-1

This question could comprise of many examples but here I will choose one and only four aspects of this one example. The Abhidhamma says:

Rūpakkhandho anārammaṇo. 530.2Cattāro khandhā sārammaṇā. 530.3Viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ. 530.4Cattāro khandhā no cittā. 530.5Tayo khandhā cetasikā. 530.6Dve khandhā acetasikā. 530.7Tayo khandhā cittasampayuttā. 530.8Rūpakkhandho cittavippayutto. 530.9Viññāṇakkhandho na vattabbo— 530.10“cittena sampayutto”tipi, “cittena vippayutto”tipi. 530.11Tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā. 530.12Rūpakkhandho cittavisaṁsaṭṭho. 530.13Viññāṇakkhandho na vattabbo— 530.14“cittena saṁsaṭṭho”tipi, “cittena visaṁsaṭṭho”tipi. 530.15Tayo khandhā cittasamuṭṭhānā. 530.16Viññāṇakkhandho no cittasamuṭṭhāno. 530.17Rūpakkhandho siyā cittasamuṭṭhāno, siyā no cittasamuṭṭhāno. 530.18Tayo khandhā cittasahabhuno. 530.19Viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū. 530.20Rūpakkhandho siyā cittasahabhū, siyā no cittasahabhū. 530.21Tayo khandhā cittānuparivattino. 530.22Viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti. 530.23Rūpakkhandho siyā cittānuparivatti, siyā no cittānuparivatti. 530.24Tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānā. 530.25Dve khandhā no cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānā. 530.26Tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānasahabhuno. 530.27Dve khandhā no cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānasahabhuno. 530.28Tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānānuparivattino. 530.29Dve khandhā no cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānānuparivattino.

531.1Viññāṇakkhandho ajjhattiko. 531.2Tayo khandhā bāhirā. 531.3Rūpakkhandho siyā ajjhattiko, siyā bāhiro.

The aggregate of form has no object. Four aggregates have objects. The aggregate of consciousness is consciousness. Four aggregates are not consciousness. Three aggregates are volitional activities. Two aggregates are not volitional activities. Three aggregates are associated with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not associated with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said to be, associated with consciousness or not associated with consciousness. Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said to be, conjoined with consciousness or not conjoined with consciousness. Three aggregates are generated by consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness is not generated by consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes is generated by consciousness; sometimes is not generated by consciousness. Three aggregates are co-existent with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness is not co-existent with consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes is co-existent with consciousness; sometimes is not co-existent with consciousness. Three aggregates accompany consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness does not accompany consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes accompanies consciousness; sometimes does not accompany consciousness. Three aggregates are conjoined with, generated by consciousness. Two aggregates are not conjoined with, not generated by consciousness. Three aggregates are conjoined with, generated by, co-existent with consciousness. Two aggregates are not conjoined with, not generated by, not co-existent with consciousness. Three aggregates are conjoined with, generated by, accompany consciousness. Two aggregates are not conjoined with, not generated by, do not accompany consciousness.

https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila

If we ignore the literal translation, the above appears to say:

  1. Consciousness aggregate is citta (viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ).

  2. Three aggregates (feeling, perception and mental formations) are conjoined with citta (tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā).

  3. Consciousness does not co-exist with citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū).

  4. The aggregate of consciousness does not accompany citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti).

Are there any suttas that support the above Abhidhamma and also are there any suttas that refute the above Abhidhamma?

0

Consciousness aggregate is citta (viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ).

Yes.

Three aggregates (feeling, perception and mental formations) are conjoined with citta (tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā).

No. Cittasaṁsaṭṭhā means arising together because it is described in the same canon "idaṃ sukhaṃ imāya pītiyā sahagataṃ hoti sahajātaṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ sampayuttaṃ". "sahajātaṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ sampayuttaṃ" in this context is called Vevacana in VevacanaHara.

Consciousness does not co-exist with citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū).

This is wrong translation. cittasahabhū is noun, but the translation translated it as verb.

"viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū" means viññāṇakkhandho is not cittasahabhū (noun).

What is cittasahabhūno? It is the previous words "Tayo khandhā cittasahabhuno."

Or it can be translated like consciousness is not 3 aggregates.

3 nama khandha are cittasahabhū (arising together with citta).

The previous sentence already wrote "consciousness aggregate is citta (viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ)", so it is impossible to translate like in the quote.

The aggregate of consciousness does not accompany citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti).

This is wrong translation. cittānuparivatti is noun, but the translation translated it as verb.

"viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti" means viññāṇakkhandho is not cittānuparivatti (noun).

What is not cittānuparivattino? It is the previous words "Tayo khandhā cittānuparivattino."

Or it can be translated like consciousness is not 3 aggregates.

Are there any suttas that support the above Abhidhamma and also are there any suttas that refute the above Abhidhamma?

Ariyuppavada means blaming, distorting the noble one's words by the wrong view with wrong speech.

The comment can be with view or without. Something without view maybe like this...

Is this translation right? I think the context is conflicting each other. I don't think The Tipitaka Memorizer can confuse something very big confuse like this. As I have memorized Sutta myself, this conflict is impossible. It's like you remember your mom, then you describe everything around your mom wrong. So, I think there something wrong about the translation in gramma, right? Please help me. Thank you.

Why is it without view?

Because it is showing that the writer try to understand the cannon as it is by right view then he think about it with metta in an author first, right thinking, so he asks the question with caring about the book author's mind first, right speech, not care only what struck inside his view, DitthUpadana.

You can see my question is very taking care of the author minds. I see every real situation of the author. I remember every information of the author.

Why?

I see this text as it is, like when it is generating. How an author feeling? What's kind of his grammar? How does the tipitaka memorizer refer the words? etc. Caring is very important to prove the evident, both in worldly or dhamma situation.

This means the reality come inside my mind instead of my opinion or journeys' rumors about the author. I prove them by the raw information in the same situation, environment. I'm not just reading or addicting in some teachers.

And that's why the very simply wrong translation, very simple gramma, like this can't distort my view. It's not because I am a Pali professor, but it's because I see things as they are, I try to taking care every information around the truth to see the truth as it is, not see by the view. I read cannon as it is, no view, no opinion. Clinging in view is distort the cannon. Too much opinions waste the time to see the truth.

1
  • i marked this down because it is not an answer. it is not related to the question Jul 22 at 10:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.