Surely that is a matter of some over-interpreting what "paramattha dhammas" means, rather than the Abhidhamma itself.retrofuturist wrote: ... especially the bolded sections, in the context of the four paramattha dhammas.
Mike
Surely that is a matter of some over-interpreting what "paramattha dhammas" means, rather than the Abhidhamma itself.retrofuturist wrote: ... especially the bolded sections, in the context of the four paramattha dhammas.
Briefly sukha, then dukkha.clw_uk wrote: If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
Presumably sanna is subjective, so the resultant vedana will vary according to the individual?clw_uk wrote: Or is the nature of Vodka in of itself, not known?
sukha-saññā, -citta, -diṭṭhi: 'the perception (consciousness or view) of happiness' in what is actually suffering (dukkhe sukha-saññā), i.e. any form of existence, it is one of the perversions (vipallāsa, q.v.).Spiny Norman wrote:Briefly sukha, then dukkha.clw_uk wrote: If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
I think many do, actually. Read Nyanaponika's book on Abhidhamma, for instance. But this has been pointed out repeatedly on this forum, so I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I merely raise my objection to superficial dismissals for the record. See Tiltbilling's quotes here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=20retrofuturist wrote: Perhaps... but I was referring specifically to abhidhammikas, and I'm yet to encounter an abhidhammika who sees them as pointing to fabricated designations.
If they did so, it would kind of defeat the entire purpose of the abhidhammic classification schemes in the sense that they're all sankharas no matter what conceptual overlay the abhidhammika applies, as per Ven. Kumara's comments here - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p260871
I agree you could regard the Abhidhamma Pitaka otherwise but abhidhammikas don't.
mikenz66 wrote:I think most have a much more sophisticated interpretation than you give them credit for. Read Nyanaponika's book on Abhidhamma, for instance. But this has been pointed out repeatedly on this forum, so I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I merely raise my objection to superficial dismissals for the record. See Tiltbilling's quotes here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1&start=20retrofuturist wrote: Perhaps... but I was referring specifically to abhidhammikas, and I'm yet to encounter an abhidhammika who sees them as pointing to fabricated designations.
If they did so, it would kind of defeat the entire purpose of the abhidhammic classification schemes in the sense that they're all sankharas no matter what conceptual overlay the abhidhammika applies, as per Ven. Kumara's comments here - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p260871
I agree you could regard the Abhidhamma Pitaka otherwise but abhidhammikas don't.
I particularly liked the talk by Van Aggacitta (who visited us briefly a few years ago) that Ven Kumara linked to here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p258009
Venerable Aggacitta: Abhidhamma origins purpose & limitations
Ven Aggacitta is well versed in both Sutta, Abhidhamma, and commentaries and in my view gives very helpful and practical advice regarding the point and usefulness of the latter two.
But this is now getting way off topic...
Mike
Spiny Norman wrote:Briefly sukha, then dukkha.clw_uk wrote: If its a matter of perspectives, then alcohol is sukha to an alcoholic?
Spiny Norman wrote:Presumably sanna is subjective, so the resultant vedana will vary according to the individual?clw_uk wrote: Or is the nature of Vodka in of itself, not known?
I'm inclined to perceive the matter from the point of view of cetana.clw_uk wrote:Or to argue from ethics
Murder appears as abhorrent to me, yet good to others. I cannot tell if murder is good or bad, just how it appears to me.
I'm inclined to perceive the matter from the point of view of cetana.
Abstracted codes and hypothetical scenarios have little bearing when the ongoing focus is on the quality of mind and the nature of intention in the present moment.
Wholesome and unwholesome actions demonstrably yield their corresponding kammic fruit, and the Dhamma (in the sense of the teachings) is a systematised representation of how the "natural ethics" of the Dhamma (in the sense of how things are) manifest in practice. So, there is benefit in awareness and knowledge of this "natural ethical" system, but it is in no way divorced from its actual application and result.
You're moving away from the "natural ethics" of cetana, right effort, citta etc. and over into abstractions (e.g. "theft")clw_uk wrote:But isn't that all subjective? Theft might result in negative experience (kamma) for you, sure. However that doesn't mean it does for everyone. The same object can be different from different angles.
The same way as anything else.... cetana, right effort, citta etc. yields the commensurate experienced outcome. As I said above...clw_uk wrote:Concerning Buddhas "natural ethics" how do you view incest, in terms of Dhamma?
Metta,Wholesome and unwholesome actions demonstrably yield their corresponding kammic fruit, and the Dhamma (in the sense of the teachings) is a systematised representation of how the "natural ethics" of the Dhamma (in the sense of how things are) manifest in practice.