why resultant-consciouness neither wholesome nor unwholesome ?

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Post Reply
tinhtan
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:32 pm

why resultant-consciouness neither wholesome nor unwholesome ?

Post by tinhtan » Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:38 am

In the "A Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma", page 32, it is said that :
"Resultant consciousness and functional consciousness are neither wholesome nor unwholesome. Instead they are classified as indeterminate, that is, consciousness which cannot be determined in terms of the dichotomy of wholesome and unwholesome".

I understand that for functionnal consciousness, it can be indeterminate. But for resultant-consciousness, it contradicts with their classification in unwholesome-resultant consciousness (7 cittas) and wholesome-resultant consciousness (25 cittas).

So what is the meaning of this paragraph ?

Thank you for help.

santa100
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: why resultant-consciouness neither wholesome nor unwholesome ?

Post by santa100 » Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:54 pm

Going up the hierarchy will make a bit clearer. That by being "indeterminate" it means this group of citta, the resultant citta, does not contain the 3 unwholesome roots (greed, hatred, and ignorance) nor their opposites. It doesn't play the active role of a causative agent. It's passive and only reflect the "results" which CAN be wholesome or unwholesome depending on whether the cause is wholesome or unwholesome. The simple diagram below might help, notice the position of the resultants and functionals within the 2nd classification:
1. ASobhanaCittani/Nonbeautiful: (30 cittas):
  • i. AkusalaCitta/Unwholesome: (12 cittas): greed-rooted, hatred-rooted, and delusion-rooted.
    ii. AHetukaCitta/Rootless: (18 cittas):
    • a. AkusalaVipakaCittani/UnwholesomeResultant: (7 cittas)
      b. KusalaVipakaAhetukaCittani/WholesomeResultant: (8 cittas)
      c. AhetukaKiriya|kriyaCittani/RootlessFunctional: (3 cittas)

2. SobhanaCittani/Beautiful: (24 cittas) ...

tinhtan
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:32 pm

Re: why resultant-consciouness neither wholesome nor unwholesome ?

Post by tinhtan » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:13 am

Hi Santa100

I agree by saying the resultant citta is indeterminated because it does not produce kamma - and stop here.

But i don't understand when saying the resultant citta is neither unwholesome nor wholesome and then classify them as unwholesome/wholesome.

If the rootless resultant cittas do not contain unwholesome nor wholesome roots, the 8 great wholesome resultant cittas contain 2 or 3 wholesome roots and the 5 rupa resultant cittas + the 4 arupa resultant cittas contain 3 wholesome roots.

Specifically, most of the pair of rootless resultant cittas are accompanied by upekkha and they have the same cetasikas - they are distinguished as unwholesome or wholesome depending only on the "unwholesome or wholesome" objects (this is another point : based on what criteria, an object is considered as wholesome or unwholesome).

Except the pair of rootless body-consciousness, one is unwholesome because it is accompanied by pain (dukkha) -> clearly unwholesome.
another one is wholesome because it is accompanied by pleasure (somanassa) -> clearly wholesome
and the rootless wholesome investigating consciousness accompanied by joy (piti).

Ven Dhammanando explains that
"The vipākacittas themselves are morally neutral, but the terms 'kusala' and 'akusala' are applied to them to indicate the moral class of the (past) kammically active citta of which they are the present fruit."

See under this angle, it is ok for me.

Best wishes

santa100
Posts: 2726
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: why resultant-consciouness neither wholesome nor unwholesome ?

Post by santa100 » Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:43 pm

tinhtan wrote:I agree by saying the resultant citta is indeterminated because it does not produce kamma - and stop here.

But i don't understand when saying the resultant citta is neither unwholesome nor wholesome and then classify them as unwholesome/wholesome.
That's why the keyword "indeterminate" needs to be there to clarify. When combined with "indeterminate", "neither unwholesome nor wholesome" should be taken as: "yet to be determined to be either unwholesome or wholesome". And that's why in their current state as is, they're "neither unwholesome nor wholesome". A similar coloquial concept is the punishment/reward system. One can say that punishment/reward is "neither unwholesome nor wholesome". They're "indeterminate" until after the action of the person has been done, and the judge's made the final appropriate verdict. Only then can it bee seen as "unwholesome" or "wholesome".

tinhtan
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:32 pm

Re: why resultant-consciouness neither wholesome nor unwholesome ?

Post by tinhtan » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:41 am

thank you Santa100

In fact, if we examine the dhamma factors (cetasika) of each pair of rootless citta, it will be clear that "neither wholesome nor unwholesome" is applicable only for the rootless vipaka citta. These rootless vipaka citta arises all the time in our life. The fact that they are wholesome or unwholesome depends on the objects that happens in relation with kamma in the past.

By contrast, the 8 sobhana vipaka citta and the 9 mahagatta vipaka citta are clearly wholesome citta.


Best wishes.

theY
Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:07 pm
Contact:

Re: why resultant-consciouness neither wholesome nor unwholesome ?

Post by theY » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:44 pm

Because resultant-consciousness is resultant of wholesome-consciousness or unwholesome-consciousness.
They are grouped in dhammasaṇginī. Buddha use kamma to group consciousness (wholesome, unwholesome, resultant, neither kamma nor resultant).

But cetasika in abhidhammatthasaṇgaha are grouped by anuruddha (1000 B.E.). He use consciousness-accompaniment-ability of cetasika, in the sensuous spheres, to group cetasika.

You must separate author's method to learn each book. Buddha and Anuruddha thinking the same, but each book teaching by difference method. No one wrong.

anuruddha's method:
  1. 13 cetasika that able to accompany with consciousnesses in every spheres.
  2. 14 cetasika that able to accompany only with consciousnesses in immoral consciousness sphere (unwholesome-consciousnesses).
  3. 25 cetasika that able to accompany only with beautiful sphere (wholesome+resultant+neither kamma nor resultant consciousnesses in kama-sphere, rupa-sphere, arupa-sphere, and wholesome+resultant consciousnesses in sphereless).
By Anuruddha's method, we can count cetasika unique. It is easier way to learn, but Anuruddha's method is vipassana less. Dhammasaṇginī method is vipassana full. We can memorize Dhammasaṇginī to do vipassana meditation, though we learn it some part. But in abhidhammatthasaṇgaha, we must memorize the whole of abhidhammatthasaṇgaha to do vipassana meditation.

Amazing Buddha! He really know how to teach for enlightenment.

http://unmixedtheravada.blogspot.com/20 ... ither.html
Above message maybe out of date. Latest update will be in massage's link.
--------------------------------------------------
Tipitaka memorization is a rule of monks. It isn't just a choice. They must done it.
bahussuto nāma tividho hoti – nissayamuccanako, parisupaṭṭhāpako, bhikkhunovādakoti.
http://UnmixedTheravada.blogspot.com/20 ... monks.html

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests