- Dear Herman, group ... I would hesitate to call these irreducible just as I would hesitate to call them reducible, but they certainly serve as limits toMessage 1 of 98 , Oct 27, 2012View SourceDear Herman, group
--- In email@example.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
> Well said.
> Would you say that an irreducible such as the rupa of nutriment, or the
> irreducible rupa of life-force is illustrative of something real, and/or
> not capable of being further reduced?
I would hesitate to call these irreducible just as I would hesitate to call them reducible, but they certainly serve as limits to experience, & fit Philip K Dick's definition as things we can't send to oblivion based on our unbelief.
But reading this led to me question if I understand Abhidhamma's teaching on rupa properly. I must admit that rupa (as well as the 24 patthana) is an area I haven't delved into as deeply as I have cittas & cetasikas, but I have went this far in my studies understanding the upadaya rupas to be reducible, ultimately, to the four mahabhutas, while at the same time occurring in the flow of experience as definite "wholes" &, therefore, serving as paramattha dhammas also.
I am fuzzy on this, though: there is certainly a distinction between the way that the body viscerally forces us to start breathing again & the reduction of this experience into components. At any time, the mahabhutas serve as an undercurrent of necessary parts to the architecture of experience of physicality --- that is, we cannot even begin to describe an experience of physicality without recourse to extension (pathavi), heat (tejo), motion (vayu) & cohesion (apo). Also, though, there is the definite presence of the derived or upadaya rupas in experience of physicality also --- that is, we cannot conceive of an upadaya rupa without the mahabhutas, but we can conceive of the mahabhutas without a particular upadaya.
If you dislike the word "conceive" here, take it as "limit to mundane experience".
Now my questions are:
Are upadaya rupas ultimately reducible to mahabhutas?
If so, is there a subtle similarity between how upadaya rupas & mahabhutas relate compared with how cittas & cetasikas relate? It is something I am picking up on.
Assuming I'm not way out to lunch here, it would seem that there is a subtle distinction in the way that component parts can themselves serve as elements of experience while at the same time forming complexes which occur as new, though derivable elements of the same experience. The pain of embarrassment, for instance, is truly felt & is therefore real but the way the dialogue internally occurs in the mind that gives rise to such embarrassment is based on unreal things.
- Good friends all, On this mere excerpt: So for me, dhamma is all three pitakas (though I m obviously not a ... Comments??? yours in Dhamma-vinaya, ChuckMessage 98 of 98 , Jan 28, 2013View SourceGood friends all,
On this mere excerpt:> So for me, dhamma is all three pitakas (though I'm obviously not a
> bhikkhu, so much of the vinaya is not applicable). And I figure if itComments???
> exists in there, it *could* be useful. The Theras seem to think so.As a former bhikkhu, I strongly suggest lay persons become familiar with the Vinaya-pitaka. Just the areas between the monk and the lay person... It will prevent many misunderstandings...
yours in Dhamma-vinaya,
Chuck (formerly phra dhammasaro)
............................ Rest deleted as requested ....................................................................................................................
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]