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.... That which is the
accumulation of the åyatanas (sense organs) is the arising of rúpa¹. That
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.