SuttaCentral
I don’t think that’s ever explicitly stated in the Pāḷi suttas? But the idea that the Pāramīs are built up across lifetimes is foundational to even the orthodox Theravāda understanding of the Bodhisattva’s career.
And, of course, many suttas say that the benefits of generosity, etc extend far into future lives.
Thank you for sharing how you see these points. I can see that you refer to Abhidhamma, which I haven’t read - I mainly read only suttas.
When I read someone state something, I refer to suttas to see if I’ll find a contradiction - to see if it can hold up scrutiny.
How do you understand the following point then:
SN12.51 uses the terms saṅkhāresu asati , viññāṇe asati: saṅkhāresu, viññāṇe are part of 5GA, sati part of 5SP. Then it asks questions if given these factors sankhara, vinnana etc are not present, can vinnana be known? To which answer is no. So my question then is how do understand this: vinnana and sankhara here are said to be not present, yet it is still possible to know (paññāyethā) about it. One logical explanation is that it is paññā that knows - thus making paññā superior to viññana, as it is capable of knowing if there is viññana or not even if there are no saṅkhāras.
What do you think, mendicants? Would a mendicant who has ended the defilements still make good choices, bad choices, or imperturbable choices?”
“No, sir.”
“Sabbaso vā pana saṅkhāresu asati, saṅkhāranirodhā api nu kho viññāṇaṁ paññāyethā”ti?
“And when there are no choices at all, with the cessation of choices, would consciousness still be found (paññāyethā)?”“No, sir.”
“Sabbaso vā pana viññāṇe asati, viññāṇanirodhā api nu kho nāmarūpaṁ paññāyethā”ti?
“And when there’s no consciousness at all, would name and form still be found (paññāyethā)?”“No, sir.”
I’ve checked Theravada Abhidhamma and it seems to regard Paññattis in a very special manner, considering them apart from “mind and matter”? But Pañña is wisdom, one of 5 spiritual faculties.
Theravada Abhidhamma:
Paññattis are seen as without sabhāva (asabhāva), are “distinct from both mind and matter,” do not arise and fall like dhammas do and “are not brought about by conditions”, are “not positively produced” (aparinipphanna) and are neither conditioned (sankhata) nor unconditioned (asankhata).
Perhaps you want to check a dictionary for words. Like DPD says:
fem. (+gen) name (of); designation (of); concept (of); description (of); what is called
Like concept of 1+1=2 is clearly not mind, but a mental object, clearly not subject to change with time, but does have many conditionalities to it, but really concepts are needed to provide the stability, the non-changing object to get into deep Jhānas, otherwise, real things, ultimate things are the ones which changes all the time and it is great for vipassana practise. Concepts such as a self is also can be imagined to be eternal, not all concepts must exist in reality, it’s actually the theme of emptiness doctrine that all concepts are empty of existence.
For SN12.51, you mean this part?
“When there are utterly no volitional formations, with the cessation of volitional formations, would consciousness be discerned?” “No, venerable sir.”
Tapping the skull of arahant, trying to use divine eye to see where arahant is reborn after death, it cannot be found.
name (of); designation (of); concept (of); description (of); what is called, What faculty provides the ability to create these concepts? Is it faculty or power of wisdom pañña, possibly including sati?
Designation of 1+1=2 or a^n + b^n = c^n with names for them has beginning. For example a^n + b^n = c^n is referred to as Fermat’s Last Theorem or some others name it as Fermat’s conjecture since >~1600s. In suttas paññatti was used with chariot example. What is called ‘chariot’ is a set of parts assembled in particular structure by those people who know about chariots.
You too can pick various parts, pick a name and assign this name to these parts and their configuration - tell others about it and a new paññatti is created - so it clearly has a beginning. As long as someone remembers it (sati?) they can use that name to refer to that particular set of parts and configuration.
Finally if something has beginning, does it not have end as well?
There’s a beginning to a certain person having the event of calling something some name, or an idea popping into the mind. But as Plato’s land suggests, that idea can just rest in Plato’s ideal land untainted until the next person thinks or discovered about it independently. Before this universe, a previous universe had someone thinking and rediscovering the mathematics we have now. Was it invented or discovered?
Some people really deem mathematics as real and existing and eternal and their notion of religiousness is to be a pure mathematician to contribute to the discovering of mathematics.
Yes, they are such views, but is that not a distortion: considering what is temporal as lasting? If it is then Ne36 tells us where it leads:
viññāṇāhāro (vi-knowledge nutriment) → “Temporary as lasting” distortion
→ appropriating views → view yoke → parāmāsakāyagantho? →
view effluent → view flood → conceit arrow → experiencing/attaching-to perception → fear (bhayā agatigamanaṁ)
Would it give rise to fear in those mathematicians believing in eternal mathematics - when pointed to them that all that knowledge of mathematics is temporal and liable to cessation?
That is the danger of such distorted perception.
Don’t confuse knowledge with the thing that is known. To mathematicians, the pure abstract shape of a cube is eternal. It’s how we can pattern recognize a cube in any shape and form, but the abstract concept of it is beyond time and space. Any aliens can also have this concept, anyone in all the past and future would be able to rediscover this shape. Knowledge resting and depending on living beings certainly is impermanent, but the Plato’s World has always the concepts there. There the ideals of what is a human, an elephant etc, exists. Plato’s World – Philosophy in the Humanities
Of course, emptiness doctrine smashes this to bits when we consider minor changes until a person is no longer human shaped, but started out as human.
But isn’t knowledge itself a thing?
Isn’t there only pattern recognition knowledge and shapes and forms - the abstract concept does not exist?
The ability to pattern recognize a cube: manovinnana (mental discriminating knowledge)
To be able to recognize a cube by sight one has to first how cube looks like: eye-vinnana, to recognize it in equation: mano-vinnana. (or replace vinnana with something else if translating it as knowledge is problematic as it does not change the argument, but from sanskit one meaning of vijnana is worldly or profane knowledge, knowledge derived from worldly experience)
That I’d consider a distortion: of taking manovinana which is temporary to be eternal.
Or if you doubt such knowledge is a thing: consider the following example.
A PC with AI vision software that contains the necessary pattern recognition knowledge to show on screen if the camera records a box or not.
Being conditional, it’s not a “thing” in the sense of having/being an inherent identity or essence.
It’s a conditional process.
AN5.24:
“When there is right immersion, one who has fulfilled right immersion has fulfilled a vital condition for true knowledge and vision.”
sammāsamādhimhi sati sammāsamādhisampannassa upanisasampannaṁ hoti yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṁ;
MN30:
"And so, brahmin, this spiritual life is not lived for the sake of possessions, honor, and popularity, or for accomplishment in ethics, or for accomplishment in immersion, or for knowledge and vision.
Iti kho, brāhmaṇa, nayidaṁ brahmacariyaṁ lābhasakkārasilokānisaṁsaṁ, na sīlasampadānisaṁsaṁ, na samādhisampadānisaṁsaṁ, na ñāṇadassanānisaṁsaṁ.
Rather, the goal, heartwood, and final end of the spiritual life is the unshakable freedom of heart.”
Being conditional, knowledge and vision are transcended by full awakening – even as an arahant is wise and compassionate.