Re: Paramattha dhammas
- Dear Nina,
Op 26 jul 2013, om 05:11 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven:
> Thomas: The term, abhidhamma, is not found in the SN suttas (PTS, Pali-English Dictionary, p. 65).---
> N: You find it in M I, 214, 218. But what does abhidhamma really mean, that is more important than just tracing a term. Higher dhamma, dhamma in detail is a translation.Thomas: According to the PTS Pali-English Dictionary, p. 65, the term abhidhamma is also found in D III.267, and the term "probably came into use only towards the end of the period in which the 4 great Nikaayas grew up".
Note: The Abhidhamma collections were not taught by the historical Buddha.
> Th: The term, paramattha dhammaa (or paramattha), seems also not found in the Vibhanga Abbhidhamma, which its topics bear certain resemblance to the structure of the SN suttas collection (The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 242, 252). The Vibhanga Abbhidhamma is considered to be the oldest in the Abhidhammapitaka (Oskar von Hinuber, A Handbook of the Pali Literature, p. 69).---
> According to the SN suttas, the Buddha did not use the term paramattha dhammaa (or paramattha) for his teachings.
> N: Let me first deal with paramattha dhamma.Thomas: I certainly have no problem with the meaning of the Buddha's teachings: `anicca, dukkha, anatta', which clearly indicated in the suttas (particularly the SN suttas).
> N: Paramattha: in the highest sense, truth in the highest sense. The term you may not find in the suttas, but what it means, that is another matter. The meaning is more important than just knowing the term. We read that the Buddha said: ruupakkhandha is anicca, impermanent, It is essential to understand the difference between the conventional world and the truth in the highest sense that only a Buddha can teach. Then it will matter less what words are used to express the meaning of the truth. Words can be Pali, English, Thai, whatever language you choose.
As I said before, the reasons why I object to the use of the term "paramattha dhamma" are:
First, the Buddha did not use the term for his teachings (particularly according to the SN suttas) ; second, the concept of `paramattha dhamma' is being used in the sense (or theory) of a metaphysical entity (absolute reality), which is far away from the fundamental teachings of Early Buddhism; and finally, according to the SN suttas , there is no need to name paramattha dhamma or absolute reality (for both the five aggregates and nibbana), but to see (passati) and to know (jaanaati) directly bodily and mental phenomena 'dhammas' (such as the five aggregates, the sense spheres) as they really are (yathaabhuuta.m) as 'anicca, dukkha, anatta', as 'the four truths', as 'the middle way', and as the dhammas of `pa.ticcasamuppaada'.
Note: I do not see any Pali suttas (particularly the SN suttas) record the Buddha as saying that "in reality there are only dhammas, or everything itself is dhamma", which is the expression in the sense of a metaphysical entity.
But I do see Pali suttas (particularly the SN suttas) record the Buddha as teaching that at the present moment one sees and knows bodily and mental phenomena as, for example, `anicca, dukkha, anatta'.
- Dear Thomas,
Op 3 aug 2013, om 03:49 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven:
> Th: Thanks for your reply. It brought my attention to it. Yes, according to the SN suttas, one should first fully know the phenomena of the five aggregates (nama-rupa) themselves, and then fully see them as anicca, dukkha, or anatta.------
N: That is right. Sati and pa~n~naa have to attend to their characteristics when they appear and this is, as Acharn Sujin says, beyond words. It is not thinking about them. But for all of us it takes quite some time before we really understand this. We are bound to take thinking for awareness. Above all, there is no person who is trying to know, sati and pa~n~naa perform their functions. They arise because of conditions and these are listening to the Dhamma and considering it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]