Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Pali] Re: help w/ Phena Sutta quote

Expand Messages
  • rett
    Hi Geoff, ... The word for substance there is saara. Without substance = asaaraka empty = rittaka void = tucchaka tassa ta.m passato nijjhaayato yoniso
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 18, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Geoff,

      >
      >Can anyone give me the romanized pali for the
      >following passage from the Phena Sutta of the
      >Samyutta Nikaya, (here translated by Ajahn
      >Thanissaro):
      >
      >"...empty, void, without substance...."
      >
      >especially the 'without substance' part?

      The word for 'substance' there is saara. 'Without substance' = asaaraka

      'empty' = rittaka
      'void' = tucchaka

      tassa ta.m passato nijjhaayato yoniso
      upaparikkhato rittaka.m yeva khaayeyya tucchaka.m
      yeva, khaayeyya, asaaraka.m yeva khaayeyya, ki.m
      hi siyaa bhikkhave, phe.napi.n.de saaro?

      "To him -- seeing it, observing it, &
      appropriately examining it -- it would appear
      empty, void, without substance: for what
      substance would there be in form?" (translated by
      Ajahn Thanissaro)


      >
      >Also, would anyone be kind enough to help me
      >with an english translation of the following
      >statement from the Sunnata Katha of
      >Patisambhidamagga, from the Khuddaka Nikaya:
      >

      I can't see the diacritics in the below, so I
      located the passage and converted it to Velthuis.

      >Katama#7747; viparin#257;masuñña#7747;;
      >j#257;ta#7747; r#363;pa#7747; sabh#257;vena
      >suñña#7747;, vigata#7747; r#363;pa#7747;
      >viparinatañceva suññañca
      >

      Katama.m viparinaamasuñña.m

      jaata.m ruupa.m sabhaavena suñña.m, vigata.m
      ruupa.m viparinatañ c'eva suññañ ca


      >Here' s my dubious translation:
      >
      >How is change empty?
      >Being arisen (produced), form is empty of own-nature.

      Okay so far, I think. I might say, 'an arisen form is empty of own-nature'.

      >Form disappears because of changeability and emptiness.
      >

      Not 'changeability and emptiness'. If you look at
      the continuation of the passage, which parallels
      this sentence, the words viparinata and suñña are
      consistently declined in accordance with each new
      item. For example, with the singular feminine
      saññaa in the next sentence, you see singular
      feminine viparinataa and suññaa. With the plural
      sa¨nkhaaraa you see the plurals viparinataa and
      suññaa. With the singular masculine bhavo, you
      see viparinato and suñño. These are simply
      adjectives: changed, empty.

      I'm not sure exactly how to translate the
      passage, though I can imagine some alternatives.
      I'd need to look closer at it to venture a guess.

      Hope this helps,

      /Rett
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Geoff, In my English transl I have found it, but can you transfer to Velthuis? The signs are unreadable on my computer, Nina.
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 18, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Geoff,
        In my English transl I have found it, but can you transfer to Velthuis? The
        signs are unreadable on my computer,
        Nina.
        op 17-02-2005 23:20 schreef geoff shatz op sunnaloka@...:

        > Sunnata Katha of Patisambhidamagga, from the Khuddaka Nikaya:
        >
        > Katama#7747; viparin#257;masuñña#7747;;
        > j#257;ta#7747; r#363;pa#7747; sabh#257;vena suñña#7747;, vigata#7747;
        > r#363;pa#7747; viparinatañceva suññañca
        >
        > Here' s my dubious translation:
        >
        > How is change empty?
        > Being arisen (produced), form is empty of own-nature.
        > Form disappears because of changeability and emptiness.
        >
      • rett
        Hi Geoff, Nina and group, ... This seems basically right. It s interesting that you get the sense because out of it. Now that I look at it I think you re
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 19, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Geoff, Nina and group,

          >
          >Katama.m viparinaamasuñña.m
          >
          >jaata.m ruupa.m sabhaavena suñña.m, vigata.m
          >ruupa.m viparinatañ c'eva suññañ ca
          >
          >
          >Here' s my updated but still dubious translation:
          >
          >How is change empty?
          >Because form is produced, it is empty of own-nature.
          >A form is ceased (ceases) because it is changeable (changed) and
          >empty.

          This seems basically right.

          It's interesting that you get the sense 'because'
          out of it. Now that I look at it I think you're
          right, even though it's not explicitly marked
          (with an ablative for example). It's rather
          implied.

          This could perhaps also be expressed like : being
          produced, form is empty of self-nature; ceasing
          and changing, it is empty.

          Here too the idea of causation or implication is
          implied, though not directly stated. Neat stuff.


          >Ven. Nanamoli's translation would be helpful (I'm not sure on the
          >policy regarding sharing PTS quotations.

          I'm pretty sure it's okay here, especially if
          it's just a few lines for study purposes. I'd
          certainly be interested in seeing Nanamoli's
          translation of this bit.

          best regards,

          /Rett
        • Nina van Gorkom
          Hi Geoff, ... vigata.m ruupa.m viparinatañ c eva suññañ ca Ven. Nanamoli s translation: N: Treatise on Voidness, (XX, p. 357): 5. What is voidness in
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 19, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Geoff,

            op 18-02-2005 22:07 schreef sunnaloka op sunnaloka@...:
            >
            > Katama.m viparinaamasuñña.m
            > jaata.m ruupa.m sabhaavena suñña.m,
            vigata.m ruupa.m viparinatañ c'eva suññañ ca
            Ven. Nanamoli's translation:
            N: Treatise on Voidness, (XX, p. 357):
            5. What is voidness in change? Born materiality is void of individual
            essence (sabhaava);
            disappeared nateriality is both changed and void.


            Geoff:Here' s my updated but still dubious translation:
            >
            > How is change empty?
            > Because form is produced, it is empty of own-nature.
            > A form is ceased (ceases) because it is changeable (changed) and
            > empty.
            N: This treatise begins with a sutta quote (S. IV, 54) the 'world' is void ,
            namely void of the self. The khandhas are the world void of the self.
            Then different meanings and aspects of voidness are given.
            One of these is voidness in change.
            As to 'individual essence' as a transl of sabhaava, this is controversial. I
            prefer: its own nature, but this nature is only present for an extremely
            short moment.
            The Co. refutes opinions that void of sabhaava means that it never was
            present, by stating that this was said of ruupa that is born or arisen.
            Nina: thus: it has arisen, it decays and falls away.

            Ven. Nanamoli gives in a long footnote the co. One of the meanings of void
            of individual essence is void through having voidness as individual essence.
            N: I would say: void, because of having voidness as its characteristic.
            N (my own words): as to the text: vigata.m ruupa.m: it has disappeared, but
            it was present before. It is subject to change and falls away. It is void,
            without a core, non-self.
            The Co states as to <disappeared materiality is both changed and void.>:
            Changeability (viparinama) by decay (jaraa) and falling away. And being void
            of this changeability: because changeability appears of the rupa that is
            present, there is no changeability of the rupa that is past.
            This is a short text with a long commentary.

            G: Ven. Nanamoli's translation would be helpful (I'm not sure on the
            policy regarding sharing PTS quotations.
            N: Quotations never are a problem.
            Nina.
          • Bhante Sujato
            Hi Rett, Geoff, Nina, etc. It s an interesting philosophical point, exploring the relation between different aspects such as impermanence, emptiness, etc.
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 20, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Rett, Geoff, Nina, etc.


              It's an interesting philosophical point, exploring the relation
              between different aspects such as impermanence, emptiness, etc.

              There's an essay on sabhava and sunna in the patisambhidamagga
              available on www.ocbs.org.

              Regarding the translations, i think Nanamoli's, as usual is very
              precise and accurate, though sometimes a little opaque. For the
              first question, we might say more idiomatically in English, how is
              change void?, or:

              In what sense is change empty?

              I see no problem in retaining the literal instrumental usage in the
              second line. Nanamoli keeps 'born' as the literal rendering
              of 'jaata', which is right but obscure; the meaning is 'presently
              arisen':

              Materiality that is presently arisen is empty by its own nature

              The last line perhaps needs to be rendered a little more
              idiomatically. Here it is obvious that 'viparinata', rendered
              by 'changed', really means 'ceased':

              Materiality that has disappeared is both changed and empty.


              thanks for raising this interesting snippet,


              in Dhamma

              Bhante Sujato




              > >
              > > Katama.m viparinaamasuñña.m
              > > jaata.m ruupa.m sabhaavena suñña.m,
              > vigata.m ruupa.m viparinatañ c'eva suññañ ca

              > Ven. Nanamoli's translation:
              > N: Treatise on Voidness, (XX, p. 357):

              > 5. What is voidness in change? Born materiality is void of
              individual
              > essence (sabhaava);
              > disappeared nateriality is both changed and void.
              >
            • rett
              Dear Bhante Sujato, Thanks for the interesting post. I have a couple of questions. ... I m hesitant to read it this way, not for dogmatic reasons concerning
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 21, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Bhante Sujato,

                Thanks for the interesting post. I have a couple of questions.

                >
                >I see no problem in retaining the literal instrumental usage in the
                >second line....

                >>jaata.m ruupa.m sabhaavena suñña.m,

                >Materiality that is presently arisen is empty by its own nature
                >

                I'm hesitant to read it this way, not for
                dogmatic reasons concerning the concept of
                'svabhaava', but just because the word suñña
                normally takes the instrumental to indicate what
                something is empty of. So I'd start out with:

                "Materiality that is presently arisen is empty _of_ (any) own-nature"

                Do you have a special reason, based on
                understanding of the text and its wider context,
                to wish to read it as a true instrument (kara.na)
                ? I would normally take this idiom as the default
                reading, and only read it the way you suggest if
                required by the context, or in order to fit into
                the doctrine being presented.

                > Here it is obvious that 'viparinata', rendered
                >by 'changed', really means 'ceased'

                This sounds good. Might the sense of 'ceased' be
                along the lines of 'changed away beyond all
                recognition'? (the prefix vi- having a completive
                and deprivative sense) I don't mean the this as a
                viable translation, just as an expansion on how
                'changed' can mean 'ceased'.

                This might be a clue to a possible point to this
                passage. It's telling us that when forms etc
                cease, they don't actually cease, they are
                transformed beyond recognition and their
                constituents move on into new combinations to
                make new forms.

                Similarly, when forms arise, they arise out of previously existing elements.

                So the point would be that there is no 'svabhava'
                in things. There is no svabhava that 'takes body'
                at birth, and no svabhava that 'departs' at
                death. Both are just processes of transformation.
                This passage could be specifically refuting a
                svabhava theory of birth and death, and
                explaining the alternative, namely, dependant
                origination.

                This is all just guesswork, of course, but it
                would support my reading of the instrumental
                'svabhaavena' being connected with suñña as
                'empty of' rather than 'empty by means of'.

                best regards,

                /Rett
              • Nina van Gorkom
                Venerable Bhante Sujato, dear Geoff, that is wonderful, Bhante. I repeat the text: Katama.m viparinaamasuñña.m jaata.m ruupa.m sabhaavena suñña.m, vigata.m
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 21, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Venerable Bhante Sujato, dear Geoff,
                  that is wonderful, Bhante.
                  I repeat the text:

                  Katama.m viparinaamasuñña.m
                  jaata.m ruupa.m sabhaavena suñña.m,
                  vigata.m ruupa.m viparinatañ c'eva suññañ ca

                  op 21-02-2005 00:19 schreef Bhante Sujato op sujato@...:
                  . For the
                  > first question, we might say more idiomatically in English, how is
                  > change void?, or:
                  >
                  > In what sense is change empty?
                  >
                  > I see no problem in retaining the literal instrumental usage in the
                  > second line. Nanamoli keeps 'born' as the literal rendering
                  > of 'jaata', which is right but obscure; the meaning is 'presently
                  > arisen':
                  N: The co states: <jaata.m ruupa.m: ruupa that has arisen. >
                  Bhante: Materiality that is presently arisen is empty by its own nature
                  N: I heard of many debates on sabhava (in dhamma study group yahoo), and
                  therefore. like you, I am inclined to translate it as 'own nature', or its
                  own distinctive nature. We can also say: its own distinctive characteristic.
                  In the Visuddhimagga it is translated by individual essence, but I feel
                  that such translations cause misunderstandings. I do not like essence.

                  Bhante: The last line perhaps needs to be rendered a little more
                  > idiomatically. Here it is obvious that 'viparinata', rendered
                  > by 'changed', really means 'ceased':
                  >
                  > Materiality that has disappeared is both changed and empty.
                  N: vigata.m ruupa.m viparinatañ c'eva suññañ ca
                  Ven. Nanamoli adds for vigata: disappeared.
                  Co. adds: changeability. <changeability by decay and falling away>. The
                  changeability appears of the rupa that is present. This cannot be said of
                  past rupa, it states.
                  As I understand, when rupa has fallen away it is empty of changeability.

                  I wrote something before about the characteristics of ruupa that may be of
                  interest:
                  <There are four characteristics that are inherent in all rúpas. These
                  characteristics have been classified as different rúpas, the lakkhana rúpas
                  (lakkhana means characteristic), which are the following:

                  arising or origination (upacaya)
                  continuity or development (santati)
                  decay or ageing (jaraaa)
                  falling away or impermanence (aniccataa)

                  These four lakkha.na rúpas are rúpas without their own distinct nature,
                  asabhåava rúpas, but they are themselves characteristics inherent in all
                  rúpas. These four characteristics are different: the arising of rúpa, its
                  development, its decay and its falling away.
                  Origination, upacaya rúpa, and continuity, santati rúpa, are characteristics
                  indicating the moments rúpa has arisen but not yet fallen away, whereas
                  decay, jaratåa rúpa, indicates the moment close to its falling away and
                  impermanence, aniccatåa rúpa, the moment of its falling away.>
                  When I read viparinaama, I am inclined to think of the very short moment of
                  ruupa that it is present, because then it is already close to its falling
                  away.

                  Geoff: I'm also curious about the relationship between the terms sunna and
                  rittaka. Are they synonyms? Do they hint at different connotations?

                  N: ritta hattha: empty fist. I am thinking of the Co to the
                  Satipa.t.thaanasutta, where it is explained that dhammas are anattaa. When
                  you open a fist, there is nothing there.
                  Majjhima NIkaaya III, from sutta 121 on, there is a whole vagga:
                  suññatavagga. The meaning is anattaa.
                  Here in the Pa.tisambhidaamagga different meanings are given and the long Co
                  is difficult reading. At the end it explains about the emptiness of lokiya
                  dhammas and nibbaana which are empty. As to lokiya dhammas: empty of
                  lastingness, beauty, sukha, self. The nature of impermanence is empty of
                  sukha, happiness. Nibbaana is empty of self. Since it is asankhata it is
                  empty of sankhaara. As to all dhammas, conditioned and uncondiitoned, they
                  are empty of self, because there is no person, no self.
                  I do not render all.
                  Nina.
                • Bhante Sujato
                  Hello Geoff and Nina The link for the essay i referred to earlier is here: http://www.ocbs.org/research/SabhaavaN.pdf ... Having checked the Culasunnata Sutta,
                  Message 8 of 15 , Feb 21, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello Geoff and Nina

                    The link for the essay i referred to earlier is here:

                    http://www.ocbs.org/research/SabhaavaN.pdf


                    > I repeat the text:
                    >
                    > Katama.m viparinaamasuñña.m
                    > jaata.m ruupa.m sabhaavena suñña.m,
                    > vigata.m ruupa.m viparinatañ c'eva suññañ ca
                    >
                    Having checked the Culasunnata Sutta, i see that you are right, the
                    instrumental is used with sunna to mean just 'empty of' (horses,
                    elephants, etc...).

                    Regarding viparinaama, i wonder whether it ever really means change;
                    as far as i've observed, in philosophical contexts it seems to
                    always mean disappeared, vanished. Bhikkhu Bodhi comments somewhere
                    that when referring to a human it often means 'death'.

                    Change is more like a~n~nathatta, as in the famous three
                    sankhatalakkhana: uppaado, vayo, .thitassa a~n~nathatta

                    (see AN 3.47, 48; incidentally, this pair of suttas (really just
                    fragments) is a good example of what appears to be the splitting of
                    one original text; merely remove the words '-ti' and 'sattamam' from
                    the end of AN 3.47, and voila! the two suttas become one, more
                    meaningful, sutta.)


                    ), and
                    > therefore. like you, I am inclined to translate it as 'own
                    nature', or its
                    > own distinctive nature.

                    Actually, i just went along with the group's rendering. I doubt if a
                    single rendering can really capture this phrase, which is certainly
                    used in different senses in different contexts. The Bhagavad Gita
                    says that svabhaava is the atman (don't ask me for the reference!),
                    and as you're aware, Nagarjuna accused the Abhidharmikas (actually
                    Sarvastivadins and Sautrantikas, apparently), of smuggling a similar
                    philosophical error into Buddhism through the savabhaavavaada.

                    > In the Visuddhimagga it is translated by individual essence, but
                    I feel
                    > that such translations cause misunderstandings. I do not like
                    essence.

                    The bhaava is of course derived from the root 'to be', and essence
                    comes from a similar root (although i believe that 'essence'
                    and 'existence' in English are related to the Pali word 'atthi',
                    Skt 'asti'). So there is some justification, but of course we must
                    look at the contextual usage, especially in abstruse philosophical
                    discourse.

                    > Co. adds: changeability. <changeability by decay and falling
                    away>. The
                    > changeability appears of the rupa that is present. This cannot be
                    said of
                    > past rupa, it states.
                    > As I understand, when rupa has fallen away it is empty of
                    changeability.

                    This is interesting philosophically, but i wonder whether it can be
                    derived from the text? It clearly says 'disappeared materiality is
                    changed and empty' (...c'eva...ca), not that when it is disappeared
                    it is empty of changeability. Perhaps the com. is drawing out
                    implications here.

                    >
                    > I wrote something before about the characteristics of ruupa that
                    may be of
                    > interest:
                    > <There are four characteristics that are inherent in all rúpas.
                    These
                    > characteristics have been classified as different rúpas, the
                    lakkhana rúpas
                    > (lakkhana means characteristic), which are the following:
                    >
                    > arising or origination (upacaya)
                    > continuity or development (santati)
                    > decay or ageing (jaraaa)
                    > falling away or impermanence (aniccataa)

                    This is interesting, Nina. As i understood the Theravada Abhidhamma,
                    they alway spoke of three sub-moments (anukkhana): arising, staying,
                    passing away. This was distinguished from the Sarvastivada, who
                    spoke of four : arising, staying, decay (jaraa), disappearance; and
                    the Sautrantika, who said that there are only two: arising and
                    ceasing.

                    The four you list here seem to be similar to the Sarvastivadin
                    conception; can you supply a reference for this? Or am i getting my
                    contexts mixed up (since you apply it here to just rupa, not as a
                    general description of the anukkhanas)?

                    Of course, the most interesting philosophical question is whether
                    the Theravadins fell into the same substantialist errors as their
                    brothers the sarvastivada (who probably invented the
                    Svabhaavavaada). It's obviously not an easy question to answer. It
                    seems clear enough that the Sarvastivadins went further than the
                    Theravadins; they frequently used the word 'dravya' (Pali 'dabba'?),
                    meaning 'substance' in reference to the svabhava, while i am not
                    aware of that term in the Theravada. On the other hand, the basic
                    definition of adhamma in terms of sabhava was shared : 'attano pana
                    sabhavam dharenti'ti dhamma. The essay i give the link to above
                    opines that the patisambhidamagga did not fall into substantialist
                    conceptions in its use of sabhava, but later Theravada did.
                    Certainly i have seen some statements by modern Theravada abhidhamma
                    scholars that clearly imply this. Perhaps there is simply not a
                    uniform conception through the school - which would hardly be an
                    unusual thing.

                    Anyway, lunch bell has rung...

                    in Dhamma

                    Bhante Sujato
                  • Nina van Gorkom
                    Venerable Bhante Sujato, thank you for your observations. I am off for a journey and will keep your post, with respect, Nina.
                    Message 9 of 15 , Feb 22, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Venerable Bhante Sujato,
                      thank you for your observations.
                      I am off for a journey and will keep your post,
                      with respect,
                      Nina.
                      op 22-02-2005 01:06 schreef Bhante Sujato op sujato@...:

                      >
                      >
                      > Hello Geoff and Nina
                      >
                      > The link for the essay i referred to earlier is here:
                      >
                      > http://www.ocbs.org/research/SabhaavaN.pdf
                      >
                    • Nina van Gorkom
                      Venerable Bhante Sujato, thank you for your post. See my remarks inserted. ... N: Viparinaama: in PED: changeability, but it is close to disappearing. I was
                      Message 10 of 15 , Feb 27, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Venerable Bhante Sujato,
                        thank you for your post. See my remarks inserted.
                        op 22-02-2005 01:06 schreef Bhante Sujato op sujato@...:
                        >> I repeat the text:
                        >>
                        >> Katama.m viparinaamasuñña.m
                        >> jaata.m ruupa.m sabhaavena suñña.m,
                        >> vigata.m ruupa.m viparinatañ c'eva suññañ ca
                        >>
                        > Having checked the Culasunnata Sutta, i see that you are right, the
                        > instrumental is used with sunna to mean just 'empty of' (horses,
                        > elephants, etc...).
                        >
                        > Regarding viparinaama, i wonder whether it ever really means change;
                        > as far as i've observed, in philosophical contexts it seems to
                        > always mean disappeared, vanished. Bhikkhu Bodhi comments somewhere
                        > that when referring to a human it often means 'death'.
                        N: Viparinaama: in PED: changeability, but it is close to disappearing. I
                        was thinking of dukkha-dukkha( bodily pain and unhappy feeling) viparinaama
                        dukkha: dukkha in change and sankhaara dukkha (dukkha of all conditioned
                        dhammas that are impermanent).
                        Bhante: Change is more like a~n~nathatta, as in the famous three
                        > sankhatalakkhana: uppaado, vayo, .thitassa a~n~nathatta
                        >
                        > (see AN 3.47, 48;
                        N: PTS transl: Gradual Sayings, Book of the Threes (III, 5, §47) Conditioned
                        (sankhata):
                        < Monks, there are three condition-marks of that which is conditioned. What
                        three?
                        Its genesis (upada) is apparent, its passing away (vaya) is apparent, its
                        changeability while it persists (jaraa) is apparent....>
                        The Co. elaborates that of what is conditioned (sankhata), upada appears
                        when it arises, jaraa (decay) appears when it persists and vaya when it
                        falls away.
                        (snipped)
                        >
                        N: Co. adds: changeability. <changeability by decay and falling
                        > away>. The changeability appears of the rupa that is present. This cannot be
                        > said of past rupa, it states.
                        >> As I understand, when rupa has fallen away it is empty of
                        > changeability.
                        >
                        Bhante: This is interesting philosophically, but i wonder whether it can be
                        > derived from the text? It clearly says 'disappeared materiality is
                        > changed and empty' (...c'eva...ca), not that when it is disappeared
                        > it is empty of changeability. Perhaps the com. is drawing out
                        > implications here.
                        N: I find the text and Co difficult to read.
                        <There are four characteristics that are inherent in all rúpas.
                        > These
                        >> characteristics have been classified as different rúpas, the
                        > lakkhana rúpas
                        >> (lakkhana means characteristic), which are the following:
                        >>
                        >> arising or origination (upacaya)
                        >> continuity or development (santati)
                        >> decay or ageing (jaraaa)
                        >> falling away or impermanence (aniccataa)
                        >
                        Bhante: This is interesting, Nina. As i understood the Theravada Abhidhamma,
                        > they alway spoke of three sub-moments (anukkhana): arising, staying,
                        > passing away. This was distinguished from the Sarvastivada, who
                        > spoke of four : arising, staying, decay (jaraa), disappearance; and
                        > the Sautrantika, who said that there are only two: arising and
                        > ceasing.
                        >
                        > The four you list here seem to be similar to the Sarvastivadin
                        > conception; can you supply a reference for this?
                        Nina: Here are some sources and this is from the article I translated from
                        Thai. It only concerns ruupa. The duration of ruupa compared to the duration
                        of citta: ruupa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, or, when
                        counting the three submoments of citta, fiftyone moments of citta.
                        <Issue of Analysis : what is the meaning of lakkhana rúpas, rúpas as
                        characteristics, as explained when we take into account the groups, kalåpas,
                        of rúpa?
                        Conclusion regarding the analysis of this issue:
                        1. Explanation according to the method of the groups of rúpa: the sabhåva
                        rúpas (rúpas with their own distinct nature) of each group must have all
                        four characteristics of origination of rúpa, upacaya rúpa, continuity of
                        rúpa, santati rúpa, decay of rúpa, jårata rúpa, and impermanence of rúpa,
                        aniccatå rúpa.
                        2. There is also an explanation of the meaning of these four characteristics
                        in a general way or in conventional sense, vohåra, such as in the
                        ³Atthasåliní².

                        The sources which support the conclusion of the analysis:
                        1. The Atthasåliní, the Commentary to the Dhammasangani, in the section on
                        rúpa.
                        2. Abhidhammattha Sangaha (Manual of Abhihamma), Ch 6.
                        3. The Abhidhammatthavibhåviní, the Commentary to the Abhidhammattha
                        Sangaha
                        4. The Paramattha Mañjuså, Commentary to the Visuddhimagga, in the
                        explanation ³by rúpakkhandha².
                        5. Sacca-sankhepa, ³Outlines of Truths² (This work is ascribed to Dhammapåla
                        of India, author of the Visuddhimagga Tíka, the subcommentary to the
                        Visuddhimagga. It is classified in Burmese bibliography, together with the
                        Abhidhammata Sangaha, as a group of nine ³little finger manuals² a group of
                        classical summaries. )
                        1. Explanation according to the method of the groups of rúpa.
                        If we take into account that each moment of citta can be subdivided into
                        three infinitesimal moments, each group, kalåpa, of rúpas lasts as long as
                        fiftyone sub-moments of citta. If we compare the duration of rúpa with the
                        duration of the fiftyone sub-moments of citta, the arising moment of rúpa,
                        upacaya rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the first sub-moment of citta. The
                        impermanence of rúpa, aniccatå rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the last
                        sub-moment of citta, the fiftyfirst sub-moment of citta. Continuity, santati
                        rúpa, and decay, jaratå rúpa, are reckoned to come in between these moments,
                        thus, from the second sub-moment until the fiftieth sub-moment of citta.
                        Each group of rúpas must have all four characteristics of rúpa.
                        As is stated in the ³Dhammasangani²(643), ³What is subsistence of rúpa? That
                        which is upacaya rúpa (integration or the arising moment of rúpa) is santati
                        rúpa (subsistence or continuation of rúpa) This is subsistence of rúpa².
                        When there is upacaya rúpa, the origination of rúpa, there must also be
                        santati rúpa, the continuation after the origination, because that rúpa has
                        not fallen away yet.
                        When we take into consideration the characteristics of realities, rúpa is
                        sankhata dhamma, conditioned dhamma, and therefore, it arises and falls
                        away. In between the moment of the arising of rúpa and its falling away,
                        there must be its continuation and decaying until the moment of its falling
                        away. Upacaya, the origination of rúpa and santati, its continuation, are
                        aspects of arising, whereas decay, jaratå, and impermanence, aniccatå, are
                        aspects of its falling away.
                        Each kalåpa, group of rúpas arises due to its own origination factor
                        independently of the other groups of rúpa. Therefore, each group of rúpas
                        must have its arising moment, upacaya. When we take into account the method
                        of explanation according to the groups of rúpa, it cannot be said that the
                        origination moment of rúpa, upacaya, occurs only at the moment of
                        rebirth-consciousness, and that after the rebirth-consciousness has fallen
                        away, the arising moment of the groups of rúpa is santati, continuation.

                        2. Explanation in a general way or in conventional sense, vohåra :
                        The Atthasåliní, the Commentary to the Dhammasangani, in the section on
                        rúpa, in the explanation of upacaya and santati (II, Book II, Part I, Ch
                        III, 327) states: ³In the real sense both integration and continuity are
                        synonyms of the production (arising) of rúpa.... ŒThat which is the
                        accumulation of the åyatanas (sense organs) is the arising of rúpa¹. ŒThat
                        which is the arising of rúpa is continuity of rúpa¹ ².
                        This whole passage explains the meaning of the characteristics of upacaya,
                        arising, and santati, continuity, in a wider sense, by way of conventional
                        terms.>
                        End quote.

                        Bhante: Or am i getting my
                        > contexts mixed up (since you apply it here to just rupa, not as a
                        > general description of the anukkhanas)?
                        N: Only to ruupa.
                        Bhante; Of course, the most interesting philosophical question is whether
                        > the Theravadins fell into the same substantialist errors as their
                        > brothers the sarvastivada (who probably invented the
                        > Svabhaavavaada). It's obviously not an easy question to answer. It
                        > seems clear enough that the Sarvastivadins went further than the
                        > Theravadins; they frequently used the word 'dravya' (Pali 'dabba'?),
                        > meaning 'substance' in reference to the svabhava, while i am not
                        > aware of that term in the Theravada.
                        N: I meet this term all the time in the Visuddhimagga. I do not see any
                        substance implied, it is just a distinctive nature, but only very momentary.
                        Close to the meaning of characteristic. When looking at the context I do not
                        see any problem of substantialism. The following examples may throw some
                        light on this.
                        Ruupas are distinguished as sabhaava ruupas and asabhaava ruupas:
                        Rúpas with their own distinct nature are sabhåva rúpas. The four Great
                        Elements, for example are sabhåva rúpas. Hardness is a characteristic of the
                        Element of earth, motion is a characteristic of the Element of Wind. They
                        have distinct characteristics.
                        There are also asabhåva rúpas, rúpas without their own distinct nature.
                        These are: the qualities of rúpa which are lightness, plasticity and
                        wieldiness, the bodily intimation and speech intimation which are ³a certain
                        unique change in the eight inseparable rúpas², space, akåsa, that
                        delimitates the groups of rúpas, and the four characteristics inherent in
                        all rúpas.
                        (snipped).
                        With respect,
                        Nina.
                      • Bhante Sujato
                        Hi Nina Wow! That s some reply. Thanks for taking the time to answer me fully; it s cleared up a number of the issues involved. Incidentally, on dabba , i
                        Message 11 of 15 , Feb 27, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Nina


                          Wow! That's some reply. Thanks for taking the time to answer me
                          fully; it's cleared up a number of the issues involved.

                          Incidentally, on 'dabba', i just noticed that it's also used in the
                          Jain philosophy, though i don't know the exact sense.


                          in Dhamma

                          bhante Sujato



                          --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@x> wrote:
                          > Venerable Bhante Sujato,
                          > thank you for your post. See my remarks inserted.
                          > op 22-02-2005 01:06 schreef Bhante Sujato op sujato@d...:
                          > >> I repeat the text:
                          > >>
                          > >> Katama.m viparinaamasuñña.m
                          > >> jaata.m ruupa.m sabhaavena suñña.m,
                          > >> vigata.m ruupa.m viparinatañ c'eva suññañ ca
                          > >>
                          > > Having checked the Culasunnata Sutta, i see that you are right,
                          the
                          > > instrumental is used with sunna to mean just 'empty of' (horses,
                          > > elephants, etc...).
                          > >
                          > > Regarding viparinaama, i wonder whether it ever really means
                          change;
                          > > as far as i've observed, in philosophical contexts it seems to
                          > > always mean disappeared, vanished. Bhikkhu Bodhi comments
                          somewhere
                          > > that when referring to a human it often means 'death'.
                          > N: Viparinaama: in PED: changeability, but it is close to
                          disappearing. I
                          > was thinking of dukkha-dukkha( bodily pain and unhappy feeling)
                          viparinaama
                          > dukkha: dukkha in change and sankhaara dukkha (dukkha of all
                          conditioned
                          > dhammas that are impermanent).
                          > Bhante: Change is more like a~n~nathatta, as in the famous three
                          > > sankhatalakkhana: uppaado, vayo, .thitassa a~n~nathatta
                          > >
                          > > (see AN 3.47, 48;
                          > N: PTS transl: Gradual Sayings, Book of the Threes (III, 5, §47)
                          Conditioned
                          > (sankhata):
                          > < Monks, there are three condition-marks of that which is
                          conditioned. What
                          > three?
                          > Its genesis (upada) is apparent, its passing away (vaya) is
                          apparent, its
                          > changeability while it persists (jaraa) is apparent....>
                          > The Co. elaborates that of what is conditioned (sankhata), upada
                          appears
                          > when it arises, jaraa (decay) appears when it persists and vaya
                          when it
                          > falls away.
                          > (snipped)
                          > >
                          > N: Co. adds: changeability. <changeability by decay and falling
                          > > away>. The changeability appears of the rupa that is present.
                          This cannot be
                          > > said of past rupa, it states.
                          > >> As I understand, when rupa has fallen away it is empty of
                          > > changeability.
                          > >
                          > Bhante: This is interesting philosophically, but i wonder whether
                          it can be
                          > > derived from the text? It clearly says 'disappeared materiality
                          is
                          > > changed and empty' (...c'eva...ca), not that when it is
                          disappeared
                          > > it is empty of changeability. Perhaps the com. is drawing out
                          > > implications here.
                          > N: I find the text and Co difficult to read.
                          > <There are four characteristics that are inherent in all rúpas.
                          > > These
                          > >> characteristics have been classified as different rúpas, the
                          > > lakkhana rúpas
                          > >> (lakkhana means characteristic), which are the following:
                          > >>
                          > >> arising or origination (upacaya)
                          > >> continuity or development (santati)
                          > >> decay or ageing (jaraaa)
                          > >> falling away or impermanence (aniccataa)
                          > >
                          > Bhante: This is interesting, Nina. As i understood the Theravada
                          Abhidhamma,
                          > > they alway spoke of three sub-moments (anukkhana): arising,
                          staying,
                          > > passing away. This was distinguished from the Sarvastivada, who
                          > > spoke of four : arising, staying, decay (jaraa), disappearance;
                          and
                          > > the Sautrantika, who said that there are only two: arising and
                          > > ceasing.
                          > >
                          > > The four you list here seem to be similar to the Sarvastivadin
                          > > conception; can you supply a reference for this?
                          > Nina: Here are some sources and this is from the article I
                          translated from
                          > Thai. It only concerns ruupa. The duration of ruupa compared to
                          the duration
                          > of citta: ruupa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, or,
                          when
                          > counting the three submoments of citta, fiftyone moments of citta.
                          > <Issue of Analysis : what is the meaning of lakkhana rúpas, rúpas
                          as
                          > characteristics, as explained when we take into account the
                          groups, kalåpas,
                          > of rúpa?
                          > Conclusion regarding the analysis of this issue:
                          > 1. Explanation according to the method of the groups of rúpa: the
                          sabhåva
                          > rúpas (rúpas with their own distinct nature) of each group must
                          have all
                          > four characteristics of origination of rúpa, upacaya rúpa,
                          continuity of
                          > rúpa, santati rúpa, decay of rúpa, jårata rúpa, and impermanence
                          of rúpa,
                          > aniccatå rúpa.
                          > 2. There is also an explanation of the meaning of these four
                          characteristics
                          > in a general way or in conventional sense, vohåra, such as in the
                          > ³Atthasåliní².
                          >
                          > The sources which support the conclusion of the analysis:
                          > 1. The Atthasåliní, the Commentary to the Dhammasangani, in the
                          section on
                          > rúpa.
                          > 2. Abhidhammattha Sangaha (Manual of Abhihamma), Ch 6.
                          > 3. The Abhidhammatthavibhåviní, the Commentary to the
                          Abhidhammattha
                          > Sangaha
                          > 4. The Paramattha Mañjuså, Commentary to the Visuddhimagga, in the
                          > explanation ³by rúpakkhandha².
                          > 5. Sacca-sankhepa, ³Outlines of Truths² (This work is ascribed to
                          Dhammapåla
                          > of India, author of the Visuddhimagga Tíka, the subcommentary to
                          the
                          > Visuddhimagga. It is classified in Burmese bibliography, together
                          with the
                          > Abhidhammata Sangaha, as a group of nine ³little finger manuals² a
                          group of
                          > classical summaries. )
                          > 1. Explanation according to the method of the groups of rúpa.
                          > If we take into account that each moment of citta can be
                          subdivided into
                          > three infinitesimal moments, each group, kalåpa, of rúpas lasts as
                          long as
                          > fiftyone sub-moments of citta. If we compare the duration of rúpa
                          with the
                          > duration of the fiftyone sub-moments of citta, the arising moment
                          of rúpa,
                          > upacaya rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the first sub-moment of
                          citta. The
                          > impermanence of rúpa, aniccatå rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the
                          last
                          > sub-moment of citta, the fiftyfirst sub-moment of citta.
                          Continuity, santati
                          > rúpa, and decay, jaratå rúpa, are reckoned to come in between
                          these moments,
                          > thus, from the second sub-moment until the fiftieth sub-moment of
                          citta.
                          > Each group of rúpas must have all four characteristics of rúpa.
                          > As is stated in the ³Dhammasangani²(643), ³What is subsistence of
                          rúpa? That
                          > which is upacaya rúpa (integration or the arising moment of rúpa)
                          is santati
                          > rúpa (subsistence or continuation of rúpa) This is subsistence of
                          rúpa².
                          > When there is upacaya rúpa, the origination of rúpa, there must
                          also be
                          > santati rúpa, the continuation after the origination, because that
                          rúpa has
                          > not fallen away yet.
                          > When we take into consideration the characteristics of realities,
                          rúpa is
                          > sankhata dhamma, conditioned dhamma, and therefore, it arises and
                          falls
                          > away. In between the moment of the arising of rúpa and its falling
                          away,
                          > there must be its continuation and decaying until the moment of
                          its falling
                          > away. Upacaya, the origination of rúpa and santati, its
                          continuation, are
                          > aspects of arising, whereas decay, jaratå, and impermanence,
                          aniccatå, are
                          > aspects of its falling away.
                          > Each kalåpa, group of rúpas arises due to its own origination
                          factor
                          > independently of the other groups of rúpa. Therefore, each group
                          of rúpas
                          > must have its arising moment, upacaya. When we take into account
                          the method
                          > of explanation according to the groups of rúpa, it cannot be said
                          that the
                          > origination moment of rúpa, upacaya, occurs only at the moment of
                          > rebirth-consciousness, and that after the rebirth-consciousness
                          has fallen
                          > away, the arising moment of the groups of rúpa is santati,
                          continuation.
                          >
                          > 2. Explanation in a general way or in conventional sense, vohåra :
                          > The Atthasåliní, the Commentary to the Dhammasangani, in the
                          section on
                          > rúpa, in the explanation of upacaya and santati (II, Book II, Part
                          I, Ch
                          > III, 327) states: ³In the real sense both integration and
                          continuity are
                          > synonyms of the production (arising) of rúpa.... ŒThat which is the
                          > accumulation of the åyatanas (sense organs) is the arising of
                          rúpa¹. ŒThat
                          > which is the arising of rúpa is continuity of rúpa¹ ².
                          > This whole passage explains the meaning of the characteristics of
                          upacaya,
                          > arising, and santati, continuity, in a wider sense, by way of
                          conventional
                          > terms.>
                          > End quote.
                          >
                          > Bhante: Or am i getting my
                          > > contexts mixed up (since you apply it here to just rupa, not as a
                          > > general description of the anukkhanas)?
                          > N: Only to ruupa.
                          > Bhante; Of course, the most interesting philosophical question is
                          whether
                          > > the Theravadins fell into the same substantialist errors as their
                          > > brothers the sarvastivada (who probably invented the
                          > > Svabhaavavaada). It's obviously not an easy question to answer.
                          It
                          > > seems clear enough that the Sarvastivadins went further than the
                          > > Theravadins; they frequently used the word 'dravya'
                          (Pali 'dabba'?),
                          > > meaning 'substance' in reference to the svabhava, while i am not
                          > > aware of that term in the Theravada.
                          > N: I meet this term all the time in the Visuddhimagga. I do not
                          see any
                          > substance implied, it is just a distinctive nature, but only very
                          momentary.
                          > Close to the meaning of characteristic. When looking at the
                          context I do not
                          > see any problem of substantialism. The following examples may
                          throw some
                          > light on this.
                          > Ruupas are distinguished as sabhaava ruupas and asabhaava ruupas:
                          > Rúpas with their own distinct nature are sabhåva rúpas. The four
                          Great
                          > Elements, for example are sabhåva rúpas. Hardness is a
                          characteristic of the
                          > Element of earth, motion is a characteristic of the Element of
                          Wind. They
                          > have distinct characteristics.
                          > There are also asabhåva rúpas, rúpas without their own distinct
                          nature.
                          > These are: the qualities of rúpa which are lightness, plasticity
                          and
                          > wieldiness, the bodily intimation and speech intimation which are
                          ³a certain
                          > unique change in the eight inseparable rúpas², space, akåsa, that
                          > delimitates the groups of rúpas, and the four characteristics
                          inherent in
                          > all rúpas.
                          > (snipped).
                          > With respect,
                          > Nina.
                        • Bhante Sujato
                          Hi all, ... I have just been discussing this point with Rupert Gethin, who believes that the term dabba , while occuring occasionally in non-technical senses,
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jun 22, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi all,

                            Here's a snippet of an old conversation between myself and Nina:

                            > It
                            > > > seems clear enough that the Sarvastivadins went further than the
                            > > > Theravadins; they frequently used the word 'dravya'
                            > (Pali 'dabba'?),
                            > > > meaning 'substance' in reference to the svabhava, while i am not
                            > > > aware of that term in the Theravada.
                            > > N: I meet this term all the time in the Visuddhimagga. I do not
                            > see any
                            > > substance implied, it is just a distinctive nature, but only very
                            > momentary.
                            > > Close to the meaning of characteristic.

                            I have just been discussing this point with Rupert Gethin, who
                            believes that the term 'dabba', while occuring occasionally in
                            non-technical senses, does not occur with as a technical term in the
                            Theravadin abhidhamma. Can Nina or anyone else point me to any
                            technical uses of 'dabba' in Theravada abhidhamma?

                            in Dhamma

                            Bhante Sujato
                          • Ole Holten Pind
                            Dear Bhante, The word denotes any given substance like in Sanskrit. I have hardly ever come across it except in grammatical literature. So far I have not seen
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jun 22, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Bhante,

                              The word denotes any given substance like in Sanskrit. I have hardly ever
                              come across it except in grammatical literature. So far I have not seen the
                              word in the context of sabhaava "essential nature." I may be wrong, though.
                              I would appreciate references. In early sources is it a gotta name: dabba
                              mallaputta, if I remember correctly.

                              Regards,
                              Ole Holten Pind


                              Hi all,

                              Here's a snippet of an old conversation between myself and Nina:

                              > It
                              > > > seems clear enough that the Sarvastivadins went further than the
                              > > > Theravadins; they frequently used the word 'dravya'
                              > (Pali 'dabba'?),
                              > > > meaning 'substance' in reference to the svabhava, while i am not
                              > > > aware of that term in the Theravada.
                              > > N: I meet this term all the time in the Visuddhimagga. I do not
                              > see any
                              > > substance implied, it is just a distinctive nature, but only very
                              > momentary.
                              > > Close to the meaning of characteristic.

                              I have just been discussing this point with Rupert Gethin, who
                              believes that the term 'dabba', while occuring occasionally in
                              non-technical senses, does not occur with as a technical term in the
                              Theravadin abhidhamma. Can Nina or anyone else point me to any
                              technical uses of 'dabba' in Theravada abhidhamma?

                              in Dhamma

                              Bhante Sujato






                              <http://promos.hotbar.com/promos/promodll.dll?RunPromo&El=&SG=&RAND=43589&pa
                              rtner=hbtools> Upgrade Your Email - Click here!



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • nina van gorkom
                              Venerable Bhante Sujato, I did not meet with this term in the Abhidhamma. PED gives the meanings: fit, able, worthy. substance, property, etc. respectfully,
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jun 22, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Venerable Bhante Sujato,
                                I did not meet with this term in the Abhidhamma.
                                PED gives the meanings: fit, able, worthy. substance, property, etc.
                                respectfully,
                                Nina.
                                op 22-06-2006 16:33 schreef Bhante Sujato op sujato@...:

                                I have just been discussing this point with Rupert Gethin, who
                                believes that the term 'dabba', while occuring occasionally in
                                non-technical senses, does not occur with as a technical term in the
                                Theravadin abhidhamma.



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Bhante Sujato
                                Hi Nina and Ole, Thanks for your replies. So it seems, until further information, likely that dabba is indeed not a Theravada abhidhamma term, and stands as
                                Message 15 of 15 , Jun 27, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Nina and Ole,

                                  Thanks for your replies. So it seems, until further information,
                                  likely that 'dabba' is indeed not a Theravada abhidhamma term, and
                                  stands as a distinctive difference from the Sarvastivada in this respect.

                                  metta

                                  Bhante Sujato


                                  --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ole Holten Pind" <oleholtenpind@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Dear Bhante,
                                  >
                                  > The word denotes any given substance like in Sanskrit. I have hardly
                                  ever
                                  > come across it except in grammatical literature. So far I have not
                                  seen the
                                  > word in the context of sabhaava "essential nature." I may be wrong,
                                  though.
                                  > I would appreciate references. In early sources is it a gotta name:
                                  dabba
                                  > mallaputta, if I remember correctly.
                                  >
                                  > Regards,
                                  > Ole Holten Pind
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Hi all,
                                  >
                                  > Here's a snippet of an old conversation between myself and Nina:
                                  >
                                  > > It
                                  > > > > seems clear enough that the Sarvastivadins went further than the
                                  > > > > Theravadins; they frequently used the word 'dravya'
                                  > > (Pali 'dabba'?),
                                  > > > > meaning 'substance' in reference to the svabhava, while i am not
                                  > > > > aware of that term in the Theravada.
                                  > > > N: I meet this term all the time in the Visuddhimagga. I do not
                                  > > see any
                                  > > > substance implied, it is just a distinctive nature, but only very
                                  > > momentary.
                                  > > > Close to the meaning of characteristic.
                                  >
                                  > I have just been discussing this point with Rupert Gethin, who
                                  > believes that the term 'dabba', while occuring occasionally in
                                  > non-technical senses, does not occur with as a technical term in the
                                  > Theravadin abhidhamma. Can Nina or anyone else point me to any
                                  > technical uses of 'dabba' in Theravada abhidhamma?
                                  >
                                  > in Dhamma
                                  >
                                  > Bhante Sujato
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  <http://promos.hotbar.com/promos/promodll.dll?RunPromo&El=&SG=&RAND=43589&pa
                                  > rtner=hbtools> Upgrade Your Email - Click here!
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.