Hi Nina,

thanks for your response.

> N: Thus, there is, as you will agree, there are samutti sacca, and
> parama.t.tha sacca. Samutti sacca points to parama.t.tha sacca in
> using pa~n~nattis, concepts.
> I think we find these two kinds of truths all the time, in each of
> the three parts of the pi.takas. At first hand suttas with
> conventional truth seem easy reading, but then we forget the deeper
> meaning explained by means of conventional terms. We do not get the
> deep message taught by the Buddha.

I really hope I do not offend anyone on this list here, but I am very
glad to talk about this with Nina, my favorite Abhidhamma expert! -

I agree with you a 100% on the distinction of using paramattha and
conventional language as tools. If I were to point out anicca in each
moment, I would not be able to talk to you :-) - but do a meditation
session instead.

Anyway, I think the discussion was initially on vitakka and vicara
which (to me) seem used quite conventionally. Describing beautifully
(parts) of the 1. jhana.

I know that soon after the parinibbana many more "ultimate dhammas"
where established (i.e. in the various Abhidhamma schools) and even
things like "gender" or "vitakka" where included as "ultimate
realities" when ultimately (LOL) they are not. Taking the example of
"carbon" as a fundament of any organic substance - this is like the
Buddha saying anicca, dukkha, anatta with regard to the entire
six-sense-experience. Period. You cannot go below that. (Samyutta
Nikaya - Salayatana - "Sabbasutta"). If you'd try, you always end up
with yet another six-fold-sense experience.

Now we know we can de-construct any organic material into carbon. The
same relationship between paramattha and samutti. We know that
vitakka, vicara, gender, health, beauty, sounds, pain etc etc. can all
be reduced to the 5 groups / or six-sense-experience (I must add
stress is on experience NOT 'perceived' abstract reality - big difference!).
So why add more and more and more complicated classifications?
Probably a very human need for ... hm, proliferation?

So, if the abhidhammas purpose is to show us ultimate reality by
enlisting all these "new" classification schemes (i.e. new concepts),
it does a fairly poor job in comparison to the suttas (which are
extremely simple and to the point on this topic and never go beyond
stating something as experienced, whereas the Abhidhamma makes us
believe that these "dhammas" are realities in and by themself, thus
forgetting consciousness in its own reality-explanation...ouch).

But I know, that is just an opinion too :-)

Practically, however, - when it boils down to samatha/vipassana
practice - the description of the 5 groups of grasping is all we would
actually need in terms of "concepts". Don't you think?
All of these "paramattha" truths are concepts as well (right now, in
this moment) and they fulfill their rason d'etre if they guide us to
awkening.

So, coming back to where I had started I do not see any reference to
"ultimate reality" in sutta (!) passages where the Buddha talks about
jhana. I understand that might very well be completely different when
reading the same sutta text with an abhidhamma schooled eye.

Thanks Nina for your insights,

Lennart

.