All empty apart from the Dhammas?

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: All empty apart from the Dhammas?

Post by tiltbillings »

Myotai wrote:
My original question was designed to establish how this might differ from the Abhidhamma view?
It depends upon which stratum of the Theravada Abhidhamma one looks at.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Myotai
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:39 am

Re: All empty apart from the Dhammas?

Post by Myotai »

tiltbillings wrote:
Myotai wrote:
My original question was designed to establish how this might differ from the Abhidhamma view?
It depends upon which stratum of the Theravada Abhidhamma one looks at.

My only real exposure to the Abhidhamma was via Acharn Sujin Boriharnwanaket when I was in Thailand a year or so ago. She seems to imply that the Paramatha Dhammas are excluded from the above and that they do in fact exist as inherently existent phenomena?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: All empty apart from the Dhammas?

Post by tiltbillings »

Myotai wrote:

My only real exposure to the Abhidhamma was via Acharn Sujin Boriharnwanaket when I was in Thailand a year or so ago. She seems to imply that the Paramatha Dhammas are excluded from the above and that they do in fact exist as inherently existent phenomena?
That represent a very late stratum.

Something I posted here earlier:
    • ===========
      And some stuff (with some repetition) I posted on the long gone E-Sangha:




      Astus: but since in the abhidhamma it is said that dhamma are ultimate things the teaching of emptiness of phenomena is not found in Theravada.

      What kind of "ultimate things" are they? Piatigorsky, in his studies of the Theravadin Abhidhamma Pitaka texts (THE BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY OF THOUGHT 1984, 181) points out dharmas are not substances; they are not 'things' in and of themselves:

      We simpy cannot say that 'a dharma is... (a predicate follows)', because a dharma, in fact, 'is' no thing, yet [it is] a term denoting (not being) a certain relation or type of relation to thought, consciousness or mind. That is, dharma is not a concept in the accepted terminological sense of the latter, but a purely relational notion.
      Nyanaponika ABHIDHAMMA STUDIES, page 41 BPS; page 42 Wisdom wrote:By arranging the mental factors in relational groups a subordinate synthetical element has been introduced into the mainly analytical Dhammasangani. By so doing, the danger inherent in purely analytical methods is avoided. This danger consists in erroneously taking for genuine separate entities the “parts” resulting from analysis, instead of restricting their use to sound practical method with the purpose of classifying and dissolving composite events wrongly conceived as unities. Up to the present time it has been a regular occurrence in the history of physics, metaphysics, and psychology that when the “whole” has been successfully dissolved by analysis, the resultant “parts” themselves come in turn to be regarded as little “wholes.”
      In the Pali tradition it is only for the sake of definition and description that each dhamma is postulated as if it were a separate entity; but in reality it is by no means a solitary phenomenon having an existence of its own. . . . If this Abhidhammic view of existence, as seen from its doctrine of dhammas, cannot be interpreted as a radical pluralism, neither can it be interpreted as an out-and-out monism. For what are called dhammas -- the component factors of the universe, both within us and outside us -- are not fractions of an absolute unity but a multiplicity of co-ordinate factors. They are not reducible to, nor do they emerge from, a single reality, the fundamental postulate of monistic metaphysics. If they are to be interpreted as phenomena, this should be done with the proviso that they are phenomena with no corresponding noumena, no hidden underlying ground. For they are not manifestations of some mysterious metaphysical substratum, but processes taking place due to the interplay of a multitude of conditions. Prof. Dr. Y. Karunadasa, THE DHAMMA THEORY, page 9.
      Harvey, in his excellent INTRODUCTION TO BUDDHISM, characterizes the Theravadin position, page 87 wrote: "'They are dhammas because they uphold their own nature [sabhaava]. They are dhammas because they are upheld by conditions or they are upheld according to their own nature' (Asl.39). Here 'own-nature' would mean characteristic nature, which is not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality, but arise due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurrences of that dhamma."
      A.K. Warder, in INDIAN BUDDHISM, page 323, discussing the Pali Abhidhamma commentarial literature, states wrote: "The most significant new idea in the commentaries is the definition of a 'principle' or element (dharma): dharmas are what have (or 'hold', 'maintain', dhr. is the nearest equivalent in the language to the English 'have') their own own-nature (svabhaava). It is added that they naturally have this through conditions."
      Dhammas are "ultimate things" only as a way of talking aspects of the relational flow of experience, not in terms of describing static realities. In other words, dhammas are empty of self. See my signature:

      =============

      :
      tiltbillings wrote:It is important to understand that Buddhism (here meaning Theravada) is not doing science. It is not commenting on the nature of the “external” world. It is dealing with what is experienced. A “fundamental particle” of experience is hardly an unchanging, unconditioned thing. It is a way of talking about the flow of experience that our senses can give us which we can call this or that.

      Ven Nyanamoli in a footnote in his PATH OF PURIFICATION, pages 317-8, states: "In the Pitakas the word sabhaava seems to appear only once...," it appears several times in Milindapanha, and it is used quite a bit in the PoP and it commentaries. He states it often roughly corresponds to dhaatu, element and to lakkhana, characteristic. An interesting passage from the PoP reads:

      "On the contrary, before their rise [the bases, aayatana] they had no individual essence [sabhaava], and after their fall their individual essence are completely dissolved. And they occur without mastery [being exercisable over them] since they exist in dependence on conditions and in between the past and the future." Page 551 XV 15.

      Piatigorsky (In his study of the Pitaka Abhidhamma texts, THE BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY OF THOUGHT, p 182) puts it: “From the point of view of consciousness, it can be said that, when consciousness is conscious of one’s mind, thought, or consciousness directed to their objects, then it is ‘being conscious of’ that may be named ‘a state of consciousness’ or a dharma.”

      Piatigorsky (THE BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY OF THOUGHT, p 146) explains: “the meaning of each abhidhammic term [dhamma] consists (or is the sum) of all its positional meanings and of all positional meanings of its connotations.”

      Nyanaponika quotes a sub-commentary to an Abhidhamma text: "There is no other thing than the quality borne by it." (na ca dhaariyamma-sabhaavaa an~n~o dhammo naama atthi). Abhidhamma Studies, page 40. Which is to say: We simpy cannot say that 'a dharma is... (a predicate follows)', because a dharma, in fact, 'is' no thing, yet [it is] a term denoting (not being) a certain relation or type of relation to thought, consciousness or mind. That is, dharma is not a concept in the accepted terminological sense of the latter, but a purely relational notion. -- Piatigorsky, THE BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY OF THOUGHT, page 181.

      Nyanaponika ABHIDHAMMA STUDIES, page 41 BPS; page 42 Wisdom wrote:By arranging the mental factors in relational groups a subordinate synthetical element has been introduced into the mainly analytical Dhammasangani. By so doing, the danger inherent in purely analytical methods is avoided. This danger consists in erroneously taking for genuine separate entities the “parts” resulting from analysis, instead of restricting their use to sound practical method with the purpose of classifying and dissolving composite events wrongly conceived as unities. Up to the present time it has been a regular occurrence in the history of physics, metaphysics, and psychology that when the “whole” has been successfully dissolved by analysis, the resultant “parts” themselves come in turn to be regarded as little “wholes.”

      Prof. Dr. Y. Karunadasa, THE DHAMMA THEORY, page 9 wrote:In the Pali tradition it is only for the sake of definition and description that each dhamma is postulated as if it were a separate entity; but in reality it is by no means a solitary phenomenon having an existence of its own. . . . If this Abhidhammic view of existence, as seen from its doctrine of dhammas, cannot be interpreted as a radical pluralism, neither can it be interpreted as an out-and-out monism. For what are called dhammas -- the component factors of the universe, both within us and outside us -- are not fractions of an absolute unity but a multiplicity of co-ordinate factors. They are not reducible to, nor do they emerge from, a single reality, the fundamental postulate of monistic metaphysics. If they are to be interpreted as phenomena, this should be done with the proviso that they are phenomena with no corresponding noumena, no hidden underlying ground. For they are not manifestations of some mysterious metaphysical substratum, but processes taking place due to the interplay of a multitude of conditions.

      Harvey, in his excellent INTRODUCTION TO BUDDHISM, characterizes the Theravadin position, page 87 wrote: "'They are dhammas because they uphold their own nature [sabhaava]. They are dhammas because they are upheld by conditions or they are upheld according to their own nature' (Asl.39). Here 'own-nature' would mean characteristic nature, which is not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality, but arise due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurrences of that dhamma. This is of significance as it makes the Mahayana critique of the Sarvastivadin's notion of own-nature largely irrelevant to the Theravada."

      A.K. Warder, in INDIAN BUDDHISM, page 323, discussing the Pali Abhidhamma commentarial literature wrote: "The most significant new idea in the commentaries is the definition of a 'principle' or element (dharma): dharmas are what have (or 'hold', 'maintain', dhr. is the nearest equivalent in the language to the English 'have') their own own-nature (svabhaava). It is added that they naturally have this through conditions."


      Dhammas are "ultimate things" only as a way of talking about aspects of the relational flow of experience, not in terms of describing static realities. In other words, dhammas are empty of self.
      In other words Dhp 279: "All dhammas are not-self", which is to say empty of any self existing, particly thingyness.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: All empty apart from the Dhammas?

Post by mal4mac »

tiltbillings wrote: The Buddha's notion of "ultimate reality" is that there isn't one beyond or
behind what is our experience. There is no need to appeal to something
supposedly more real behind or beyond what we experience...
Isn't Nibbana "beyond or behind what is our experience"?
- Mal
User avatar
Myotai
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:39 am

Re: All empty apart from the Dhammas?

Post by Myotai »

mal4mac wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: The Buddha's notion of "ultimate reality" is that there isn't one beyond or
behind what is our experience. There is no need to appeal to something
supposedly more real behind or beyond what we experience...
Isn't Nibbana "beyond or behind what is our experience"?
How would you know?
User avatar
Myotai
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:39 am

Re: All empty apart from the Dhammas?

Post by Myotai »

tiltbillings wrote:Dhammas are "ultimate things" only as a way of talking aspects of the relational flow of experience, not in terms of describing static realities. In other words, dhammas are empty of self
That'll do nicely!

Thanks...
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: All empty apart from the Dhammas?

Post by tiltbillings »

mal4mac wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: The Buddha's notion of "ultimate reality" is that there isn't one beyond or
behind what is our experience. There is no need to appeal to something
supposedly more real behind or beyond what we experience...
Isn't Nibbana "beyond or behind what is our experience"?
If it is "behind our experience," it looks like you are adovacting some sort of neo-platonism. If it is "beyond our experience," it cannot be experienced, then what is the point of it?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: All empty apart from the Dhammas?

Post by mal4mac »

tiltbillings wrote:
mal4mac wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: The Buddha's notion of "ultimate reality" is that there isn't one beyond or
behind what is our experience. There is no need to appeal to something
supposedly more real behind or beyond what we experience...
Isn't Nibbana "beyond or behind what is our experience"?
If it is "behind our experience, it looks like you are adovacting some sort of neo-platonism. If it is beyond our experience, it cannot be experienced, then what is the point of it?
"Behind" is ambiguous. A chair can be 'behind' a table, but the table have no casual connection to the chair. Some malign organisation might be 'behind' J.F. Kennedy's assassination, and 'behind' implies a causal connection.

From what I've read, I would certainly consider Nibbana to be outside the chain of causality, so if it is 'behind' experience is it 'behind' in the sense of the chair being behind the table.

Nibbana is (obviously) not part of our everyday experience, so it might (if it exists) be beyond our *everyday* experience. Indeed it may only be revealed in a total lack of experience (as we might only see the chair if the table is removed).
- Mal
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: All empty apart from the Dhammas?

Post by SarathW »

M said:
"Nibbana is (obviously) not part of our everyday experience, so it might (if it exists) be beyond our *everyday* experience. Indeed it may only be revealed in a total lack of experience (as we might only see the chair if the table is removed"
================
The way I understand Nibbana is part of our every day experience.
It is not beyond our everyday experience.
It is not total lack of experience.
You experience Nibbana here and now.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Myotai
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:39 am

Re: All empty apart from the Dhammas?

Post by Myotai »

tiltbillings wrote:If it is "beyond our experience," it cannot be experienced, then what is the point of it?
Agreed.

That would be conjecture.
Post Reply