Abhidhamma visual summary

[cathutch]

The classification of Elements (Dharmas) in Early Buddhism.
A simplified visual perspective of the Abhidhamma.
Download
On site

[sunsoul]

That is a pretty good outline but not to be picky there is yet again the soul term for some reason on the chart which is never used in the Buddhist Abhidhamma.

[cathutch]

I hope my friend that this outline will settle our little tilt.
How Samkhya explains how elements (dharmas) are made* &
how Buddhism explains how elements (dharmas) are used (to build an illusory pudgala, that most people incorrectly define as "self").

Cordially


* Buddha did not care, as far as his method was concerned - namely getting rid of the pudgala and the rest. Of all the aggregation of the elements (dharmas) - of the illusion that produces an ineluctable dukkha. For things like consciousness (element #6 on the outline) does "exist" and they are made of good & bad (samkhya) => inevitable suffering, whatever you do.
Buddha has redefined and refined the categories (elements); and build his method of release from that.
Not that Buddha wanted to "kill" stuff like consciousness. Consciousness is "there". He just wanted to get rid of the fact that pudgala draws on instances of it to build what is just an illusion.
I guess that once you have made your (ludicrous and pretentious) “contribution” to consciousness (and to the rest of the elements also), and know that you have done so, you have no more to do.

Bhikkhus, that bhikkhu, who is worthy, destroyed desires, lived the holy life, done what should be done, put down the weight, come to the highest good, the bindings 'to be' destroyed, and rightly knowing released, thoroughly knowing earth, does not think it's earth, become earth does not think and delight it's mine. MN01

[sunsoul]

Yes, we can say that Buddhism borrows from Samkhya and are right to make the comparison, but we can also say with 150% accuracy that the 'soul' is not mentioned as part of the make-up of self (in Buddhist terms) and further that to say that it is actually 'wrong view' and this has been extensively documentated in the sutras on pudgala, etc.

I am taking you to task on this point because it is wrong for newbies to be mislead on a crucial point like this (especially on an inter-faith/spiritual type forum with people from many walks of life).

I think someone just stuck 'soul' on by mistake because the chart looks reasonably well put together otherwise.

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by sunsoul

but we can also say with 150% accuracy that the 'soul' is not mentioned as part of the make-up of self (in Buddhist terms) and further that to say that it is actually 'wrong view' and this has been extensively documentated in the sutras on pudgala, etc.
I am taking you to task on this point because it is wrong for newbies to be mislead on a crucial point like this (especially on an inter-faith/spiritual type forum with people from many walks of life).
I think someone just stuck 'soul' on by mistake because the chart looks reasonably well put together otherwise.

The doctrine which maintains the reality of a Self corresponding to the psycho-physical individual is called pudgala-vada, whereas the view approaching the doctrine of a permanent Soul is atma-vada.
All Buddhists rejected the atma-vada (that is why I put the question marks aroud it - it is not atma-vada).
I should have precised " ? soul or pudgala-vada ? ".
All Buddhists rejected the atma-vada, since Buddhism (buddhanuçasani), philosophially, means nothing else than the dharmata, the theory of dharmas, which is but another name for anatman, nairatmya.

Knowing the not-attributes of Atman (anatman) does not make you know Atman; for it is only some of its not-attributes.
I explain once more:
If you did not know what a Body was, but that you had the intuition of a "Body".
If you were to see a "not-toe" on the floor, you might say to yourself: "this not-toe is not-Body - I can therefore infer that toe is an attribute of Body; but this is all I know about Body.
So, why should I care about Body as a whole; for I only have some non-attributes around me. I will never know what it is as a whole. So I might as well stick to the doctrine of "atoe" and do with it.
Does that make sense?

[sunsoul]

It is good that you are explaining your views (which I don't necessarily agree with) because this puts things in perspective and is helpful. Using words like soul, atma or self need proper explanation because the Buddhist view does differ from the Hindu philosophical view in this regard.

People can now make informed judgements for themselves.

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by sunsoul

soul, atma or self need proper explanation because the Buddhist view does differ from the Hindu philosophical view in this regard.

I don't think it differs "that much".
Take the jains, for instance, they call pudgale-vada, Baddha Jiva and atma-vada is known as Mukta Jiva.
Buddhists reject atma-vada* because it is useless for the purpose of liberation (as far as the method is concerned). And it considers pudgale-vada as something impermanent, that disappears with death. This is where differences reside.

I agree I should have put a different color for Soul and Mind on the outline. But they are not numbered as the other elements; so I guess people will understand when they read the text that the elements are all numbered.
I'll do it later on.
Thanks!

Cordially.

* as much as they don't care how the elements (dharmas) got there.