69271Re: Antw.: [dsg] Q. Rupas, Ch 1, no 2
- Mar 6, 2007Hi RobK (not KenH :-),
On 06/03/07, rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, TGrand458@... wrote:
> Western science is so limited compared to Dhamma- so many models with
> complex abstrations like quarks and photons,
You are exactly right here. Science works with models, and
abstractions. Scientists do not believe that there are actual
electrons, protons, neutrons to be found, these are explanatory
devices to account for the behaviour of matter that we are all
but they never get to
> actual elements like tejo and vayo.
This is where things go terribly wrong. Because you believe that the
Abhidhamma is not just a model of reality, which I believe it to be,
you believe it is how it actually is !? You believe in actual,
literal, essential paramattha dhammas.
I, being of a scientific bent, seek to explain this, and I have come
up with the following. You have approached the Abhidhamma in the light
of what Buddhaghosa has had to say about it. And what Buddhaghosa has
had to say about it is in stark contrast to the commentarial
guidelines that actually come with the Abhidhamma, the Katthavatthu.
In preferring Buddhaghosa, who wrote some 700 / 800 years after
Mogalliputta-tissa directions about how not to read the Abhidhamma,
you show a preference for a substantialist/essentialist, reductionist,
absolutist kind of world. This approach is distinctly at odds with the
way the KatthaVatthu directs the student to approach the Abhidhamma.
If you interested in pursuing the matter, I point you to the following
A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities, by
David J. Kalupahana; University of Hawaii Press, 1992
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>