Thanissaro has not read the Abhidhamma??

[BrokenBones]

According to this bastion of truth it states that it was written sometime between the 8th & 12th century and is so dense, several commentaries on this commentary have been required.

It’s quite a common style to the Indian sub-continent, to have a terse body of text that requires commentary to explain it. The Yoga Sutras of Patañjali are another example. Makes you think, is that the style the suttas were originally in too?

If that's what you think then go for it.

For myself, I believe that the Buddha was the peerless teacher and wouldn't mess around.

Even when he gives a truncated teaching there is always someone on hand to explain.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings BrokenBones,

Abhidhamma at its best... a lot of words with nothing relevant to say.

My problem with all the classifications etc. is that it is already said by the Blessed One that the five aggregates and six sense-spheres are not self and impermanent. This is observably true of everything within the sphere of experience (loka).

Being so, I see no necessity to carve up and individually list all possible components of that loka, when the same general rules that apply to the five aggregates or six sense-spheres, would apply equally to any component thereof, no matter how microscopic the conceptual analysis of that loka becomes. The Simsapa Sutta shows it this an unnecessary pursuit, disconnected from the goal.

Metta,
Paul.

[robertk]

Dear Pulsar
thank you for the kind words and the excellent points you bring up. I take one to discuss now and will try to come back to your others.

To get back to the issue here, you are referring to the

glimpse of the nature of the present moment

Why is the present moment important in a soteriological sense?

Why the present moment?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nana.html

MN131 Let one not trace back the past
Or yearn for the future-yet-to-come.
That which is past is left behind
Unattained is the "yet-to-come."
But that which is present he discerns —
With insight as and when it comes

The present is what needs to be discerned to get to the basics of what the links of Paticcasamuppada really are.
Without the Buddha's teaching we live in a world of concepts, unaware of the actual phenomena that are behind the veil. It is by learning the teaching and seeing that the concepts we have of self and things that last is quite wrong, and that each moment arises by conditions and then falls away is what the world actually is. It is all crumbling.
The Abhidhamma and Commentaries are no different from the suttas in showing this - but they put a hard stamp on conditionality and the momentariness.

It is of course easy to go wrong - we might think we can manufacture this knowledge of the present moment.

The sutta continues:

And how is one drawn into present things? Herein, monks, an uninstructed ordinary man who takes no account of the Noble Ones, is unskilled in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones, untrained in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones, taking no account of the good men, unskilled in the Dhamma of the good men, untrained in the Dhamma of the good men, looks upon form as self, or self as possessed of form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He looks upon feeling as self, or self as possessed of feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling. He looks upon perception as self, or self as possessed of perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception. He looks upon formations as self, or self as possessed of formations, or formations as in self, or self as in formations. He looks upon consciousness as self, or self as possessed of consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. That is how, monks, one is drawn into present things

Some might think "ok I will discern the present moment" and try to observe it. But that is likely to be a subtle belief that formations (such as sati) are under control and can be directed by a manager (self).
So, as I see it, this path is very narrow and gradual.

[Pulsar]

robertk responded to my comment.

Why the present moment

My question was why the present moment in a soteriological sense?

You brought in MN 131 Bhaddekaratta sutta, which is one of the most poetic suttas in the Pali canon. It might help you to read MN 18, if you are following Middle Length Discourses. It explains the nuances far better.
But let me ask a question based on the sutta you fetched, MN 131.

Excerpt: Buddha asks

"How bhikkhus does one revive the past?"

The answer

"One nurtures delight in thinking "I had such material form in the post"

A meditator seated under a tree, cross legged, when he imagines so, does his past form appear in front of him physically, or does an image of his past beautiful form, arise in his mind due to the craving for past form?
Do you see where Abhidhamma went wrong? Abhidhamma says rupa/form that Buddha refers to, in the five aggregates or in DO, is physical and mental. This idea is built into the later suttas of the Pali canon by Abhidhamma compilers. Fire Sermon says the form aggregate is burning like the other aggregates. I have never observed the form/rupa of the people I know literally burning.
Have you?
Can you think about a past rupa/form of yours and physically retrieve a solid form of you, in the present moment?
Be realistic, and honest, don't be a slave to Abhidhamma, what do you retrieve when you think of the past, in relation to form?

• You are retrieving only a mental image? right?

Let us get this sorted out first before proceeding, we are discussing the present moment as we experience. Buddha would be an idiot to teach me that by thinking of my dead mother, I can physically bring her back to life.
On the other hand by thinking of my dead mother "I can see her beautiful face" mentally (a mental image) only. It is these mental imagery of a sight seen, a voice heard, that cause suffering of our lives. It is thinking of the past or future that cause suffering in us. That is why in Bhaddekaaratta Sutta that you brought in, Buddha says

"Let not a person revive the past,
Or on the future build his hopes"

In dependent origination Buddha is teaching about mentally created suffering.
Do you see my point? Abhidhamma tweaked Paticca-samuppada. How is this tweaking helpful, in understanding sutta better? Does it not create confusion in the naive Hearer?
With love

[auto]

.

Sariputta about Buddha's

I believe there’s no other ascetic or brahmin—whether past, future, or present—whose direct knowledge is superior to the Buddha when it comes to awakening.”
..
“And what about me, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha at present? Have you comprehended my mind to know that
I have such ethics, or such qualities, or such wisdom, or such meditation, or such freedom?”

“No, sir.”

Sariputta infers from the doctrine.

“Sir, though I don’t comprehend the minds of Buddhas past, future, and present,
still I understand this by inference from the teaching.

Some people are using similes to infer what is written in the sutta. But according to the sutta the similes are for the wise. I think wise person is beyond savaka level awakening.

The Realized One is the one who shows the way.”

When you read words in the sutta, you do need infer from common sense if you have no overall knowledge what is in the sutta, it develops over time. Abhidhamma is when wisdom faculty is at its peak, so if you read it you get a glimpse to what you will become by learning sutta, given you make progress while at it.

[auto]

Abhidhamma at its best... a lot of words with nothing relevant to say.

I have hard time remember 4 noble truths what they are about. There is zero need to memorize anything to develop mind. I rely on things what arise in the mind.

[auto]

A meditator seated under a tree, cross legged, when he imagines so, does his past form appear in front of him physically, or does an image of his past beautiful form, arise in his mind due to the craving for past form?
Do you see where Abhidhamma went wrong? Abhidhamma says rupa/form that Buddha refers to, in the five aggregates or in DO, is physical and mental. This idea is built into the later suttas of the Pali canon by Abhidhamma compilers. Fire Sermon says the form aggregate is burning like the other aggregates. I have never observed the form/rupa of the people I know literally burning.
Have you?

"do you see where abhidhamma went wrong.." pretty sure you say these things in purpose, knowing it will gaslight people here.

gaslighted or gaslit; gaslighting; gaslights
transitive verb
: to psychologically manipulate (a person) usually over an extended period of time so that the victim questions the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and experiences confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, and doubts concerning their own emotional or mental stability : to subject (someone) to gaslighting

You have been doing it for years.

[Pulsar]

To Auto, who introduced a brand new phenomenon called "gaslighting" to our community,
and labelled Pulsar as a gaslighter? Thank you for that new christening. I will think about it whether it is more apt than Pulsar.
My Dear Auto, do you think Buddha was gaslighting the fire worshippers when he delivered his
Third Sermon? Excerpt:

Monks, everything is burning.
And what monks are everything that is burning?
The eye, monks is burning, material shapes are burning,
consciousness through the eye is burning (cakkuvinnana ie cognising by the eye, vision or seeing) is burning, impingement on the eye (cakkhusamphassa, or impression on, or contact with, the eye) is burning,
With what is it burning? I say it is burning with the
fire of passion,
with the fire of hatred, with the fire of
stupidity...

How do the good people here interpret this sutta? Buddha is referring to the stupidity of puthujjana, and how he relates to the sensory objects, via his foolishness, using the metaphor of Fire.
Example:
The rock I see in front of me is not burning, I might hate it for blocking my view of the road ahead. The drums I hear via ear consciousness are not burning. But Pali abhidhamma includes these physical objects as rupa alongside the mental image, in teachings of dependent origination (Nama-rupa) and aggregates i.e. rupa aggregate. For Original Buddha, all factors of the aggregates and DO were only mental. Therefore things that cause suffering can be altered via mental discipline or meditation.

Just consider: Due to my stupidity I become annoyed with the rock in front of me, for blocking my view.
The rock is not stupid, neither is the rock burning. I am the stupid one, for getting upset with the rock and creating suffering for myself. This basically is due to my lack of wisdom. It is my emotions that are burning.
My eyes are never stupid. They merely reflects things seen, as a pond might reflect the moon. As Ananda relates in the canon, the story of V. Punna helping him gain stream entry, by the realization that rupa is a mental event, SN 22.83.
Fire Sermon is a teaching found in the Salayatana Samyutta SN 35.28 (in addition to Vinaya Mahavagga). It is also found in Khanda Samyutta, phrased differently. SN 22.61 applies the burning to the aggregates.
A clear instance where the Pali canon treats sense bases and aggregates in equal fashion.
Let us consider Salayatana.

• Salayatana is a teaching on how the sense bases "ayatana" of the dull witted operate.

By dull witted I mean the ordinary person, not the Arahant.

• Arahant's sense bases are not on fire. Sensory field of Arahant is free of burning from desire, hatred and stupidity. Hence it is said, Salayatana is absent in the Arahant.

Pulsar is not trying to gaslight the dear people of this community as Auto alleges. My words are down to earth, and I hope understandable. But if you are not a fan of simplicity please do not read my posts. Block me. Tomes of Abhidhamma are plentifully available on the Abhidhamma forum, for those seeking scholasticism.
With love

[robertk]

A meditator seated under a tree, cross legged, when he imagines so, does his past form appear in front of him physically, or does an image of his past beautiful form, arise in his mind due to the craving for past form?
Do you see where Abhidhamma went wrong? Abhidhamma says rupa/form that Buddha refers to, in the five aggregates or in DO, is physical and mental. This idea is built into the later suttas of the Pali canon by Abhidhamma compilers. Fire Sermon says the form aggregate is burning like the other aggregates. I have never observed the form/rupa of the people I know literally burning.
Have you?
Can you think about a past rupa/form of yours and physically retrieve a solid form of you, in the present moment?
Be realistic, and honest, don't be a slave to Abhidhamma, what do you retrieve when you think of the past, in relation to form?
You are retrieving only a mental image? right?
Let us get this sorted out first before proceeding, we are discussing the present moment as we experience. Buddha would be an idiot to teach me that by thinking of my dead mother, I can physically bring her back to life.
On the other hand by thinking of my dead mother "I can see her beautiful face" mentally (a mental image) only. It is these mental imagery of a sight seen, a voice heard, that cause suffering of our lives.

When thinking of your dead mother the object is a concept with no reality at all. The thinking process is real but the image/idea is not. So neither the Abhidhamma, nor the Commentaries assert any materiality to concepts .

With regards to the fire sermon, Ādittasutta.
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.28/en/suj ... ript=latin
It is clear that the Buddha was using a metaphor.

[Ontheway]

Pulsar is completely wrong using dead mother memory simile, attempting to prove Abhidhamma fallacy.

He forgot that Theravada is essentially known as Vibhajjavada by the Third Arahant Council, and it was sealed by the Buddhavacana that Lord Buddha mentioned himself a Vibhajjavadi. And what Vibhajjavada taught, whatever in the past is gone, whatever future upholds are not here yet. "Dead mother's image" here is not to be known as Rupa in Abhidhamma as what Pulsar claimed to be, nor did Abhidhamma said can bring dead mother back to life. This is solely Pulsar's imagination of Abhidhamma. I don't think he ever read Abhidhamma scriptures. If he had, he wouldn't held wrong view about Abhidhamma Pitaka and be confused in many topics.

Here is the quote from Bhaddantacariya Buddhaghosa Thera in Visuddhimagga:

Herein (a) primary materiality is of four kinds as the earth element, water element, fire element, and air element. Their characteristic, function, and manifestation have been given under the definition of the four elements (XI.87, 93); but as to the proximate cause, each has the other three as its proximate cause. [444] 36. (b) Derived materiality is of twenty-four kinds as eye, ear, nose, tongue, body , visible datum, sound, odour, flavour;13 femininity faculty , masculinity faculty , life faculty , heart-basis; bodily intimation, verbal intimation; space element; lightness of matter, malleability of matter, wieldiness of matter, growth of matter, continuity of matter, ageing of matter, impermanence of matter, and physical nutriment.

People complaining Abhidhamma study is tedious and too much related to academic purpose. It is just not fair to say so, the Buddha's teachings are never to be treated as easy topic. In fact, the Buddha said His teachings are deep and not easy to understand. So don't expect by reading one or two books, can make you understand the Dhamma.

[Pulsar]

robertk wrote

When thinking of your dead mother the object is a concept with no reality at all. The thinking process is real but the image/idea is not. So neither the Abhidhamma, nor the Commentaries assert any materiality to concepts .

With regards to the fire sermon, Ādittasutta.
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.28/en/suj ... ript=latin
It is clear that the Buddha was using a metaphor.

• Does not the abhidhamm and commentaries assert materiality to rupa of Nama-rupa of Paticca samuppada and the first aggregate of the five aggregates?

Are these not concepts used by the Buddha to teach how suffering is generated due to Papanca, or frivolous thinking (or however you want to interpret the concept of papanca).
I have only a few min right now, can you answer this simple question, before we carry on?
Thank you My Dear Robert: when I interact with you I never feel that I am wasting my time.
It is always a useful dialogue.
With love

[robertk]

robertk wrote

When thinking of your dead mother the object is a concept with no reality at all. The thinking process is real but the image/idea is not. So neither the Abhidhamma, nor the Commentaries assert any materiality to concepts .

With regards to the fire sermon, Ādittasutta.
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.28/en/suj ... ript=latin
It is clear that the Buddha was using a metaphor.

• Does not the abhidhamm and commentaries assert materiality to rupa of Nama-rupa of Paticca samuppada and the first aggregate of the five aggregates?

Are these not concepts used by the Buddha to teach how suffering is generated due to Papanca, or frivolous thinking (or however you want to interpret the concept of papanca).
I have only a few min right now, can you answer this simple question, before we carry on?
Thank you My Dear Robert: when I interact with you I never feel that I am wasting my time.
It is always a useful dialogue.
With love

Dear Pulsar
eariler in this thread you related the Paticca-samupadda to the ayatana and indeed this is a crucial link - as it says:

saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso; with the six sense bases as condition, contact;

and this sutta explains the ayatana (I have bolded those that are materiality). Without eyebase there can be no seeing consciousness ... If there were no sound there could not arise hearing and so on.

https://suttacentral.net/mn137/en/sujat ... ript=latin

There are the sense fields of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind
‘Cakkhāyatanaṁ sotāyatanaṁ ghānāyatanaṁ jivhāyatanaṁ kāyāyatanaṁ manāyatanaṁ—
‘The six interior sense fields should be understood.’
cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbānī’ti—
That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.
iti yaṁ taṁ vuttaṁ idametaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ.

‘The six exterior sense fields should be understood.’
‘Cha bāhirāni āyatanāni veditabbānī’ti—
That’s what I said, but why did I say it?
iti kho panetaṁ vuttaṁ. Kiñcetaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ?
There are the sense fields of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and thoughts.
‘Rūpāyatanaṁ saddāyatanaṁ gandhāyatanaṁ rasāyatanaṁ phoṭṭhabbāyatanaṁ dhammāyatanaṁ—
‘The six exterior sense fields should be understood.’
cha bāhirāni āyatanāni veditabbānī’ti—
That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.
iti yaṁ taṁ vuttaṁ idametaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ.

‘The six classes of consciousness should be understood.’
‘Cha viññāṇakāyā veditabbā’ti—
That’s what I said, but why did I say it?
iti kho panetaṁ vuttaṁ. Kiñcetaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ?
There are eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind consciousness.
‘Cakkhuviññāṇaṁ sotaviññāṇaṁ ghānaviññāṇaṁ jivhāviññāṇaṁ kāyaviññāṇaṁ manoviññāṇaṁ—
‘The six classes of consciousness should be understood.’
cha viññāṇakāyā veditabbā’ti—
That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.
iti yaṁ taṁ vuttaṁ idametaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ.

‘The six classes of contact should be understood.’
‘Cha phassakāyā veditabbā’ti—
That’s what I said, but why did I say it?
iti kho panetaṁ vuttaṁ. Kiñcetaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ?
There is contact through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.
‘Cakkhusamphasso sotasamphasso ghānasamphasso jivhāsamphasso kāyasamphasso manosamphasso—
‘The six classes of contact should be understood.’
cha phassakāyā veditabbā’ti—
That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.
iti yaṁ taṁ vuttaṁ idametaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ.

[auto]

But Pali abhidhamma includes these physical objects as rupa alongside the mental image, in teachings of dependent origination (Nama-rupa) and aggregates i.e. rupa aggregate. For Original Buddha, all factors of the aggregates and DO were only mental. Therefore things that cause suffering can be altered via mental discipline or meditation.

Just consider: Due to my stupidity I become annoyed with the rock in front of me, for blocking my view.

When mind inclines towards the sense-organ object. Then the inclination(nameti) is the namarupa. And it is because of the namarupa you can know that the water in the river is flowing.
You claim water is mental, if it would be so, then there shouldn't be the need to turn the eyes to see where the water is flowing further.

[Pulsar]

Robertk wrote

and this sutta explains the ayatana (I have bolded those that are materiality). Without eyebase there can be no seeing consciousness ... If there were no sound there could not arise hearing and so on.

Nn one is denying the existence of the five sense organs, If the eye was not there, how could awareness of sight arise? if the functional ear with the auditory nerve intact was absent, how could hearing arise?
But there is a difference in the way the puthujjana sees and Arahant sees. This is where the importance of Salayatana comes in. It belongs in what some call soteriology.
Pali canon also says Arahant has gone beyond the sense bases? Can you explain what that means? I will bring you that sutta when I find time.

My real question was, does Abhidhamma assert that rupa of name-pupa of Dependent Origination, is physical/materail? I will keep it simple.
I am convinced when I read the original suttas of the buddha, that when he refers to Paticca samuppada, he is only teaching how the mind is affected by the world.

• Therefore paticca samuppada is a teaching on the behavior of consciousness only.

DO does not deny the existence of the material world. But it is formulated to solve the problems (suffering) of one's mental world. Later Buddhists even thought that Paticca samuppada also teaches how Himalayas arose.
I am sure that was not even the last thought on Buddha's mind when he formulated the doctrine of DO.
With love

[Joe.c]

Sariputta about Buddha's

I believe there’s no other ascetic or brahmin—whether past, future, or present—whose direct knowledge is superior to the Buddha when it comes to awakening.”
..
“And what about me, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha at present? Have you comprehended my mind to know that
I have such ethics, or such qualities, or such wisdom, or such meditation, or such freedom?”

“No, sir.”

Sariputta infers from the doctrine.

Sariputta experienced it, not based on inference. If one attain the pure state/jhana (samma samadhi, not regular jhana); one will know the worlds, without even need to have psychic power to see.

An arahant will know anything that they want to know, even without having psychic powers. Otherwise, how do you think they let go all?

If it is only inference, that means they can't let go yet. Because there is no direct knowledge yet.

When you read words in the sutta, you do need infer from common sense if you have no overall knowledge what is in the sutta, it develops over time.

Not me. Probably for you or others.

Develop over time means, one is not there yet. It is just a common folk. Do you know that to have higher knowledge, you need to have developed faculties as well?

Otherwise whatever you read, see, hear, etc will be lost once you are death. Unless you developed some sati/samadhi before that (aka Ariya). A non ariya once they go to next life will forgot everything over time because there is no sati to support. See Brahma and many example in Sutta.

Abhidhamma is when wisdom faculty is at its peak, so if you read it you get a glimpse to what you will become by learning sutta, given you make progress while at it.

If it is peak, then alas there are many common folks that are teaching it nowadays indeed.

Ask yourself, why would you waste your time study from a possibly common folk work? Wouldn't it be wiser if one study that can be seen here and now first?

Btw, please advice who the master of abhidhamma is. I'm still searching. I have searched many, not one has even understood the precepts yet. Most actually have study mix things from one to another and mix the teachings.