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@...> wrote:
> 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.