List of unresolved issues in Commentaries

Textual Scholarship
21

I watch youtube videos at double speed and would watch at higher rates if possible, but someone who is new to English cannot do that. I even listened to your disrobing interview with insight myanmar at triple speed for 90% of the 2 hours. I was so glad I figured out they had 3x speed. Saved a long time on long interviews. So the devas have different minds, and they can take things telepathically. most people who have NDE explain they can see their whole life flash before their eyes. They experience it in normal speed too, but it is often just a few minutes or an hour. While NDE is not Buddhist, we can still assert it is a near to death experience, but not real death itself. There are just too many cases of this. Even if it was just a dream, it is still reported.

So the Devas are noted to be super sharp and can absorb things much quicker and they have psychic abilities.
I think there is nothing wrong… you said “implied”… you are the one drawing conclusions here.

22

Venerable sir, please, consider the difference between Anguttara & Samyutta Nikaya amount of text and “immeasurable” amount of text. This is what the Commentaries write and what I have cited as it is in Pali.

23

It is orthodox teaching that apodhatu is not known through the body door.
As I wrote in a post in 2022:

Apo-dhatu is not experienced through the body door , however it can be known through the mind-door.

So while the other great elements are experienced through both the body door and mind door apo is only known through one door. This does not mean it is entirely inferential or “outside of the all”.

It is wonderful how precise the ancients were in showing such fineness of classification- all of which can be known.
Vis. XIV, 76 and Tiika, no 2, reposted
From Nina van Gorkom:> N: Only three elements are tangible object. Even as one does not touch

visible object, in the same way one does not touch fluidity or the element
of water. Someone who believes that he can touch water is only thinking of a
concept. We should verify this in touching water without thinking about it.

At the end of this Tiika text (English below):
Sesanti yathaavutta.m ruupaadisattavidha.m ruupa.m .thapetvaa avasi.t.tha.m
ekaviisatividha.m ruupa.m.
As is said, he declares visible object and so on as sevenfold *, and the
remaining materiality are twentyone kinds of materiality.

Vi~n~naa.nassevaati manovi~n~naa.nasseva.
As to the expression, (they are the objective field ) of consciousness only,
this means, only of mind-consciousness **.

Avadhaara.nena ruupaayatanaadiinampi manovi~n~naa.navi~n~neyyatte
niyamaabhaavato na vi~n~naataruupataati sa"nkaraabhaava.m dasseti.
By stressing this, although colour etc. are to be known by
mind-consciousness too, he keeps the rupas that are not experienced
exclusively through the mind-door separate (not mixing them with the
others).
–

This is a useful recording of some points where people wonder about similar matters:

half way through: SUJIN BORIHARNWANAKET: The teachings are not to read and doubt;
but to read and understand.
Otherwise always doubt: ‘why this and why that’

2 Likes
24

Hopefully you understand that we are not discussing here whether water element exists or not. We are here grappling with the sheer fact that Abhidhamma does not count water element as a materiality while Majjhima and Samyutta Commentaries count it. Do you disagree with this difference? Do you suggest that the Majjhima and Samyutta Commentaries are not orthodox while Abhidhamma is? Or that the scribes of the Commentaries were too old and forgot about the need to omit them when listing the materialities? That is the kind of discussion I am trying to encourage here. Not whether Abhidhamma is right or Commentaries are right, but the fact that they say something different.

25

And is this what is said in a Commentary or is that a modern teachers interpretation?
A general comment I have on modern meditation teachers is that they - in many cases- attempt a retrofit of what is said in the Vism with their techniques.
This is not the way to understand IMHO.
Sati is entirely conditioned and cannot arise at ones command. The pariyatti and patipatti must be entirely in accordance with the truth of anatta and anicca.

1 Like
26

Pa-Auk Four Elements method uses water element. It also teaches classical 42 parts which is something from the maharahulaovada sutta. But you yourself teach more than 42 parts. This is a contradiction in what you say that nothing should be added. The lights should not go out with closing the window.

The water element is not a suitable object for vipassana though. That is because it cannot be sensed on a momentary basis. Water is inferred. On a basic level, generally speaking, as a samatha object as in the VSM, it is perfectly fine to focus on this and infer water element (over time).

1 Like
27

Of course the Abhidhamma counts water element as a materiality. What makes you think otherwise? Just look up apodhatu in the Dhammasangani and you will see it mentioned many times. For example:

  1. Pancavidhena rupasangaho
    :
    Pathavidhatu apodhatu tejodhatu vayodhatu —yaii cariipam upada—evam pancavidhena rupasangaho.
1 Like
30

In terms of the suttas when the Buddha talks about the elements, say in terms of element meditation, he is using an everyday meaning. The earth element there for example isn’t simply the quality of “hardness”. The earth element is whatever inside is solid. So the skull for example is the earth element. What ever is watery is the water element, like the blood. The Abhidhamma and commentaries are different because whilst they recognise that the Buddha’s teachings entail the emptiness of substance they regard the qualities which remain as being real. Since the water element is made into an abstract quality in the Abhidhamma (cohesion) it can’t be directly experienced.

So, the suttas and Abhidhamma and commentaries are saying different things. In the suttas the everyday understanding (back then) of the elements was meant, and the meditation is a visualisation exercise. For the Abhidhamma and commentaries it’s more technical and developed, and tends towards more direct experience than visualisation (although this aspect is still seen in the Visuddhimagga). Naturally this is fine for Classical Theravadins, since according to CT the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma which is meant to be more technical and precise. If you don’t think the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma though then what you are looking at is an evolution of thought over time.

31

Dear All, Regarding the F2

Dhammasaṅgaṇīpāḷi explains about 27 types of materiality, only excluding the heart base from the 28 types of materiality. The tactile object and water element are included in the 27. The Dhammasaṅgaṇīpāḷi explains the earth, fire and wind element as the tactile object (Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Dhammasaṅīgaṇīpāḷi - Para 647)

647. Katamaṃ taṃ rūpaṃ phoṭṭhabbāyatanaṃ? Pathavīdhātu tejodhātu vāyodhātu kakkhaḷaṃ mudukaṃ saṇhaṃ pharusaṃ sukhasamphassaṃ dukkhasamphassaṃ garukaṃ lahukaṃ, yaṃ phoṭṭhabbaṃ anidassanaṃ sappaṭighaṃ kāyena anidassanena sappaṭighena phusi vā phusati vā phusissati vā phuse vā phoṭṭhabbo peso phoṭṭhabbāyatanaṃ petaṃ phoṭṭhabbadhātu pesā – idaṃ taṃ rūpaṃ phoṭṭhabbāyatanaṃ.

Therefore when counting the materiality, if the tactile object is considered, the three types of materiality (earth, fire, wind) has to be taken into account. In the spreadsheet by including these three (#1,3,4 in the spreadsheet) and the tactile objects (#14) results in double counting.

āpodhātu (#22) and āpo (#2) are the same and it is expounded in the Dhammasaṅgaṇīpāḷi in many places (Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Dhammasaṅīgaṇīpāḷi - Para 587, 646, 651, 652 etc)

  1. Katamaṃ taṃ rūpaṃ āpodhātu? Yaṃ āpo āpogataṃ sineho sinehagataṃ bandhanattaṃ rūpassa – idaṃ taṃ rūpaṃ āpodhātu.

In the spreadsheet by including these three (#1,3,4 in the spreadsheet) and the tactile objects (#14) results in double counting.

Why the hear base is not included in the Dhammasaṅgaṇīpāḷi? The answer is given in anuṭīkā (I’ve seen this answer in some other sub commentaries too). (Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Dhammasaṅīanuṭikā - Para 647). The sub commentary gives two reasons.

Kiṃ pana kāraṇaṃ dukādīsu niddesavāre ca hadayavatthu na gahitanti? Itaravatthūhi asamānagatikattā desanābhedato ca. Why, then, is the heart-base (hadayavatthu) not included in the section on the description of dyads (duka) and other such topics? Because it is of a different nature from the other bases (itaravatthūhi) and due to the breakup in the desanā (desanābheda).

(1) Yathā hi cakkhuviññāṇādīni ekantato cakkhādinissayāni, na evaṃ manoviññāṇaṃ ekantato hadayavatthunissayaṃ, nissitamukhena ca vatthudukādidesanā pavattā. For, just as eye-consciousness (cakkhuviññā**ṇ a ) and so forth are exclusively dependent (nissaya) on the eye and other such bases (cakkhādinissaya), mind-consciousness (manoviññā**ṇ a ) is not exclusively dependent (nissaya) on the heart-base (hadayavatthu) in the same way. The desanā is headed by the dhammas which are dependant (nissitamukhena is the eye consciousness etc. whic are dependant on the bases)

(2) Yampi ekantato hadayavatthunissayaṃ, tassa vasena “Atthi rūpaṃ manoviññāṇassa vatthū”tiādinā dukādīsu vuccamānesupi tadanukūlaārammaṇadukādayo na sambhavanti. Na hi “Atthi rūpaṃ manoviññāṇassa ārammaṇaṃ, atthi rūpaṃ na manoviññāṇassa ārammaṇa”ntiādinā sakkā vattunti vatthārammaṇadukadesanā bhinnagatikā siyuṃ, samānagatikā ca tā desetuṃ bhagavato ajjhāsayo. Esā hi bhagavato desanā pakati. - Moreover, if mind-consciousness (manoviññā ṇa) is entirely dependent on the heart-base (hadayavatthu), are not exclusively dependent on the hear base. Eventhough it is possible to start a dyad as “Atthi rūpaṃ manoviññāṇassa vatthū” etc. (which means Atthi rūpaṃ manoviññāṇassa vatthū, Atthi rūpaṃ manoviññāṇassa vatthū - There is a materiality which is a base for the manoviññāṇa - heart base, There is a materiality which is a not base for the manoviññāṇa - other 05 bases) the following it the appropriate dyads based on ārammaṇa etc (tadanukūlaārammaṇadukādayo) do not exist.

Thereore it is not possible to say, “Atthi rūpaṃ manoviññāṇassa ārammaṇaṃ, atthi rūpaṃ na manoviññāṇassa ārammaṇa - There is materiality as the object (āramma ṇa) of mind-consciousness, and there is materiality that is not the object of mind-consciousness,” (the mind-consciousness can take anything as an object) and so forth. Thus, the teaching on bases (vatthu) and objects (āramma ṇa) would have to be understood as having distinct classifications. And it was the Buddha’s intention (ajjhāsaya) to present these teachings as having a consistent nature (samānagatikā) in the desanā (The “consistency” for the desanā in vatthu dyad etc.). This indeed is the Buddha’s nature of the desanā (desanā pakati).

But in the Paṭṭhāna Pāli the heart base is expounded in hundreds of places, as there is no need to have the samānagatikā as in the Dhammasaṅgaṇīpāḷi.

(Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Paṭṭhānapāḷi (paṭhamo bhāgo) - Para 08) Yaṃ rūpaṃ nissāya manodhātu ca manoviññāṇadhātu ca vattanti, taṃ rūpaṃ manodhātuyā ca manoviññāṇadhātuyā ca taṃsampayuttakānañca dhammānaṃ nissayapaccayena paccayo.- The materiality (rūpa) upon which the mind-element (manodhātu) and the mind-consciousness element (manoviññā ṇadhātu) depend, serves as a condition by way of dependence (nissaya-paccaya) for both the mind-element and the mind-consciousness element, as well as for the associated phenomena (ta ṃsampayuttakāna ṃ dhammāna ṃ).

(Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Paṭṭhānapāḷi (paṭhamo bhāgo) - Para 53, page 19) - Khandhe paṭicca vatthu, vatthuṃ paṭicca khandhā, - Based on the aggregates (khandha), there is the base (vatthu); based on the base, there are the aggregates.

Therefore, in Abhidhamma the 28 types of materiality are expounded.

The Commentary to Majjhima and Aṅguttara Nikāyas counts for 27 types of materiality based on the Dhammasaṅgaṇīpāḷi. Here phoṭṭhabbāyatana (tactile sense base) is counted as one rūpa totaling to 25 mentioned as one (Pāḷiyaṃ āgatā pañcavīsati rūpakoṭṭhāsā). If counted as three types of materiality for the tactile sense base, the same 27 types of materiality (24+3) excluding the heart base is listed here. There is no ‘pathavi, āpo, tejo, vayo’ in the list given in the commentaries, as presented in the spreadsheet. Only āpo dhātu appears in the list which is the same with apo.

(Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Mūlapaṇṇāsa-aṭṭhakathā (dutiyo bhāgo) - Para 347) - Gaṇanato na jānāti nāma, “Cakkhāyatanaṃ, sota-ghāna-jivhā-kāyāyatanaṃ, rūpa-sadda-gandha-rasa-phoṭṭhabbāyatanaṃ, itthindriyaṃ, purisindriyaṃ, jīvitindriyaṃ, kāyaviññatti, vacīviññatti, ākāsadhātu, āpodhātu, rūpassa lahutā, mudutā, kammaññatā, upacayo, santati, jaratā, rūpassa aniccatā, kabaḷīkāro āhāro”ti evaṃ pāḷiyaṃ āgatā pañcavīsati rūpakoṭṭhāsāti na jānāti.

Search for Atthasalini on 25 rupās

In Majjhima nikāya commentary the heart base is considered as a rūpa. (Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Mūlapaṇṇāsa-aṭṭhakathā (pathamo bhāgo) - Para 78)

Tassattho – so anāgāmī evaṃ bhāvitabrahmavihāro etesaṃ brahmavihārānaṃ yato kutoci vuṭṭhāya te eva brahmavihāradhamme 181nāmavasenatesaṃ nissayaṃ hadayavatthuṃ vatthunissayāni bhūtānīti iminā nayena bhūtupādāyadhamme rūpavasena ca vavatthapetvā atthi idanti pajānāti, ettāvatānena dukkhasaccavavatthānaṃ kataṃ hoti.

The concerns mentioned in the two columns mentioned as ‘later commentaries’ and ‘Ledi Sayadaw’ in the spreadsheet are resolved with my above explanation.

2 Likes
32

In the Aṭṭhasālinī the 25 types of materiality are listed. Further adding the heart base (Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Aṭṭhasālinī nāma dhammasaṅgaṇī-aṭṭhakathā - Para 975)

Tattha ‘Sabbañca rūpa’nti padena pañcavīsati rūpāni channavutirūpako ṭṭ hāsā nippadesato gahitāti veditabbā. Imesu pana rūpesu asammohattha ṃ samodhāna ṃ samu ṭṭ hāna ṃ parinipphannañca sa ṅ khatanti ida ṃ ‘Paki ṇṇ aka ṃ ’ veditabba ṃ . Tattha ‘Samodhāna’nti sabbameva hida ṃ rūpa ṃ samodhānato cakkhāyatana ṃ …pe… kaba ḷ īkāro āhāro, pho ṭṭ habbāyatana ṃ āpodhātūti pañcavīsatisa ṅ khya ṃ hoti. Ta ṃ vatthurūpena saddhi ṃ chabbīsatisa ṅ khya ṃ veditabba ṃ . Ito añña ṃ rūpa ṃ nāma natthi.

2 Likes
33

Dear venerable sir, I am still not clear about your explanation. Can you please tell me
(1) what are the three types of materiality for tactile sense base in MNA and ANA? You say “Here phoṭṭhabbāyatana (tactile sense base) is counted as one rūpa totaling to 25 mentioned as one (Pāḷiyaṃ āgatā pañcavīsati rūpakoṭṭhāsā). If counted as three types of materiality for the tactile sense base, the same 27 types of materiality (24+3) excluding the heart base is listed here.”

(2) Can you cite the MNA taking hadayavatthu as a materiality?

(3) What would be the reason that the Commentaries would summarize certain types of materiality and not strictly follow the listing of Abhidhamma verbatim?

(4) How would you explain that the word “hadayavatthu” never appears in Abhidhamma, let alone Sutta or Vinaya? Why would the Commentaries not faithfully use the wording of the Buddha and introduce a different wording, moreover, taking the different wording to become an essential vocabulary?

(5) Did the Buddha have the intention to speak inaccurately and vaguely so that Commentaries could provide accurate, more helpful wording? Or how do you explain to yourself that the Buddha’s wording is somehow no more as essential as the Commentarial wording?

34

Take an example

  • Saṁyutta Nikāya
  • Connected Discourses on the Aggregates

22.3. Haliddakani (1)

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Venerable Mahakaccana was dwelling among the people of Avanti on Mount Papata at Kuraraghara. Then the householder Haliddakani approached the Venerable Mahakaccana, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him:

“Venerable sir, this was said by the Blessed One in ‘The Questions of Magandiya’ of the Aṭṭhakavagga:

‘Having left home to roam without abode,
> > In the village the sage is intimate with none;
> > Rid of sensual pleasures, without expectations,
> > He would not engage people in dispute.’
>
How, venerable sir, should the meaning of this, stated by the Blessed One in brief, be understood in detail?”

“The form element, householder, is the home of consciousness; one whose consciousness is shackled by lust for the form element is called one who roams about in a home. The feeling element is the home of consciousness … The perception element is the home of consciousness … The volitional formations element is the home of consciousness; one whose consciousness is shackled by lust for the volitional formations element is called one who roams about in a home. It is in such a way that one roams about in a home.

“And how, householder, does one roam about homeless? The desire, lust, delight, and craving, the engagement and clinging, the mental standpoints, adherences, and underlying tendencies regarding the form element: these have been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that they are no more subject to future arising. Therefore the Tathagata is called one who roams about homeless. The desire, lust, delight, and craving, the engagement and clinging, the mental standpoints, adherences, and underlying tendencies regarding the feeling element … the perception element … the volitional formations element … the consciousness element: these have been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that they are no more subject to future arising. Therefore the Tathagata is called one who roams about homeless. It is in such a way that one roams about homeless.

“And how, householder, does one roam about in an abode? (note 22) By diffusion and confinement in the abode consisting in the sign of forms, one is called one who roams about in an abode. By diffusion and confinement in the abode consisting in the sign of sounds … the sign of odours … the sign of tastes … the sign of tactile objects … the sign of mental phenomena, one is called one who roams about in an abode.

“And how, householder, does one roam about without abode? Diffusion and confinement in the abode consisting in the sign of forms: these have been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that they are no more subject to future arising. Therefore the Tathagata is called one who roams about without abode. Diffusion and confinement in the abode consisting in the sign of sounds … the sign of odours … the sign of tastes … the sign of tactile objects … the sign of mental phenomena: these have been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that they are no more subject to future arising. Therefore the Tathagata is called one who roams about without abode. It is in such a way that one roams about without abode.

“And how, householder, is one intimate in the village? Here, householder, someone lives in association with laypeople: he rejoices with them and sorrows with them, he is happy when they are happy and sad when they are sad, and he involves himself in their affairs and duties. It is in such a way that one is intimate in the village.

“And how, householder, is one intimate with none in the village? Here, householder, a bhikkhu does not live in association with laypeople. He does not rejoice with them or sorrow with them, he is not happy when they are happy and sad when they are sad, and he does not involve himself in their affairs and duties. It is in such a way that one is intimate with none in the village.

“And how, householder, is one not rid of sensual pleasures? Here, householder, someone is not devoid of lust, desire, affection, thirst, passion, and craving in regard to sensual pleasures. It is in such a way that one is not rid of sensual pleasures.

“And how, householder, is one rid of sensual pleasures? Here, householder, someone is devoid of lust, desire, affection, thirst, passion, and craving in regard to sensual pleasures. It is in such a way that one is rid of sensual pleasures.

“And how, householder, does one entertain expectations? Here, householder, someone thinks: ‘May I have such form in the future! May I have such feeling in the future! May I have such perception in the future! May I have such volitional formations in the future! May I have such consciousness in the future!’ It is in such a way that one entertains expectations.

“And how, householder, is one without expectations? Here, householder, someone does not think: ‘May I have such form in the future!… May I have such consciousness in the future!’ It is in such a way that one is without expectations.

“And how, householder, does one engage people in dispute? Here, householder, someone engages in such talk as this: ‘You don’t understand this Dhamma and Discipline. I understand this Dhamma and Discipline. What, you understand this Dhamma and Discipline! You’re practising wrongly, I’m practising rightly. What should have been said before you said after; what should have been said after you said before. I’m consistent, you’re inconsistent. What you took so long to think out has been overturned. Your thesis has been refuted. Go off to rescue your thesis, for you’re defeated, or disentangle yourself if you can.’ It is in such a way that one engages people in dispute.

“And how, householder, does one not engage people in dispute? Here, householder, someone does not engage in such talk as this: ‘You don’t understand this Dhamma and Discipline…. ‘ It is in such a way that one does not engage people in dispute.

“Thus, householder, when it was said by the Blessed One in ‘The Questions of Magandiya’ of the Aṭṭhakavagga:

‘Having left home to roam without abode,
In the village the sage is intimate with none;
Rid of sensual pleasures, without expectations,
He would not engage people in dispute’—

It is in such a way that the meaning of this, stated in brief by the Blessed One, should be understood in detail.”

Possibly some bhikkhu could have objected to Mahakaccana explaining in detail- why not simply repeat what the Buddha said. But actually it is helpful.
As you probably know at this time there are only neyya and padaparama . there are not such wise ones as Bahiya who could attain while listening to a sentence of two of Dhamma.
The Abhdhamma - Puggala-Pannati.

  1. What sort of person is quick in acquiring (Ugghàtitannu)?
    The person who comprehends the doctrine at the time of its pronouncement is said to be quick in acquiring.
  2. What sort of person learns by exposition (Vipancitannu)?
    The person to whom comprehension of the doctrine comes when the meaning of what is briefly uttered is analysed in detail.
  3. What sort of person is one who may be led (Neyya)?
    The person to whom comprehension of the doctrine comes by recitation, questioning, and earnest attention and by serving, cultivating and waiting upon lovely friends is one who may be led.
  4. What sort of person is one with whom the word is the chief thing (Padaparama)?
    The person to whom comprehension of doctrine would not come in this life, however much he may hear and say and bear in mind or recite, is said to be one with whom the word is the chief thing.

the padaparama listens, considers, develops confidence and understanding but won’t attain in this life - he is making the conditions for future attainment.

35

A post was merged into an existing topic: Vañcaka (Cheating) Dhammas

36

Dear Upāsaka,

(1) Based on the dhammasanganī, the three types are earth (pathavi), fire (tejo), wind (vāyo). I mentioned this at the beginning of my answer.

"647. Katamaṃ taṃ rūpaṃ phoṭṭhabbāyatanaṃ? Pathavīdhātu tejodhātu vāyodhātu kakkhaḷaṃ mudukaṃ saṇhaṃ pharusaṃ sukhasamphassaṃ dukkhasamphassaṃ garukaṃ lahukaṃ, yaṃ phoṭṭhabbaṃ anidassanaṃ sappaṭighaṃ kāyena anidassanena sappaṭighena phusi vā phusati vā phusissati vā phuse vā phoṭṭhabbo peso phoṭṭhabbāyatanaṃ petaṃ phoṭṭhabbadhātu pesā – idaṃ taṃ rūpaṃ phoṭṭhabbāyatanaṃ.

Therefore, when counting the materiality, if the tactile object is considered, the three types of materiality (earth, fire, wind) has to be taken into account."

(2) This is the translation of the MNA

(Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Mūlapaṇṇāsa-aṭṭhakathā (pathamo bhāgo) - Para 78)

Tassattho – so anāgāmī evaṃ bhāvitabrahmavihāro etesaṃ brahmavihārānaṃ yato kutoci vuṭṭhāya te eva brahmavihāradhamme nāmavasena tesaṃ nissayaṃ hadayavatthuṃ vatthunissayāni bhūtānīti iminā nayena bhūtupādāyadhamme rūpavasena ca vavatthapetvā atthi idanti pajānāti, ettāvatānena dukkhasaccavavatthānaṃ kataṃ hoti. - The meaning of this is: that non-returner (anāgāmī), who has cultivated the divine abodes (brahmavihāra) in this way, having emerged from these divine abodes from any of them, determines (vavatthapeti) these divine abodes as “These states as mental phenomena (nāma), heart-base (hadayavatthu) as their (nāma of the divine abodes) base of support (vatthunissaya) and the four great elements are nissaya (dependants) of the dependants for the heart base ” in this manner, he determines (vavatthapeti) four great elements and derived materiality (bhūtupādāyadhamma) as materiality (rūpa). he knows (pajānāti) “There is this.” In this way, he has detemines the truth of suffering (dukkhasacca).

(3) In the two cases in the MNA and ANA which we are discussing here are using the verbatim which appears in Dhammasaṅgaṇīpāḷi itself. In the list in the MNA and ANA the list of the 12 gross matter (olārika-rūpa) is given as in classification of the bases.

(Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Mūlapaṇṇāsa-aṭṭhakathā (dutiyo bhāgo) - Para 347) - Gaṇanato na jānāti nāma, “Cakkhāyatanaṃ, sota-ghāna-jivhā-kāyāyatanaṃ, rūpa-sadda-gandha-rasa-phoṭṭhabbāyatanaṃ, itthindriyaṃ, purisindriyaṃ, jīvitindriyaṃ, kāyaviññatti, vacīviññatti, ākāsadhātu, āpodhātu, rūpassa lahutā, mudutā, kammaññatā, upacayo, santati, jaratā, rūpassa aniccatā, kabaḷīkāro āhāro”ti evaṃ pāḷiyaṃ āgatā pañcavīsati rūpakoṭṭhāsāti na jānāti.

In the Dhammasaṅīgaṇīpāḷi the terms āyatana (base), indriya (faculty), dhātu (element) are used for the materiality accordingly (based on the classifications) in the dyads etc. Eg:- Cakkhāyatanaṁ, Cakkhundriyaṁ, Cakkhudhātu (search for these words using Tipitaka app). The commentator has to use either of these words.

In the case of the tactile sense base, the three types of materiality are summarized in the Dhammasaṅīgaṇīpāḷi. The commentary uses the same summarisation. "(Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Dhammasaṅīgaṇīpāḷi - Para 647) 647. Katamaṃ taṃ rūpaṃ phoṭṭhabbāyatanaṃ? Pathavīdhātu tejodhātu vāyodhātu" .

(4) To distinguish it from the other five bases. The five bases (eye base, ear base, nose base, tongue base, body base) which serves as two sets of five types of consciousness (Eye-consciousness, -ear consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness). These five bases which are similar in the application of the cognizing process, when distinguished from the heart base, it becomes easier to explain. The heart base functions as the base for 75 types of consciousness which are different in the application of the cognizing process.

(Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Mūlapaṇṇāsa-aṭṭhakathā (paṭhamo bhāgo) - Para98) Cakkhusamphasso…pe… kāyasamphassoti ettāvatā ca kusalākusalavipākā pañcavatthukā dasa samphassā vuttā honti. Manosamphassoti iminā sesā bāvīsati lokiyavipākamanasampayuttaphassā.

I think this different wording is intended for ease of reference for sarūpakathana (အရကောက်) and to remember the function of the paramattha dhamma easily. The terms like 'hasituppāda, sa ṅtīraṇa, dvipañcaviññāṇa/ pañcaviññāṇa, votthapana/voṭṭbana ’ doesn’t appear in the root. But in the atthasalinī, abhidhammattha-saṁgaha and in the sub-commenataries (please search for these words in the Tipiṭaka apps) them.

Eg:- For the pañcadvaravajjana citta

Root - (Tipiṭaka Pāḷi Reader - Dhammasaṅīgaṇīpāḷi - Para 566-567) - Dhammasaṅīgaṇīpāḷi - in the pāli the term “Kiriyā manodhātu” is used.

566. Katame dhammā abyākatā? Yasmiṃ samaye manodhātu uppannā hoti kiriyā neva kusalā nākusalā na ca kammavipākā upekkhāsahagatā rūpārammaṇā vā…pe… phoṭṭhabbārammaṇā vā yaṃ yaṃ vā panārabbha, tasmiṃ samaye phasso hoti, vedanā hoti, saññā hoti, cetanā hoti, cittaṃ hoti, vitakko hoti, vicāro hoti, upekkhā hoti, cittassekaggatā hoti, manindriyaṃ hoti, upekkhindriyaṃ hoti, jīvitindriyaṃ hoti; ye vā pana tasmiṃ samaye aññepi atthi paṭiccasamuppannā arūpino dhammā – ime dhammā abyākatā…pe….

Tasmiṃ kho pana samaye cattāro khandhā honti, dvāyatanāni honti, dve dhātuyo honti, tayo āhārā honti, tīṇindriyāni honti, eko phasso hoti…pe… ekā manodhātu hoti, ekaṃ dhammāyatanaṃ hoti, ekā dhammadhātu hoti; ye vā pana tasmiṃ samaye aññepi atthi paṭiccasamuppannā arūpino dhammā – ime dhammā abyākatā…pe….

567.katamo tasmiṃ samaye saṅkhārakkhandho hoti? Phasso cetanā vitakko vicāro cittassekaggatā jīvitindriyaṃ; ye vā pana tasmiṃ samaye aññepi atthi paṭiccasamuppannā arūpino dhammā ṭhapetvā vedanākkhandhaṃ ṭhapetvā saññākkhandhaṃ ṭhapetvā viññāṇakkhandhaṃ – ayaṃ tasmiṃ samaye saṅkhārakkhandho hoti…pe… ime dhammā abyākatā.- Kiriyā manodhātu

The abhidhammattha-saṁgaha uses the term "Upekkhāsahagata ṃ pañcadvārāvajjanacitta ṃ".

When a single phrase is used the reference becomes easier and the function of the consciousness can be easily understood i.e. the five-sense-door-adverting function. The term used in the pāli and the commentary here in “kiriyā manodhātu” which is deriving from the kusalattika.

(5) I will return to you the same question. Do you think that the Buddha had the intention to speak inaccurately and vaguely so that Commentaries could provide accurate, more helpful wording? Do you think that the Buddha’s wording is somehow no more as essential as the Commentarial wording? In my case the terms commentaries are using made the study easier for me. Maybe because I learned the Theravāda commentaries with an experienced teacher.

3 Likes
37

Surely you know that the teachings were in an oral tradition and that the repetition of items that can be unified in practice would be totally redundant. There was a great video by ex-ven aggadhammagavesaka. Have you seen this? Please see these two videos here and report back

Surely you know the structure of the mula and commentaries.
Surely you know that when the first five disciples were on their way to get enlightened (well, the remaining 4), that the Buddha was there teaching while the other two went for alms, yet there is no account of that teaching.
The abhidhamma is surely a practiced based methodology.
I’m sure you understand all of this since you know pali and the way the whole cst is structured. It makes total sense. I think you are asking questions you already know the answer to.

38

Yes, Venerable Sir. I think we should trust the commentaries and the Abhidhamma. Faith is very important in our practice.

39

Dear venerable Atulañāṇa,
Thank you very much for your detailed explanations. Thank you also for providing Pali references, quotes, and sometimes also translation.

  1. I have updated the table of materialities with comments in the cells can you please check the comments and let me know whether the text in the existing comments is correct? If they are not perfect and complete, can you please provide correction and additional information, if necessary, into the reply to each comment?

  2. So MNA and ANA suggest, that if we know how to count materialities we count them as 25. So, I am wondering. Why a skillful person who can count 25 elements is so unskillful that s/he does not remember to count in hadayavatthu and moreover, counts 26 elements as 25? :boom:

“Gaṇanato na jānāti nāma, “Cakkhāyatanaṃ, sota-ghāna-jivhā-kāyāyatanaṃ, rūpa-sadda-gandha-rasa-phoṭṭhabbāyatanaṃ, itthindriyaṃ, purisindriyaṃ, jīvitindriyaṃ, kāyaviññatti, vacīviññatti, ākāsadhātu, āpodhātu, rūpassa lahutā, mudutā, kammaññatā, upacayo, santati, jaratā, rūpassa aniccatā, kabaḷīkāro āhāro”ti evaṃ pāḷiyaṃ āgatā pañcavīsati rūpakoṭṭhāsāti na jānāti.”
→ “By counting, (he) does not know, namely ‘Eye-faculty, ear-nose-tongue-body faculty, form-sound-smell-taste-touch faculty, femininity, masculinity, life-force, bodily intimation, verbal intimation, space element, water element, lightness, softness, malleability, arising, staying, decay, impermanence of matter, lump-made food,’ thus (he) does not know the 25 parts of matter included in the Pāḷi (texts).”

  1. Now while MNA and ANA suggest that a person who can count materialities counts them as 25 without hadayavatthu, PsmA, Vism, and Abhidhammaṭṭhasangaha somehow can count them better than MNA and ANA and add hadayavatthu. In other words, I am now trying to understand why in the case of Dhs and ANA & MNA hadayavatthu is not mentioned, but it is mentioned by PsmA, Vism, and Abhidhammatthasangaha?

  2. In your quote of Dhs: “Katame dhammā abyākatā? Yasmiṃ samaye manodhātu uppannā hoti kiriyā neva kusalā nākusalā na ca kammavipākā upekkhāsahagatā rūpārammaṇā vā…pe… phoṭṭhabbārammaṇā vā yaṃ yaṃ vā panārabbha, tasmiṃ samaye phasso hoti,” we can see that this is about “samaya”, an occasion. Kiriya citta is the mind of an Arahant, functional consciousness. I am trying to understand why this text, which talks about kiriya citta (functional consciousness of an Arahant) is, according to your suggestion, implying pañcadvārāvajjana citta, which arises in non-Enlightened beings too?

  3. This my answer is for both you, @bksubhuti and @RobertK . In RobertK’s example, we see explanations that either copy or paraphrase what the Buddha said in the Suttas. This was never a problem raise here, as far as I understand. Likewise, bksubhuti is pointing out to explanations that are already in Suttas, or that are paraphrase of what is in the suttas.

My question is different. What I am asking about is how is acceptable to have an explanation in Commentaries that is not at all a paraphrase or copy of something in the Vinaya-Sutta-Abhidhamma and instead introduces a completely new phenomenon?

(a) The phenomenon of hadayavatthu is never and in no way explained by the Buddha as a separate materiality.

(b) The phenomenon of javanas is never explained by the Buddha as the moment of the mind that decides about kamma.

(c) The phenomenon of kalapas is never explained by the Buddha in the form of omnipresent particles, let alone as something that we must see them in meditation otherwise there is no way to become Enlightened, as we can learn from later teachers. (This problem is more complicated by the requirement that all kalāpas contain at least eight elements, i.e., the ojaṭṭhamakakalāpas.) My concern is, that modern physicists are able to detect much smaller particles than the smallest particles explained in the Commentaries and they see quite something different than ojaṭṭhamakakalāpas. Scientists, as some religious leaders say, know nothing, and everything they find out is totally wrong (unless it is in accordance with the religious dogma). Sure. But this argument will not work (or will not be sufficient) for intelligent people who seek the truth. We cannot compare this for example to rebirth, where the science does not yet have the instruments to see into the mind of the dying person. In the case of matter, however, the instruments we have are now revealing subtler phenomena than the Commentaries suggest.

To conclude, what would be the justification for Commentaries that they do not play the Buddha and instead really paraphrase or copy what the Buddha said? I am searching for the paraphrases or identical texts in the Root that could justify the ideas of hadayavatthu as a separate materiality (hadayavatthuvāda), javanas as the decisive moments for kamma (javanavāda), and kalāpas as the omnipresent particles (kalāpavāda). :rainbow:

40

Dear Upāsaka,

  1. As you are aware: (1) Āpodhātu and āpo refer to the same element; (2) the tactile base is the combination of the three elements—earth, fire, and wind; (3) the heart base appears in the Paṭṭhāna section of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, resulting in a total of 28 types of materiality; and (4) the list of material phenomena in the commentaries sums to 28, comprising 24 elements plus 3 (tactile base = earth, fire, wind) + 1 (hadaya vatthu) the concerns you raised in the spread sheet are cleared. Therefore, I won’t spend time checking it.

  2. Do you think that the MNA and ANA commentator is so careless to forgot (not skillful enough to remember) to include the hadayavatthu? MNA and ANA suggest the list based on the Dhammasaṅganī pāli (pāḷiyaṃ āgatā ). It is simple as that. That is the way it was presented.

  3. I mentioned the reason for Dhammasaṅganī pāli in my first comment as explained in the Anuṭīkā (I translated the Anuṭīkā).

  4. Yes, kiriya citta (functional consciousness) arises in non-enlightened beings too. Please read “A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma”.
    a. Chapter One - On three functional consciousness
    b. Chapter Four -
    (1) On where the five-door adverting consciousness (pañcadvāravajjana),
    determining consciousness (voṭṭhabana) and mind-door adverting consciousness
    (manodvāravajjana), smile producing consciousness (hasituppāda) in the cognitive
    process (cittavīthi).
    (2) Analysis of the way of individuals (puggalebheda) - here you list of cittas which
    arise in different types of individuals

3 Likes
41

What kind of justification are you looking for from the root? Specific reference?

42

There is also this thread about the heart base: