AKB, Ch. 1, Ver. 7: Exposition of the Elements (Dhatunirdesa); Discernment of the Factors (Dharma)

[Grigoris]

Extensive exposition of the conditioned factors (samskrta)

the conditioned factors are the fivefold aggregates:
material form, etc.

The skandha.

Etymological meaning of samskrta
"that which has been
made (krta) by causes or conditions [pratyaya] co-existing in assemblage (sametya,
sambhuya)".

So far, so good.

"that which has been made ... ", also
applies (1) to future factors, (2) to present factors, as well as (3) to past factors; in
fact, a factor (dharma) does not change its nature or type [jatiyatvat] by changing
its time period.

Really? So what happens when ice (solid) becomes water (liquid) and then evaporates as steam (gas)? Is there not a change in type?

[Grigoris]

Synonyms for conditioned factors

The conditioned factors are (1) the course or time periods; they are
(2) the ground of discourse; they are (3) endowed with escape;
(4) endowed with causes.

...conditioned factors are called time period because they are devoured
(adyante) by impermanence [anityata]

Does this not contradict the closing statement in the previous post?

...the ground of discourse

They are the basis for discourse, not the discourse per se.

...endowed with escape

They need to be escaped from.

...Conditioned factors depend on causes

Somehow I think this is a better turn of phrase than "endowed with causes".

[Grigoris]

Synonyms for impure conditioned factors;
Appropriative aggregates (upii.danaskandha);
When [the conditioned factors] are impure, they are appropriative
aggregates.

Appropriate karma phala/vipakka?

The upadanaskandhas are thus called...
Endowed with conflict (sarana)

Since they cause or attract harm.

[Malcolm]

Extensive exposition of the conditioned factors (samskrta)

the conditioned factors are the fivefold aggregates:
material form, etc.

The skandha.

Etymological meaning of samskrta
"that which has been
made (krta) by causes or conditions [pratyaya] co-existing in assemblage (sametya,
sambhuya)".

So far, so good.

"that which has been made ... ", also
applies (1) to future factors, (2) to present factors, as well as (3) to past factors; in
fact, a factor (dharma) does not change its nature or type [jatiyatvat] by changing
its time period.

Really? So what happens when ice (solid) becomes water (liquid) and then evaporates as steam (gas)? Is there not a change in type?

Later, when the discussion of "partless atoms" comes up, you will see that atoms are irreducible. However, states of matter such as solids, liquids, and gasses depend on the balance of the four elements in material entities and the environment. In other words, one has ice when it is cold, and when it is very hot, water evaporates into a gas.

But the atoms themselves, according to Abhidharma typology of the Sarvastivadins do not undergo change or alteration. The Sautrantikas, you will see, reject the notion of partless atoms because they have are also claimed to have sides, etc. It is important to keep in mind that the root verses present a version of Sarvastivadin doctrine, that of the Vaibhāsikas. The commentaries mainly critiques these positions from the Sautrantika position.

[Queequeg]

Malcolm, as we approach this text from a Mahayana perspective, what should our disposition be toward the irreducible dharmas in the Sarvasitvadin view?

Also, is it possible to give us a quick and dirty comparison of Sarvastivadin, Vaibhasika, and Sautrantika views, and how we as Mahayanis should approach them?

[Malcolm]

Malcolm, as we approach this text from a Mahayana perspective...

Actually, it is important NOT to approach this text from a Mahāyāna point of view.

One should attempt to emulate the ancient Indian masters, Buddhist and Hindu, approaching a text from its own point of view while learning it, and save the higher tenet system critiques for later.

[Malcolm]

Malcolm, as we approach this text from a Mahayana perspective, what should our disposition be toward the irreducible dharmas in the Sarvasitvadin view?

Also, is it possible to give us a quick and dirty comparison of Sarvastivadin, Vaibhasika, and Sautrantika views, and how we as Mahayanis should approach them?

The four tenet systems can be reduced to these four axioms:

atoms
moments
mind
emptiness.

These is the barest essence of the four tenet systems in ascending order.

[Queequeg]

Malcolm, as we approach this text from a Mahayana perspective...

Actually, it is important NOT to approach this text from a Mahāyāna point of view.

One should attempt to emulate the ancient Indian masters, Buddhist and Hindu, approaching a text from its own point of view while learning it, and save the higher tenet system critiques for later.

That makes sense. Thank you.

[Grigoris]

Later, when the discussion of "partless atoms" comes up, you will see that atoms are irreducible.

I thought this concept was found only in Abhidhamma.

I believe that this is a slippery slope. If you can have an irreducible physical particle on which all physical objects rely, then why can you not have an irreducible mind element (an atman) on which all consciousness relies?

[Queequeg]

Later, when the discussion of "partless atoms" comes up, you will see that atoms are irreducible.

I thought this concept was found only in Abhidhamma.

I believe that this is a slippery slope. If you can have an irreducible physical particle on which all physical objects rely, then why can you not have an irreducible mind element (an atman) on which all consciousness relies?

I think for the same reason that you can't have atman in Abhidhamma - All 5 skandha are needed for a being to arise, and 4 of them are aspects of mind. Remove one, and there is no being. Which of the skandha would be that irreducible mind element?

[Malcolm]

Later, when the discussion of "partless atoms" comes up, you will see that atoms are irreducible.

I thought this concept was found only in Abhidhamma.

I believe that this is a slippery slope. If you can have an irreducible physical particle on which all physical objects rely, then why can you not have an irreducible mind element (an atman) on which all consciousness relies?

Western Sarvastivadins (Gandharis) subscribed to an inexpressible person theory (pudgalavādin). This is rejected by Vaibhasikas (Kashmiris).

Partless particles are rejected by Sautrantikas. They favor partless moments as irreducible.

[Malcolm]

Later, when the discussion of "partless atoms" comes up, you will see that atoms are irreducible.

I thought this concept was found only in Abhidhamma.

I believe that this is a slippery slope. If you can have an irreducible physical particle on which all physical objects rely, then why can you not have an irreducible mind element (an atman) on which all consciousness relies?

I think for the same reason that you can't have atman in Abhidhamma - All 5 skandha are needed for a being to arise, and 4 of them are aspects of mind. Remove one, and there is no being. Which of the skandha would be that irreducible mind element?

Well, there are Buddhist pudgalavādins, those who assert an inexpressible self that is neither the same nor different than aggregates. They were once the largest school in India.

[Queequeg]

Well, there are Buddhist pudgalavādins, those who assert an inexpressible self that is neither the same nor different than aggregates. They were once the largest school in India.

Not to digress too far, but, how did they explain the continuity between death and rebirth? And what happened to them?

[Malcolm]

Well, there are Buddhist pudgalavādins, those who assert an inexpressible self that is neither the same nor different than aggregates. They were once the largest school in India.

Not to digress too far, but, how did they explain the continuity between death and rebirth? And what happened to them?

We refuted the shit out of them.

[Queequeg]

Well, there are Buddhist pudgalavādins, those who assert an inexpressible self that is neither the same nor different than aggregates. They were once the largest school in India.

Not to digress too far, but, how did they explain the continuity between death and rebirth? And what happened to them?

We refuted the shit out of them.

[Queequeg]

From the Pruden translation -

Commentary to 7a-b.

Even though the expression samskrta signifies "that which has been created...," it also applies to future dharma and to present dharmas; in fact, a dharma does not change its nature by changing its time period. In the same way, one calls milk in the udder dugdha, "that which has been drawn", and kndling indhana, or "wood to be burned."

Am I reading this correctly to conclude they believe dharmas persist in the three times?

This I am concluding relates to the comment above about irreducible atoms?

[Malcolm]

From the Pruden translation -

Commentary to 7a-b.

Even though the expression samskrta signifies "that which has been created...," it also applies to future dharma and to present dharmas; in fact, a dharma does not change its nature by changing its time period. In the same way, one calls milk in the udder dugdha, "that which has been drawn", and kndling indhana, or "wood to be burned."

Am I reading this correctly to conclude they believe dharmas persist in the three times?

You're getting a bit ahead of yourself, but yes, according to the Vaibhāṣikas.