On the Abhidhamma

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

On the Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

I'm having a rather interesting discussion regarding the Abhidhamma. I thought I would share my edited posts here and open it up for discussion, as it raised some interesting points. It's taken from here, from SuttaCentral: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/th ... m/27904/20
In Theravāda all dhammas are empty of an atta, but they aren’t empty of their defining characteristics. The characteristic of a dhammas is it’s sabhāva. For example, the defining characteristic of the earth element is “hardness” or “softness”. Apart from it’s characteristic, there is no earth element. There are then no substances which bear the characteristics for this would be a nod to substance theory, namely that of independent and permanent realities behind sense experience, of which the atta is one kind that is posited. Our everyday language however makes use of substances, for ease of communication. When we say “the apple is red and sweet” the sentence is saying there is an “apple” which bears the characteristics of “red” and “sweet”. The apple is the bearer of a characteristic, and so is a type of substance here. What we directly experience however is never an “apple”. We only ever directly experience “redness” and “sweetness”. From these raw experiences, the sabhāva-dhammas in Theravādin terms, we mentally construct the concept of “apple”. The same applies when we mentally construct the idea of a self. As they are mere concepts however, mentally constructed and with no true referent to which the word “apple” and “self” applies, they are unreal. Thus, “apples” or “houses” or “attas” are ultimately unreal, being merely conventional, but the raw experience itself of “red” or “blue” or “hard” or “hot” are real. Where it gets a little confusing to me is when this phenomenalism takes on a more ontological dimension. For example, in the Visuddhimagga the fire element is just “heat” but this “heat” also has causal effects by generating matter. Personally, the phenomenalist aspect of it makes sense to me, but the ontological side of it is a bit confusing. Or, to put it another way, it makes sense to me epistemologically but its a bit confusing ontologically. On a side note, Mahāyānists tend to go further. Not only are “houses” or “apples” or “attas” mentally constructed, imputed by the mind, but so are the sabhāva-dhammas themselves. To them then even the raw experience of “hardness” etc is, ultimately, unreal being itself a fictitious construction.

If I were to compare the Theravādin theory to Western philosophy I would say the best comparison would be with the Phenomenalism (note, not Phenomenology which is different) of John Mill or Ernst Mach, as far as I understand their thought.

...

The suttas and sutras are full of the denial of the existence of substance. That is what anatta is, for all of the other non-Buddhist traditions always framed the atta in terms of a substance, because that is exactly is what it is. Of course, by the time of the developed Abhidhamma the philosophical and religious landscape had evolved. The substance metaphysicians of Jainism, Ājīvika, Vaiśeṣika, Nyāya and others had refined and developed further their arguments for substance, likely in response to Buddhism. The Theravādin position was possibly, likely even, a response in kind. The context was different. Atta was denied, so to try to build it up again substance of anything was pushed. In reply, we argued that nothing has a substance. A similar line of thought of course appeared in Mahāyāna. On raw experiences, in the sentence “I ate a red apple” there are two subjects present. There is the “I” and the “apple”. The “I” is the possessor of the verb “ate” whilst “red” is the adjective of the subject “apple”. If we take the sentence at face value we have an “I” that eats and a “red apple”. To this, a follower of Vaiśeṣika or Nyāya would reply “aha, you see, substances do exist for its in the very language we speak”. The Theravādin reply is that this is not so. In the actual experience there is only “red”, “sweet”, “motion”, “coolness” and so on. Apart from these raw experiences, no apple can be found. The same of course for the “I”. The sentence then is merely conventional. We fashion it out of raw experiences, which are the sabhāva-dhammas, but it has no reality to it. It is only the direct experience which is real, or that which can be known by inference from said experience.

...

The problem with this [that the sabhāva-dhammas are substances] is that the conditioned sabhāva-dhammas are not the bearer of characteristics. They then aren’t realities behind sense experience. They are sense experience, beyond which there is no other reality. Since they are sense experience, they are dependently originated. Being dependently originated, they have no independent existence. Not then being the bearer of characteristics, and not having independent existence behind our changing experience of the senses, they are, by definition, not substances. I see this as being in line with what the Blessed One taught.

...

The Buddha said the 1st Noble Truth is true. The sabhāva-dhammas are part of the 1st Truth and so are real, not otherwise. On momentariness, when you remove substance from the world what are you left with? Momentary phenomenal characteristics. In other words, the sabhāva-dhammas. As I mentioned earlier, it was the likes of Nyāya who argued that there were things such as a “pot” which persists through time and undergoes change. It was the Buddhists who argued against this, via momentariness. Do you think Nyāya understood the Dhamma more than Buddhists themselves did?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Scabrella
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:59 am

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by Scabrella »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 3:46 am The suttas and sutras are full of the denial of the existence of substance.
Hi. I tried to understand your thesis. If there is no physical substance, how does rebirth or reincarnation occur? Were all of those billions of past lives of the Buddha just hallucinations, similar to having billions of dreams? Thank you
Last edited by Scabrella on Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

Scabrella wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:38 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 3:46 am The suttas and sutras are full of the denial of the existence of substance.
Hi. I tried to understand your thesis. If there is no physical substance, how does rebirth or reincarnation occur? Thank you
Via dependency. If substance did exist, then there would be no rebirth or reincarnation (Nick?) because independently existing substances do not change.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Scabrella
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:59 am

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by Scabrella »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:40 am Via dependency. If substance did exist, then there would be no rebirth or reincarnation (Nick?) because independently existing substances do not change.
Thank you. This answer is very convoluted & impossible to logically follow. The physical form must last a long time.
Last edited by Scabrella on Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

Scabrella wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:41 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:40 am Via dependency. If substance did exist, then there would be no rebirth or reincarnation (Nick?) because independently existing substances do not change.
Thank you. This answer is very convoluted & impossible to logically follow.
It's not too hard, Nick.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Scabrella
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:59 am

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by Scabrella »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:42 am It's not too hard.
Your answer is not logical. A mother must carry a child for 9 months in her womb. The physical substance at least requires this degree of permanence for reincarnation to happen. The ovum, sperm, embryo, fetus, etc, must remain intact. Do you know any qualified biologists you can discuss these matters with?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

Scabrella wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:44 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:42 am It's not too hard.
Your answer is not logical. A mother must carry a child for 9 months in her womb. The physical substance at least requires this degree of permanence for reincarnation to happen. The ovum, sperm, embryo, fetus, etc, must remain intact. Do you know any qualified biologists you can discuss these matters with?
Biology is my job or, more specifically, medical microbiology.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Scabrella
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:59 am

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by Scabrella »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:45 am Biology is my job or, more specifically, medical microbiology.
You are saying a scalpel made of metal has no substance and the flesh that requires a scalpel to cut through it has no substance? You are saying the "biological" is just a mental hallucination or imputation?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

Scabrella wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:47 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:45 am Biology is my job or, more specifically, medical microbiology.
You are saying a scalpel made of metal has no substance and the flesh that requires a scalpel to cut through it has no substance?
In the history of Indian thought it was Jainism, Ājīvika, Vaiśeṣika, Nyāya and others who proposed substance not the Master Himself. Do you think those schools understood Dhamma better?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Scabrella
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:59 am

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by Scabrella »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:48 am not the Buddhists, nor the Master Himself.
Your statement here is devoid of evidence. All I read was your personal hypothesis.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

Scabrella wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:49 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:48 am not the Buddhists, nor the Master Himself.
Your statement here is devoid of evidence.
I edited my post, since there were some schools which succumbed to substance theory. The Sarvāstivādins. The dhammas had dravyasat (substantial existence), hence why they always exist in the 3 times.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
SarathW
Posts: 21238
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by SarathW »

Unfortunately, we will never know the answer as no one knows how Samsara began including four great elements, space, and mind.
However, self-view is a corruption (ignorance) of the mind which created the beings.
Buddhism only answers how to end ignorance and set aside the rest as not relevant to the goal.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by robertk »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 3:46 am I They are sense experience, beyond which there is no other reality. Since they are sense experience, they are dependently originated. Being dependently originated, they have no independent existence.
The Theravada position is that elements such as rupa can be produced by kamma, some by
by citta, some by temperature or nutrition.
Odour for example can be produced by temperature and this is independent of any experience (although it may be experienced). Sound is again sarupato (independent).

As Bhikkhu Bodhi explains in A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma
It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

robertk wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:29 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 3:46 am I They are sense experience, beyond which there is no other reality. Since they are sense experience, they are dependently originated. Being dependently originated, they have no independent existence.
The Theravada position is that elements such as rupa can be produced by kamma, some by
by citta, some by temperature or nutrition.
Odour for example can be produced by temperature and this is independent of any experience (although it may be experienced). Sound is again sarupato (independent).

As Bhikkhu Bodhi explains in A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma
It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data.
All these are known via direct perception or inference for how else would Buddhas or Arahants know about them? Nothing can be known outside of the totality of sense experience, or an inference from it. I agree with Venerable Bodhi's quote, but I think I understand it differently to you. They are all sense experiences. Pain is also sarupato, but it's within our experiences.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
SarathW
Posts: 21238
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: On the Abhidhamma

Post by SarathW »

robertk wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:29 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 3:46 am I They are sense experience, beyond which there is no other reality. Since they are sense experience, they are dependently originated. Being dependently originated, they have no independent existence.
The Theravada position is that elements such as rupa can be produced by kamma, some by
by citta, some by temperature or nutrition. Cittaja Rupa, Aharaja Rupa,Uthuja Rupa.Kammaja Rupa)
Odour for example can be produced by temperature and this is independent of any experience (although it may be experienced). Sound is again sarupato (independent).

As Bhikkhu Bodhi explains in A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma
It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply