Let's count the 1500 kilesas (defilements)

General Theravada topics
1

Dear Dhamma friends,
Let’s count kilesas, mental defilements. The translation is mine, so watch out for errors. :sun_with_face: Please, kindly help me understand the counting better, if there is anything I can improve.

There are six ways to count 1500 (thousand and five hundred) kilesas mentioned in Dhammasaṅgaṇī-Anuṭīkā - Nidānakathāvaṇṇanā, in Myanmar edition of Pāḷi Tipiṭaka it is Dhammasaṅgaṇī Anuṭīkā p. 19. Please, help me check whether I have understood the Pāḷi correctly and whether my counting is right.

Counting method A

“Atha vā tepaññāsa arūpadhammā, aṭṭhārasa rūparūpāni, ākāsadhātu, lakkhaṇarūpāni cāti pañcasattati dhammā ajjhattabahiddhābhedato paññāsasataṃ honti. Tattha ekekasmiṃ dasa dasa kilesātipi diyaḍḍhakilesasahassaṃ.”

(1 citta + 52 cetasikas + 4 main elements + 5 sense-doors + 5 sense objects + bhava-hadaya-jīva-ojā + 0? ākāsadhātu + upacaya+santati+jaratā+aniccatā) = 75 * 2 (ajjhatta-bahiddha) * 10 defilements (lobha, dosa, moha, māna, diṭṭhi, vicikicchā, thinamiddha, uddhacca, ahirika, anottappa)
⟶ (1+52+4+5+5+4+4) * 2 * 10 = 1500

Counting method B

“Tathā ettha vedanaṃ sukhindriyādivasena pañcavidhaṃ katvā sattapaññāsa arūpadhammā, aṭṭhārasa rūparūpāni cāti pañcasattati vipassanūpagadhammā ajjhattabahiddhābhedato paññāsasataṃ honti. Etesu ekekasmiṃ dasa dasa kilesātipi diyaḍḍhakilesasahassaṃ.”

(1 citta + 51 cetasikas + 5 vedanā + 18 nipphannarūpāni) = 75 * 2 (ajjhatta-bahiddha) * 10 defilements
⟶ (1+51+5+18) * 2 * 10 = 75 * 2 * 10 = 1500.

Counting method C

“Atha vā cuddasekantākusalā, pañcavīsati kusalābyākatasādhāraṇā, cuddasa kusalattikasādhāraṇā, upacayādidvayaṃ ekaṃ katvā sattavīsati rūpāni cāti ime asīti dhammā, imesu bhāvadvaye ekaṃ ṭhapetvā ajjhattikā ekūnāsīti, bāhirā ekūnāsītīti sabbepi aṭṭhapaññāsādhikaṃ sataṃ honti. Imesu ekekasmiṃ dasannaṃ dasannaṃ kilesānaṃ uppajjanato asītiadhikaṃ diyaḍḍhakilesasahassaṃ honti.”

(14 ekantākusalā + 25 kusalābyākatasādhāraṇā + 14 kusalattikasādhāraṇā + 26 rūpa (including upacayādi dvayaṃ as one, bhāvadvaye as one)) * 2 ajjhatta-bahiddha * 10 kilesā
⟶ (14+25+14+26) * 2 * 10 = 79 * 2 * 10 = 1580.

Counting method D

“Aparo nayo – dvādasaakusalacittuppādesu paṭhame cha kilesā, dutiye satta, tatiye cha, catutthe satta, pañcame cha, chaṭṭhe satta, sattame cha, aṭṭhame satta, navame pañca, dasame cha, ekādasame pañca, dvādasame cattāroti sabbe dvāsattati, ime pañcadvārikā pañcasu rūpādīsu ārammaṇesu ekekasmiṃ dvāsattatīti saṭṭhiadhikāni tīṇi satāni, manodvārikā pana chasu ārammaṇesu ekekasmiṃ dvāsattati dvāsattatīti katvā dvattiṃsādhikāni cattāri satāni, sabbānipi dvānavutiadhikāni sattasatāni, tāni ajjhattabahiddhāvisayatāya caturāsītiadhikaṃ diyaḍḍhakilesasahassaṃ hontīti veditabbaṃ.”

12 akusalacittuppāde (a. 6 kilesā, b. 7, c. 6, d. 7, e. 6, f. 7, g. 6, h. 7, i. 5, j. 6, k. 5, l. 4) = 72 * 5 rūpādi ārammaṇe [in the five sense-doors] = 360 PLUS (the 72 are further multiplied by 6 objects to account for the six objects in the mind sense-door) 6 * 72 = 432 ⇒ together 360 + 432 = 792, that is further multiplied by 2 ajjhatta-bahiddha ⇒ 1584.
⟶ ((72 * 5) + (72 * 6)) * 2 = (360+432) * 2 = 1584.

Counting method E

“Atha vā rūpārammaṇādīni pañca, avasesarūpavedanāsaññāsaṅkhāraviññāṇavasena pañca dhammārammaṇakā sesā cāti dasa, te ajjhattabahiddhābhedato vīsati, paññatti cāti ekavīsatiyā ārammaṇesu dvāsattati dvāsattati kilesāti dvādasādhikaṃ diyaḍḍhakilesasahassaṃ honti.”

((5 sense-objects + 5 aggregates (dhammārammaṇā)) * 2 ajjhatta-bahiddha) + 1 paññatti = 21 ārammaṇa * 72 kilesā = 1512 (the text says that this counting is dvādasādhika, based on 12, i.e., based on 12 akusalacittuppādā, taking 72 as the base number like in method C)
⟶ (((5+5) * 2)+1) * 72 = 21 * 72 = 1512

Counting method F

“Atha vā dvādasasu akusalacittuppādesu paṭhame vīsati dhammā, dutiye dvāvīsati, tatiye vīsati, catutthe dvāvīsati, pañcame ekūnavīsati, chaṭṭhe ekūnavīsati, sattame ekūnavīsati, aṭṭhame ekavīsati, navame ekūnavīsati, dasame ekavīsati, ekādasame soḷasa, dvādasame soḷasāti sabbe akusaladhammā chattiṃsādhikāni dve satāni, ime chasu ārammaṇesu paccekaṃ chattiṃsādhikāni dve satāni, sabbe soḷasādhikāni cattāri satāni ca sahassaṃ hontīti evampi diyaḍḍhakilesasahassaṃ veditabbaṃ.”

12 akusalacittuppādā (20 dhammā + 22 + 20 + 22 + 19 + 19 + 19 + 21 + 19 + 21 + 16 + 16) = 234 (but text says 236) akusaladhammā * 6 ārammaṇā = 1404 (or text counts 236 * 6 = 1416)
⟶ 234 * 6 = 1404 (or 236 * 6 = 1416)

:sun_with_face:

1 Like
2

Venerable,

Great effort.

reference : Abhidhammatthasaṅgaho - 6. Rūpaparicchedo - Rūpasamuddeso
I have made it Bold in important places.

Itthattaṃ purisattaṃ bhāvarūpaṃ nāma.
bhāva you had counted as one but it has two.

jātirūpameva panettha upacayasantatināmena pavuccatīti ekādasavidhampetaṃ rūpaṃ aṭṭhavīsatividhaṃ hoti sarūpavasena.

with this upacaya and santati reckoned as jāti .

Also visuddhimagga-14. Khandhaniddeso-Rūpakkhandhakathā too confirms this

jātijarābhaṅgaṃ lakkhaṇarūpaṃ nāmāti

so 0? at ākāsadhātu would be 1 and lakkhaṇarūpāni would count three which will give you the 75.

Regards

2 Likes
3

Sir,

We are counting Kilesa, which are primarily 10 - Lobha, Dosa, Moha, Māna, Diṭṭhi, Vicikicchā, Thīna, Uddhaca, Ahiri, Anotappa,

So we expand its count to 1500, why do the texts count Kusala Cetasika as well? Did Buddha say that Kilesa are embedded in Kusala Cetasika also?

Your explanation will be helpful.

4

Interestingly, it takes all 52 cetasika in one equation. Still, at the end of the count, we see it is multiplied by the kilesas, so these cetasikas are considered coming in combination with kilesa.

It is all 1500 kilesas, not kusala. But, interestingly, the sub-commentary here seems to suggest that kusala cetasika can arise in combination with akusala citta. :upside_down_face: I wonder if they mean something as we see in Patthana, where the Buddha mentions cases like people who follow sila or dana and afterward engage in evil actions such as burning houses, drinking alcohol, etc. :blush:

5

Kusala cetasika is not counted amongst the kilesa. But for example lobha can arise regarding saddha or regarding Panna etc. It’s still the diversity of lobha that is talked about.

6

Fundamental book #7

Kilesa (Defilements)
There are ten defilements:

  1. Lobha – greed
  2. Dosa – hatred
  3. Moha – delusion
  4. Māna – conceit
  5. Diṭṭhi – wrong view
  6. Vicikicchā – sceptical doubt
  7. Thīna – sloth
  8. Uddhacca – restlessness
  9. Ahirika – moral shamelessness
  10. Anottappa – moral fearlessness

There is a way in which defilements are counted as one thousand five hundred (1,500). In this method, all types of consciousnesses are considered a single reality due to their shared characteristic of cognizing objects. Citta and 52 cetasikas are collectively called 53 nāma dhammas (mentalities). There are seventy-five dhammas that mainly become the objects of defilements. They are 53 nāma dhammas, 18 nipphanna rūpas, and 4 lakkhaṇa rūpas. When these 75 are multiplied by 2 in terms of internal and external, they become 150. Klesas arise regarding these 150 objects. Therefore, there can be 1500 kilesas, based on the objects they arise about (150 x 10 = 1,500).

1 Like
7

If the object towards which the Lobha has arisen is Sadhhā or Paññā or any of the 25 Kusala Cetasikas, then it is only a Mental Object or Dhammārammaṇa.

So the question remains. At this point it becomes important to know the name of the Commentaries being referred to.

8

Which sub-commentary are we referring to here, sir.

May be there is a context to it. Yamaka is clear from the very first questions that Akusala Cetasikas do not arise with Kusala Citta or vice versa.

There is a possibility there is some context of Pakati under discussion there.

If you can share the name of the sub-commentary, may be I can read through the text and get some clarity.

Regards and Mettā :pray:

9

I don’t understand your objection, can you elaborate?

Take a closer look at what is in the original post. See below

Do you mean prakriti as in samkhya etc? I think you need to take a closer look at dependant origination, preferably with a good teacher.

10

While I meant Pakati as discussed in Pakatupanissaya etc., but I agree, it might be better to speak to a good Teacher. Thank you sir.

1 Like
11

That is best. But personally I don’t think so, because not just kusala and akusala dhammas are considered, but also abyakata dhammas.

12

Please disregard above. I thought abyakata dhammas do not condition akusala dhammas as pakatūpanissaya, but it can happen.

From the Patthana

abyākato dhammo akusalassa dhammassa upanissayapaccayena paccayo – ārammaṇūpanissayo, anantarūpanissayo, pakatūpanissayo.