what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
Post Reply
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by robertk »

Pulsar wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 12:46 pm
Can you bring me sutta examples from the early Theravada tradition, to show that Buddha taught abhidhamma?
Isn't it the abhidhamma specialist or the commentaries that say so?
Regards :candle:
Dear Pulsar
The Mahagosinga sutta:

https://suttacentral.net/mn32/en/sujato ... ript=latin
:
Friend Moggallāna, the Gosinga Sāla-tree Wood is delightful…What kind of bhikkhu, friend Moggallāna, could illuminate this Gosinga Sāla-tree Wood?”

“Here, friend Sāriputta, two bhikkhus engage in a talk on the higher Dhamma(Abhidhamma) and they question each other, and each being questioned by the other answers without foundering, and their talk rolls on in accordance with the Dhamma. That kind of bhikkhu could illuminate this Gosinga Sāla-tree Wood
‘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.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by robertk »

Pulsar wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 12:46 pm
  • Rupa originates in the mind (is a mental event, a mental image) derived from physical elements, according to Buddha's original teachings.
How can one progress in meditation without this understanding?

Rupa knows nothing, yet it is true that only 'mind', mano, vinnana, citta can experience rupa so in that sense there is a mental event when rupa is experienced. However, it does not "originate in the mind".

Actually progress in meditation- in the sense of the devlopment of vipassana- is made when there is the discerning of nama, mentality, and rupa. Seeing them as distinct and of an entirely different nature.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by Ontheway »

robertk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:28 pm
Pulsar wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 12:46 pm
Can you bring me sutta examples from the early Theravada tradition, to show that Buddha taught abhidhamma?
Isn't it the abhidhamma specialist or the commentaries that say so?
Regards :candle:
Dear Pulsar
The Mahagosinga sutta:

https://suttacentral.net/mn32/en/sujato ... ript=latin
:
Friend Moggallāna, the Gosinga Sāla-tree Wood is delightful…What kind of bhikkhu, friend Moggallāna, could illuminate this Gosinga Sāla-tree Wood?”

“Here, friend Sāriputta, two bhikkhus engage in a talk on the higher Dhamma(Abhidhamma) and they question each other, and each being questioned by the other answers without foundering, and their talk rolls on in accordance with the Dhamma. That kind of bhikkhu could illuminate this Gosinga Sāla-tree Wood
‘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.
Not only this sutta. There are other Suttas also spoken of it. Also in Vinaya & Mahaniddesa. Plus, the nava anga system - veyyakarana is precisely refers to Abhidhamma Pitaka. And the existence of both Suttantikā and Dhammakathikā proved it.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by zerotime »

I understand the SN 12.2 is an example of that pro-abhidhamma analytics. Most times the Buddha taught namarupa although in this Sutta we find how in the use of the term these meanings should be understood by the disciples:

"And what is nama-rupa? Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention: this is called nama. The four great elements, and the rupa dependent on the four great elements: this is called rupa. This nama and this rupa are called nama-rupa"


if we understand rupa only like nama, and it would be enough for the progress then where is the necessity of such distinction. Despite we should know rupa representations the distinction should be understood because are not the same. The distinction should arise to be realized by means wisdom.

I fear that many of these issues sounds very different depending Suttas or Abhdihamma although most times is more the difficulty with the inheritance of the later explanations. However, the expansion of explanations is something unavoidable in the development of human knowledge after some foundaments are given. Probably we could find Suttas in where some disciples explain more details or more extensions than the Buddha himself teaching the same issue.

The momentariness is a similar issue. At least I don't see that opposition that many people sees. The momentariness is a resource for the reason, although it doesn't mean it is non-real or non-existent. Our mind should grasp the objects of knowledge with two references, space and time, and both are linked with the existence of the knower, -self. We never grasp "one moment" in itself but because the knowledge of its objects of reference.

When there is grasping of two objects the conditionality is known, and also the moment becomes real. It is a fact. The Time don't inhabits inside the clocks but in the mind. Nobody can deny the Time and that the moments are real; this is our experience of Reality. From there, also is born the possibility to know more details of the process and factors involved in the arising and vanishing of objects which are building the instant. in that way we become closer to the building of atta. These can be known, analyzed and so on; giving rise to new words and relations and to further expansions of the same issue.

The Atthasalini starts:

"By Time the Sage described the Mind
And by the Mind he described the Time;
In order, that by such a definition,
The dhammas there in classes may be show"


at least to me, these verses are interesting even a bit funny. Because it seems like if "the Sage" would apologize when he should dive the Truth into the conditional world. To do that there is the causal necessity of the Time, and logically he explain the Time being a causal means in the conditional Reality, to start the explanation of our reality of grasped objects (dhammas). Time is born from the grasping of objects, in our conditional Reality. Without Time there is no "before" and no "after", there are no moments, no dhammas and no concepts would be available to be explained. Without Time there is no grasping neither conditional reality. In nibbana there is not Time.

Discussions around the momentariness arose in an Historical moment in where the sophistication of the intellectual explanation was necessary. The world and the environment was different. Although, of course, before that time everybody was aware about the existence of the "moment". This a logical thing. Thinking the contrary idea would be an absurdity. Although, Why not the same development existed?

Perhaps we could make an analogy with the arising of the zero number in the West. The zero number was non-existent through many centuries in Europe. And logically it doesn't mean the concept of the absence of something was unknown before the zero number adoption. Neither it means that the concept of "absence of" was not analyzed. There are analysis from the ancient Greeks (the "keno", previous to the arising of the atomist discussions). However, the zero number arose because the necessity to improve the understanding of the Reality according the mathematical thought.

This happened mostly because texts, commerce and Economy. The Europeans realized that the Roman numeration system was inferior to the Arab numerical system, who inherited that from India. The zero number allowed more powerful calculations by means a deeper understanding of the Reality in mathematical terms. However, before that time, everybody knew the idea of the absence of something.

Just it happened that before the arising of the zero number in Europe, the people had another use of the matemathical thought, and it was no necessary to define the absence in conceptual ways like another number to deal with the Reality. Although it worked very well. Everybody knows the amazing technique of Romans; still their buildings are more solid and beauty than most of present ones. And when we contemplate a Roman arc, also the space was obvioulsy analyzed and understood.

So at least I believe this issue is quite similar. Like many scholars writes, the Buddha Sangha was composed by groups of disciples with different tools and approaches. And of course also the proto-abhidhamma disciples existed. Because the same analytic approach we see inside the Abhidhamma is not an historical invention but the development of a distinctive position for the kwnoledge in the human being. Existing from always. It is another way to focus the Reality and the progress: by dissecting the grasping and arising and vanishing. If we deny this approach existed, also we can fall in the absurdity to deny that this characteristic of the human knowledge was absent in Buddha times.

I believe - just a personal view - that in the later historical discussions the issue was to give a definitive form the original proto-abhidhamma and to establish a definitive Abhidhamma. However, also were times of a decreasing of arhants. And lesser ariyas cannot review with enough stability those instants of leaving the conditional reality into nibbana. And then probably we find those historical discussions between different schools like an effort to have the better exact schema for the understanding.

Lamotte mentions in his "History..." how the discussions between those later schools were philosophically intense, although peaceful for the rest. They were sharing common spaces even the same monasteries.

In short, I think the momentariness is an explanation to understand the conditional reality and to get detachment. There is people who is more kammically akin to that approach while other have another kammic trend. Same happened in Buddha times, and in that way we read about the different titles according their approach for the different ariyas. That's the kamma and the human variety. ;)
iddhi
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 01, 2022 4:11 pm

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by iddhi »

Someone above already mentioned Sammuti Sacca and Paramattha Sacca (conventional vs absolute truth) as the difference. The Abbhidhammaks were concerned with delineating the things that *actually* exist (if only for an infinitesimal amount of time). There are four classes of objects: consciousness, 52 mental formations (eg, attention), material formations (eg, water), and nibbana -- these are like atoms. In this sense, a table does not exist in its own right because it it made of atoms; the table's existence is "conventional" in that we all agree it exists. Of course you could argue that the atoms don't exist because they are made up of smaller particles, and so on. The Abbhidhammaks considered their division to be irreducible. Like a table, many of the ideas from the suttas are not considered to actually exist (which is why dukkha, tanha, upadana are not in the 52). Despite the claim of "absolute truth", the abhidhammaks did not consider their method to supercede the suttana method in terms of reaching enlightenment.
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by SteRo »

Gena1480 wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:51 am what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma
as far as i can understand they use different words
to express samething
what is the purpose of explaining samething with differents words
a person need to learn extra words for same explanation
would it be easy just use the words used by most people?
You are underestimating the difference. In terms of reading pleasure the difference is comparable with the difference between a novel and a telephone book. In terms of content it is comparable with the difference between a written report about listening to music from a radio and the wiring diagram of a radio. :sage:
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
User avatar
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by Eko Care »

Ontheway wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:29 am
robertk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:28 pm
Pulsar wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 12:46 pm Can you bring me sutta examples from the early Theravada tradition, to show that Buddha taught abhidhamma?
Isn't it the abhidhamma specialist or the commentaries that say so?
The Mahagosinga sutta:
https://suttacentral.net/mn32/en/sujato ... ript=latin
:
Friend Moggallāna, the Gosinga Sāla-tree Wood is delightful…What kind of bhikkhu, friend Moggallāna, could illuminate this Gosinga Sāla-tree Wood?”

“Here, friend Sāriputta, two bhikkhus engage in a talk on the higher Dhamma(Abhidhamma) and they question each other, and each being questioned by the other answers without foundering, and their talk rolls on in accordance with the Dhamma. That kind of bhikkhu could illuminate this Gosinga Sāla-tree Wood
‘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.
Not only this sutta. There are other Suttas also spoken of it. Also in Vinaya & Mahaniddesa. Plus, the nava anga system - veyyakarana is precisely refers to Abhidhamma Pitaka. And the existence of both Suttantikā and Dhammakathikā proved it.
+ Bhikkhuni 95th Pācittiya Rule
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by Pulsar »

Dear robertk: I apologise  for the tardiness in my response, now I have the time.
You brought me an excerpt from
"Iggelden in the Intro. to the Vibhanga(Abhidhamma pitaka) (Pali text society)

It is all very well to say ‘What do I want to know all these
definitions of terms for, it only clutters the mind?’The question is, though, how many people when they seriously ask themselves as to the extent and range of some such apparently simple terms as greed, hatred and ignorance, can know their full and proper implications and
manifestations within their own thoughts and actions
…This the
scriptures are at pains to make clear to even the dullest
reader…” 
Does not greed, hatred and ignorance arise in the mind due to craving?
Every Buddhist familiar with Buddha's foundational teaching of DO knows this. Right?
The intention of pursuing the teaching is to master the skills of stopping craving. In the sutta pitaka Buddha presents us with the 8 fold path, of which Samma sati is essential to final stopping of craving. Samma sati and Samma samadhi are intertwined.
Buddha teaches in sutta pitaka that when there is craving
it emerges as
1. eye consciousness
, a sight which is like a reflection in a pond (it is impossible that this is solid) what appears in the eye which is a watery medium ... is a reflection of a thing seen. It is true that the eye is physical and the thing seen is physical but the reflection in the eye is not physical.
2. auditory  consciousness, a sound
3. tongue consciousness, a taste 
4. nose consciousness: smell emanated by an object
5. when there is longing for a touch it emerges as touch consciousness
6. In the imagination, experience of the past appears as imagined or a retrieval of a memory.

All of the above are events of the mind. True they are derived from physical objects.
Clap two hands which are physical, a sound emerges. that sound is not physical, it is true that if not for the hands (physical) sound will not appear.
I am going over the above deliberately, to stress that form in DO is a mental event,
form that emerges via six sense bases.
  • Even as sights, tastes, emerge via sense bases, the person names these as "I see" " I hear". due to craving to bring "I" into existence
  • This event is called naming, or identification
For the Arahant there is no emergence of consciousness via sense bases. He does not crave for such, hence no need to name, no identification is pursued.
There is no arising for the Arahant.
Yet the Arahant is not blind nor deaf.
The different kinds of consciousness that appear in the puthujjana are called forms, in this instance.
The only way one can stop craving is by arresing the emergence of 6 types of consciousness.
Once these originate due to careless attention, the cycle repeats.
SN 47.42 sutta on origination teaches us how to stop the emergence of forms via 6 sensory fields
Do you agree? Or Do you think MN 10/DN 22 compiled by Vibjjavadin Abhidhammikas teaches us the true way to satipatthana meditation?
Do you subscribe to the notion that rupa in nama-rupa of Dependent Origination is a physical event?
If so, does this not make Buddha Dhamma a lie?  because Buddha taught that rupa in nama-rupa of DO is a mental event.
Dear robertk: i would like you to respond to this query, since you are very knowledgeable in Abhidhamma.
if abhidhamma has a solution to my dilemma, you are the one who can help me on this forum.
To me, abhidhamma creates an insurmountable problem by treating rupa of nama-rupa as a physical event? If so, it is impossible for a puthujjana to destroy the physical things in the world that create sounds, smells, sights, tastes etc upon which the 6 types of consciousness, depend.

"In accordance with ToS 2j, I formally request that ontheway and Eko care no longer engage with me in this topic"
Regards  :candle:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:22 pm
All of the above are events of the mind. True they are derived from physical objects.
Clap two hands which are physical, a sound emerges. that sound is not physical, it is true that if not for the hands (physical) sound will not appear.
I am going over the above deliberately, to stress that form in DO is a mental event,
form that emerges via six sense bases.
The 4 elements are not mental. You basically just admitted to this yourself, and the 4 elements are in the rupa part of namarupa. Think about this again.
“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.”
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by Pulsar »

C wrote
the 4 elements are in the rupa part of namarupa.
I don't think you followed my comment. I never stated the 4 elements are in the rupa of Nama-rupa of DO. It is true that the forms are derived. The derivative is not the same as the original four elements. A reflection of a face in a pool of water is not a face. Moon is not in the pond in which it is reflected. But if not for the moon the reflection will not appear.
Think about this again.
you continued.
I thought about it again. Was not my explanation not clear?
Now if you define Nama-rupa according to Upanisads,
in that rupa there would be the four primary elements, but Buddha is not in that category of brahmins. Perhaps this is why you believe that there is no difference in the meditations of the Buddha and other Indian religions.
With love and hugs :candle:
Last edited by Pulsar on Wed May 04, 2022 8:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:36 pm
It is true that the forms are derived. The derivative is not the same as the original four elements. A reflection of a face in a pool of water is not a face. Moon is not in the pond in which it is reflected. But if not for the moon the reflection will not appear.
It’s the 4 elements AND the form derived. Therefore, rupa in namarupa includes the physical. It’s not purely mental in the way you are painting it.
“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.”
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by Pulsar »

Ceisiwr wrote
It’s the 4 elements AND the form derived.
Therefore, rupa in namarupa includes the physical. It’s not purely mental in the way you are painting it.
In that case can feeling, perception and intention, or what you call consciousness, be purely mental too? Dead people, corpses do not have
feelings, intentions, therefore one can say feelings, intentions, perceptions are also not purely mental, because one needs a living body in order to feel, intend or perceive.
  • It is an embodied experience.
Rupa in the clinging aggregates or rupa of nama-rupa in Buddha's dispensation is as much a mental phenomenon as contact is, feeling  and intention are. 
Take Nidana Samyutta:  SN 12. 61 ends with  
noble disciple experiences, revulsion towards rupa, vedana, feeling etc.
SN 12.62 elaborates on the preceding teaching. It uses two fire sticks as a metaphor to explain what rupa is, in a slightly different manner.
The noble disciple experiences revulsion towards contact, revulsion towards feeling etc.
  • In the second teaching, contact replaces rupa. leaving no room for rupa to be interpreted as physical.
All experience is an embodied experience. Buddha never denied this. 
Take the case of reflection of a face in a mirror or water.
A metaphor found in the Pali canon,  SN 22.83 condensed.
Suppose one examines one's facial features in a mirror or in a bowl filled with pure clean water,
she/he would look at it with clinging.
So too it is by clinging to the form that "I am occurs" not without clinging
V. Anada in this sutta explains  
Friends the V.  Punna Mantaniputta was very helpful to us when we were newly ordained. He exhorted us with that exhortation.
  • And when I heard this Dhamma teaching I made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.
Ananda becomes a Sotapanna on hearing the mirror/water simile.
What does this mean?
  • For a breakthrough to Dhamma  one has to realize that rupa is a mental phenomenon.
Buddha's teaching makes sense only in that context. What else is the point of the practice of Satipatthana?
SN 47.42 explains how to get rid of rupa.
If rupa was physical, no amount of Satipatthana can get rid of it.
With love :candle:
User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by zerotime »

another aspect of the contradiction to deny nama and rupa in a distinctive way, is the existence of the arupa-loka and rupa-loka realms:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... /loka.html

we find mention of the arupa-loka and rupa-loka realms inside the Suttas, in example AN 76:
- If, Ananda, there were no kamma ripening in the form realm , would form-sphere existence be discerned ?
- No, Bhante.
[..]
- If, Ananda, there were no kamma ripening in the formless realm , would formless-sphere existence be discerned ?
- No, Bhante.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by Pulsar »

zerotime wrote
another aspect of the contradiction to deny nama and rupa in a distinctive way, is the existence of the arupa-loka and rupa-loka realms:
what do you mean by contradiction to deny Nama-rupa? Are you saying there are suttas in the canon that contradict or oppose Buddha's definition of Nama-rupa, and support the definition of Nama-rupa as in the Upanisads, or as in Abhidhamma?
There are suttas in the Pali canon that refer to Arupa Loka. There are suttas that refer to formless meditations as taught by other teachers of Buddha's time.
Can you explain how these fit into the 8-fold path?
  • How do these meditations lead to the elimination of
    suffering.
Does the content of Satipatthana sutta MN10/DN22 written around the third council, lead to the elimination of suffering. If so how?
I can explain how SN 47.42 Sutta on Origination found in the Satipatthanasamyutta leads to the elimination of suffering.
Now in the Sutta Pitaka one finds the word "Ekayana" meaning there is only one way out of suffering.
  • Does Abhidhamma claim there are two ways out of suffering? And that second way defines rupa in Nama-rupa as physical?
In the earliest tier of Suttas, Buddha defines rupa in Nama-rupa as a mental component of the embodied experience just like feeling is a mental component.
Did Buddha change his mind, halfway through the canon? and also accept Arupa samatthis as central to the release from suffering?
Regards :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: what is difference between suttas and Abhidamma

Post by Pulsar »

Ceisiwr wrote 
It’s the 4 elements AND the form derived. Therefore, rupa in namarupa includes the physical. It’s not purely mental in the way you are painting it.
I meant to bring in the sutta on Flowers, here it is SN 22.94 Flowers with two agama parallels
SA 37 SA 38.
An Excerpt from Pali sutta
And what is that world phenomenon in the world to which the Tathagata has awakened to and broken through? 
  • Form bhikkhus is a world phenomenon in the world to which the Tathagata has awakened and broken through.
  • Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, and elucidates it.
  • When it is being thus explained... if anyone does not know and does not see, how can i do anything with that foolish worldling, Blind and sightless, who does not know and does not see?
I thought these are powerful words emanating from a SammaSambuddha.
how can i do anything with that foolish worldling,
Blind and sightless,
who does not know and does not see?


As for the painting, when i find the time i will bring in the sutta on the Painter. Give me time.
With love and hugs :candle:
Post Reply