What is the main problem the Abhidhamma came to solve ?

[Ceisiwr]

Sorry I just realised what section this is in. My bad. I’ll leave it there, unless you want to continue our conversation elsewhere.

[Eko Care]

It says the dhammas acquire a self. It is talking about sabhava here, because to say dhammas have sabhava is to say they have a real identity and nature. In other words, the dhammas have a self (the self of the earth element is hardness, for example). It’s the same process of reification that leads to “I am” at play here, it’s just the atta of “I am” is denied but not the substance/essence/own being of the dhammas. This isn’t a modern criticism. It’s actually quite an old one.

Identity of characteristic is not atta. You argue based on different/created definitions of the Buddhist words.

Sorry I just realised what section this is in. My bad. I’ll leave it there, unless you want to continue our conversation elsewhere.

Conversations are productive only when the both parties have an agreed set of definitions for the phrases being used.

[Alex123]

Hello Eko Care,

Here Sabhava means the Characteristic/nature and doesn't mean Essence. It is very clear to everyone who is familiar with the genuine texts.
Even in modern Sinhala 'Sabhava' means 'Nature'. (Sri lankans use this word frequently)

How is "Nature" substantially different from essence?

Didn't the Buddha teach interdependence of factors? What true "Nature" can there be if one thing is defined through something else?

Interestingly though, from what I remember (the 6 books of canonical Abhidhamma Pitaka) do not mention sabhava or momentariness. That is good.

The Blessed One advised to not to take refuge in Phrases but in Meaning.

Exactly, Dhamma is to be used "like a raft" to cross the sea of Samsara. Also handful of leaves is a good example to remember...

[Eko Care]

How is "Nature" substantially different from essence?

Sāra (Core/Essence) means Nicca-sāra or Sukha-sāra or Atta sāra. It is unreal.

Didn't the Buddha teach interdependence of factors? What true "Nature" can there be if one thing is defined through something else?

One thing is Not defined through something else.

The characteristic of a dhamma is not defined through something else. The characteristic is its intrinsic nature.

Only the dependency of a dhamma is explained through other dhammas (causes).

Interestingly though, from what I remember (the 6 books of canonical Abhidhamma Pitaka) do not mention sabhava or momentariness. That is good.

The fundamentals of Abhidhamma Pitaka demand momentariness and "own nature of paramattha dhammas".

[Ontheway]

When one sees the five aggregates as impermanent, suffering and nonself. One will not entertain the idea of self anymore in any other aspect.

[robertk]

How is "Nature" substantially different from essence?

Sāra (Core/Essence) means Nicca-sāra or Sukha-sāra or Atta sāra. It is unreal.

Didn't the Buddha teach interdependence of factors? What true "Nature" can there be if one thing is defined through something else?

One thing is Not defined through something else.

The characteristic of a dhamma is not defined through something else. The characteristic is its intrinsic nature.

Only the dependency of a dhamma is explained through other dhammas (causes).

Interestingly though, from what I remember (the 6 books of canonical Abhidhamma Pitaka) do not mention sabhava or momentariness. That is good.

The fundamentals of Abhidhamma Pitaka demand momentariness and "own nature of paramattha dhammas".

[Eko Care]

..
'Attalabha' means 'Acquisition of self(/itself)' or 'Birth'. It doesn't indicate a Soul or Essence in the ultiate sense but a reference to itself.
the phrase 'puggalika lakkhana (personal characteristic)' is also widely used in Abhidhamma texts to mean 'Own/individual Nature, but it doesn't indicate that there is a 'Person' in the ultimate sense.

All this Papanca happens due to the faith in modern text-criticism which is still in its infancy.

The Blessed One advised to not to take refuge in Phrases but in Meaning.

It says the dhammas acquire a self.
...

Tattha niccaṃ nāma dhuvaṃ sassataṃ yathā taṃ nibbānaṃ, na niccanti aniccaṃ, udayabbayavantaṃ, atthato saṅkhatā dhammāti āha ‘‘aniccanti pañcakkhandhā. Kasmā? Uppādavayaññathattabhāvā’’ti, uppādavayaññathattasabbhāvāti attho. Tattha saṅkhatadhammānaṃ hetupaccayehi uppajjanaṃ ahutvā sambhavo **attalābho** uppādo. Uppannānaṃ tesaṃ khaṇanirodho vināso vayo.

**"Attalābha"** means **"acquisition of itself"**. It is just like a mushroom "**gains itself**".

It is explaining a "atta-less dhamma" from the point of view of itself.

But the "translation in question" is little bit misleading.

And even with the mistranslation, the meaning is clear, according to the Pali Grammar.

> ***Tattha saṅkhatadhammānaṃ hetupaccayehi uppajjanaṃ ahutvā sambhavo attalābho uppādo.***
> *Herein, **formed dhammas’** arising owing to cause and condition, **their** coming to be after non-existence, **their** acquisition of an individual self, is ‘rise.’*

In Pali, the possosive "**saṅkhatadhammānaṃ (formed dhammas’)**", is applied with rest words related to it.

> *Tattha,*
> *saṅkhatadhammānaṃ hetupaccayehi uppajjanaṃ,*
> = *saṅkhatadhammānaṃ ahutvā sambhavo,*
> = *saṅkhatadhammānaṃ attalābho,*
> = *uppādo.*
>
> *Herein,*
> *formed dhammas’ arising owing to cause and condition,*
> = *formed dhammas’ coming to be after non-existence,*
> = *formed dhammas’ acquisition of an individual self (attalábha),*
> *is
> = rise.*

The translator has used the phrase **"their"** instead of "**formed dhammas’**", after the first mention of it. (It is norrmal way of translating.)

No need to say "**formed dhammas**" are categerized as "not self" by the Buddha in many suttas.

Therefore "attalabha" never means "a self" in the ultimate sense.

---
---

And the other sentences before and after the "sentence in question", also affirms the "mentioned atta's" momentary rising and falling. According to many suttas, a dhamma which is subjected to rising and falling, is technically "not self". It is a fundamental.

> udayabbayavantaṃ, atthato saṅkhatā dhammāti āha ‘‘aniccanti pañcakkhandhā. Kasmā? Uppādavayaññathattabhāvā’’ti, uppādavayaññathattasabbhāvāti attho.

> Uppannānaṃ tesaṃ khaṇanirodho vināso vayo.

[Bedum]

I think abhidhamma is also a collection of later realizations of other high level monks? While the suttas are exclusively preached by the Buddha. Probably similar to the book of revelation in the new testament. The abhidhamma is many things IMO. It also resembles the hadith in Islam? Basically everything outside of the direct sermons of the Buddha that is still Theravada in nature. An addition to the handful of leaves?

[Ontheway]

I think abhidhamma is also a collection of later realizations of other high level monks? While the suttas are exclusively preached by the Buddha. Probably similar to the book of revelation in the new testament. The abhidhamma is many things IMO. It also resembles the hadith in Islam? Basically everything outside of the direct sermons of the Buddha that is still Theravada in nature. An addition to the handful of leaves?

Abhidhamma presents during the time of the Buddha.

“Idhāvuso sāriputta, dve bhikkhū abhidhammakathaṁ kathenti, te aññamaññaṁ pañhaṁ pucchanti, aññamaññassa pañhaṁ puṭṭhā vissajjenti, no ca saṁsādenti, dhammī ca nesaṁ kathā pavattinī hoti. Evarūpena kho, āvuso sāriputta, bhikkhunā gosiṅgasālavanaṁ sobheyyā”ti.

MN32

You should read this:
https://www.buddhanet.net/abhidh09.htm

[Joe.c]

To provide context of above pali.

MN 32 is discussing about Several senior mendicant discussed what kind of practitioner would beautify the park. They take their answers to the Buddha, who praises their answers, but gives his own twist. And they are describing the teaching.

.... “Idhāvuso sāriputta, dve bhikkhū abhidhammakathaṁ kathenti, te aññamaññaṁ pañhaṁ pucchanti, aññamaññassa pañhaṁ puṭṭhā vissajjenti, no ca saṁsādenti, dhammī ca nesaṁ kathā pavattinī hoti.

“Reverend Sāriputta, it’s when two mendicants engage in discussion about the teaching. They question each other and answer each other’s questions without faltering, and their discussion on the teaching flows on. ...

Now the question is what is the teaching?

Well find 4NT, N8FP and any other Sutta on these subjects. There is nothing hidden, everything lay out wide open for anyone to see. If you have the faculties to understand, then you can see and know personally.

o Btw, please don't get scare by pali. If you learn it more, the pali will speak by itself.

[Ontheway]

Abhidhamma presents even in the Suttas. After all, it is none other than the teachings on Citta, Cetasikas, Rupa and then Nibbāna.

[Gwi II]

.... “Idhāvuso sāriputta, dve bhikkhū abhidhammakathaṁ kathenti, te aññamaññaṁ pañhaṁ pucchanti, aññamaññassa pañhaṁ puṭṭhā vissajjenti, no ca saṁsādenti, dhammī ca nesaṁ kathā pavattinī hoti.

“Reverend Sāriputta, it’s when two mendicants engage in discussion about the teaching. They question each other and answer each other’s questions without faltering, and their discussion on the teaching flows on. ...

"Reverend Sāriputta, it’s when two mendicants engage in discussion about the Higher Dhammo [Indonesian version]."

You want to denounce the Sutto? (I ask).