where the differences are . Inline or not with Buddha original teachings does not necessary has to be inline with the Mahaviharavasins stands .
But i would suggest take it as kind of reference to understand how different school thinks at that time .

[robertk]

A physical base is not a dhamma.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.23/en/bod ... ight=false
Saṁyutta Nikāya
Connected Discourses on the Six Sense Bases
35.23. The All

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the all. Listen to that….

“And what, bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all.

“If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all’—that would be a mere empty boast on his part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain.”

[robertk]

Now, to explain my position on sound (which is neither a solidity nor a mentality)

So how do you classify sound in your system?

[Ceisiwr]

Try reading Vimuttimagga in comparison with Visuddhimagga , then perhaps you will see where are the differences .

Vimuttimagga contains teaching that is not align with Buddhist ethics, like rejecting food from low caste people.

Certainly this is not accord to Buddha's teachings on compassion. And it is not produced within the line of Mahaviharavasins. In this way, Visuddhimagga is much more reliable.

The work is likely from the Abhayagiri vihāra.

[Ceisiwr]

You are saying photons are physical, in the sense photons are not mental???
Is this what you are saying?
Photons are not mental, therefore they are physical?

No, just that in physics photons are physical. Physical being slightly different to matter, which occupies time and space.

You appear to understand what my reasons are for agreeing with Buddha in SN 22.94. Please tell me what you think my reasons are? What were the reasons of Sauthrantika for their way of thinking, that differs from mine?
Hopefully I will find your answer helpful for my spiritual advancement.

I don't know what your reasons for thinking that are, which is why I asked you. I don't understand how you have made a connection between something being a "wordly dhamma" and it being mental. So, to ask again, why do you think rūpa being a "wordly dhamma" means that its a mental representation? On the Sautrāntika they accepted a representationalist theory of perception because of their particular theory of momentariness. To them both physical and mental dhammas persist for the same duration of time, an instant, and so there is no possible way of having direct perception. Instead we are only aware of representations or mental images. You can see how easily this morphs into Yogācāra.

[auto]

Now dear robertk, according to abhidhamma sound is physical, right?
If sound is physical, the servant should be able to bring him this beautiful sound. Can he bring the sound to the king? Why can't he bring the sound?
Even ordinary people will say "that is impossible" because it is the lute that made the sound.
Lute itself is unable to make the sound, can it?
Lute is fetched however, King is taken aback, insists on only the sound. The king is told that the lute is made of many parts, the king gets hold of the lute and breaks it apart.
Yet no sound?
In relation to Sound cognized by the ear, what exactly was the king requesting?
Can you figure it out? what did Buddha mean when he taught that Nama-rupa creates ear consciousness?

• What is the rupa of the ear, in relation to the creation of auditory conssciousness?

With love

My guesses are,

Sound and the lute are one and the same thing there. In order to bring out the sound is to play it(concentrate on the gratification of the lute, sense organ door object). Turning the lute into ashes respectively is to concentrate on the ādīnava(drawback) which is to observe the mind door object.

Suppose there was a sapling.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, taruṇo rukkho.
Then a person comes along with a spade and basket. …
Atha puriso āgaccheyya kuddālapiṭakaṁ ādāya …pe…
They’d cut the sapling apart, cut up the parts, and chop it into splinters. They’d dry the splinters in the wind and sun, burn them with fire, and reduce them to ashes. Then they’d winnow the ashes in a strong wind, or float them away down a swift stream.
nadiyā vā sīghasotāya pavāheyya.
In this way the sapling is cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future.
Evañhi so, bhikkhave, taruṇo rukkho ucchinnamūlo assa tālāvatthukato anabhāvaṅkato āyatiṁ anuppādadhammo.

Unable to rise in the future is that upon the arrest of the bhavanga, the mind takes the nimitta as an object instead of sense organ object.

[auto]

The Visuddhimagga (XX, 96) explains how rupa, in this case sound, is entirely conditioned and impermanent.

`...But just as there is no store, prior to its arising, of the sound that arises when a
lute is played, nor does it come from any store when it arises, nor does it go in
any direction when it ceases, nor does it persist as a store when it has ceased, but
on the contrary, not having been, it is brought into being owing to the lute, the
lute's neck, and the man's appropriate effort, and having been, it vanishes-so too
all material and immaterial states, not having been, are brought into being,
having been they vanish.'

Looks like how Pulsar interprets.

[auto]

the Abhidhamma writer Nina van Gorkom adds:
..

She seem using Mahasi Sayadew model or understanding of namarupa. That is what is aware is nama and what is being aware of is rupa.