I would like to know what is defined as "Patigha" (Skt. "Pratigha"), and how it varies from "Dosa" (Skt. "Dvesha"). Thank you.

Is the way I choose to react to a situation based entirely off of past karma or is there something else that determines how I react to an external object? I am confused between my understanding that ultimately there is no control and yet I can control my reactions to situations. Is there only a sense of control as long as an individual is not fully enlightened?

When we offer something like food to a buddha statue (a buddha puja) the buddha statue has no benefit from it.. But we offer it (buddha puja) as a respect to buddha and gain merits.. so the buddha puja defines as giving with respect.. According to abhidhamma alobha cetasika, is the basic reason for giving ..like that I think saddha, is the basic reason for respect here.. if so what cetasika is the respect (or from what cetasikas the respect is made of?) in this occasion..

The concept of cuti patisandhi cittas- i.e. generation of patisandhi citta conditioned by cuti citta in a minute fraction of a second- is a very important concept mentioned in Abhidhammaththa Sangaha. This is so important that only by describing the mechanism of cuti-patisandhi in this way the main teaching of Buddhism that there is no soul or ego (anatta) can be justified. Can I find any reference in Abhidhamma Pitaka.

In how far does one take part on skilfull or unskilfull undertaking? In how far does one receives the fruits of good or bad actions by means of getting involved by toughts, signs and deeds, by assosiation with tendencies and certain objectives and aims? Are there even disadvantages, benefits, for one if just seeming for others to be near of certain undertakings? And how should common-kamma here be understood? *(Note that question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)*

The Abhidhamma says: > 2.4. The Mutuality Tetrad > >PTS cs 246 > >With ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) process, also with a (volitional) process as condition there is ignorance, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, also with consciousness as condition: a (volitional) process, with consciousness as condition: mind and bodily form, also with mind and bodily form as condition: consciousness, with mind and bodily form as condition: the sixth sense sphere, also with the sixth sense sphere as condition: mind and bodily form, with the sixth sense sphere as condition: contact, also with contact as condition: the sixth sense sphere, with contact as condition: feeling, also with feeling as condition: contact, with feeling as condition: craving, also with craving as condition: feeling, with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: craving, **with attachment as condition: continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole mass of suffering**. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs246 Why does Abhidhamma exclude continuation (becoming), birth & death from its 'mutuality' above?

Upasaka Karl [mentioned in an answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/41486/19697) : >Relationships have a beginning. And because they have a beginning, they also have an end. Thoughtless endings, ghosting and worse, hurt both parties. It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping experience. We become each other's dismissable clickbait. Yet perhaps a thoughtless ending was matched by a thoughtless beginning. Perhaps we can consider and nurture relationships that matter. 1. Isn't it merely the case that personal relationships never really end, that some of the debts remain forever? That one actually stays bonded forever, even after ending of a relationship... 2. What are the valid reasons for ending a personal relationship? 3. How to end a relationship properly? 4. Which (as it were) "relationship" can't be ended, once gotten into? 5. What's the effect of denying being in a personal relationship and consuming outside of it, thinking "I am free" or "this is my right"? *[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades and relation-misuse but to escape toward]*

This was a question here: > Do all good and/or all pleasant intentions have pleasant outcomes for one/or another? It may be good to investigate in frames of the Buddha-Dhamma. And could that be always traced by anyone, the line of cause and effect?

As I understood it from the abhidharma, nama-rupa is just another way of looking at the five skandhas, a different scheme for the same thing, along with others (e.g. the dhatus). But, as far as I can tell, this is never quite explicitly stated. Why? And are they identical ways of saying the same thing?

when a object made with **rupa kalapas** is given a force, heated or travelling at a constant speed, how do the next generations of the same rupa kalapas get those qualities(forces, heat, speed ,etc..)by their birth (at **uthpada**)..(is this happening due to a **pratyaya**, please be kind to mention it )

Coming from [here, analysis of AN 8.30](https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/10/an-830-maybe-try-having-faith-in-buddha.html) . > Good, Anuruddha, very good. It’s good that you think these thoughts of a great person: Does good householder think that certain (all) people are capable to think such thoughts? So how then could certain delight in such thoughts? What then would one, seeing this, start to think for himself instead to try to make a dead dog walk? In what would he delight and sacrifices into himself? What does good householder here desire to think? Are thought of a great man only think-able for great or by everyone? What happens if a ordinary starts to give them public thoughts? And in the case thinking not possible for everybody here and now, what would be the prerequisite to get the point? What's the matter with proper attention and good association here? Could that be a way out?

What does one know or think: Is there any praise of shred-parami (perfections in appearing modest) by the Sublime Buddha, such as in out-fit, outwardly appearing, using of such stuff, and if why? If not why? To give an idea in a samples of certain "modesty": * Better to catch fishes with the hand instead of catching with high tech, yet still after meat. * Better to wear recycling garments then new, yet still after look. * Better to drive an old car then a new one, yet still after comfort. * Better not to cut hair and let it grow, yet still after appearing certain. * Spreading "I am content with an old camry" to sign out modesty and swifting to rave as soon conditions make it possible. *[note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks but for gaining release from the wheel of hypocrisy and corruption]*

So far I was under impression that cetasicas are elementary mental factor. but I did not pay attention to all 52 of them.Today when I show **Samma ājiva** is also a cetasika. It changed my view toward cetasika. They are not elementary mental process which comes along with birth. I now think that cetsikas are programmed subminds or **parallel minds**.and it can be dynamically added.**Most of the beautiful cetasikas are developed by practice of buddhism. isnt’it?** And with little exaggeration I can say that, I can develop a modern cetasika like **samma-mobile**. samma-mobile is the right usage of mobile.dont try to justify that right use of mobile as part of something already there in so-and-so cetasika.. just take it as example only. With total re-programming process only dedicated to right usage of mobile. I can build a fresh submind /cetasca related to mobile usage.and then it will be mounted so effective to the level of mind moments. and evaluate each mind moment from the perspective of mobile usage.

People sometimes qualify their statements, by adding the word, "conventionally" — and people distinguish between Conventional Truth (*Sammuti Sacca*) versus Ultimate Truth (*Paramattha Sacca*). 1. When (historically) does this distinction begin: if the distinction is made in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, is there also doctrine like that in the Sutta Pitaka (and if not, do we know *why* not)? [This Wikipedia section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine#Pali_Canon) says that the "two truths" distinction is *not* made in the suttas, though there are some "suttas of indirect meaning". 2. Is "ultimate" in some way better or more right than "conventional"? Or are they both mere views or descriptions of reality, more or less equal (like a left hand and a right hand) and it's important to select (perhaps, I guess, by using 'wisdom') whichever of the two may be the more appropriate? Is it OK to regard them both as "views" instead of as "truths"? Is there an important difference between e.g. *sacca*, *vacana*, *dhamma*, and *ditthi*? 3. If/when/after people have made a distinction between "conventional" and "ultimate", do people subsequently try to recombine these views? I'm thinking of the Zen-like aphorism, "after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water": is that something to do with "two truths"? Does it imply a continuation of or a return to the conventional? Or does it differ/vary a lot from school to school? I imagine these questions could be answered with a paragraph each; but please tell me if any of them need to be separate questions, to allow a longer or more detailed answer.

Why are Concepts not Impermanent? I found the below explanation in another forum. Are they Permanent? or not both? > Conventional reality (sammuti sacca/ pannatti) is just a concept and > not real. Non-real dhammas don’t exist and therefore cannot be anicca > or dukkha. > > According to Abhdhamma: > > - dhamma = paramata + pannatti > - paramata = sankhata + asankhata > - sankhata = citta + cetasika + rupa > - asnkhata = nibbana > - dhamma = citta + cetasika + rupa + nibbana + pannatti > > All the dhammas are anatta. Anatta means devoid of > essence/self/ownership/hegemony. > > Only the sankhata (compounded) is anicca-dukkha. Nibbana and Pannatti > are anatta only. > > Nibbana is real but not compounded. Therefore not anicca-dukkha. > Pannatti is non-real. Therefore not anicca-dukkha. > **In Theravada, Concept is an object (unreal object).** It is not the > Concept-formation of our mind. Mind and mental factors that form a > concept do arise and cease, but not the Concept. > The conceptualizing in mind is the impermanent one, but not the > Conceptual-object of Conceptualizing-mind. **Pannatti is an object.** This > fake object is perceived by the impermanent mind. > The colors that the eye sees in a movie are real, but not the concept > of “movie”. What is fake is the Object pointed by the Idea of “movie”. > **What “Conceptualizing” points to, is the Concept.** It is a fake object > that “Conceptualizing” points to. > > **The pointer exists, but “what is pointed” doesn’t exist.** > > So Concepts are not considered as anicca or dukkha. Conventional Reality is not Impermanent! Introduction to the Ultimacy (International Institute of Theravada)

From a purely Theravada perspective, how much important is it to read and know Abhidhamma? Is the knowledge of Sutta Pitaka enough to realize nirvana?

The Abhidhamma Commentary says: - Anicca-characteristic is hidden due to "Non-contemplation of the **Rising and falling**." - Dukkha-characteristic is hidden due to "Shifting of the **Postures**." - Anatta-characteristic is hidden due to "Non-contemplation of the **Analysis of Different Elements**." Where does the causality fit in this? Which characteristic is (mainly) uncovered by the "Contemplation of Dependent-origination?" Obviously it uncovers all the three in some way. I'm here asking about it's main contribution.

The concept of Kamma implies that information is stored in the mind (not the brain) and after the being is dead, this mind (or this data "storage") goes on and carries with it the current position of all accumulated Kamma from many previous life. This clearly creates some scientific questions such as: Where is the information stored if there is no physical "hardware"? How does this information flows? How a new being receives it and change its body accordingly (Imagine a Kamma-Vipaka of a disease for a new born or not having a member)? Etc... Many people will answer that these doubts represent a fetter and will not help you in the practice, so just forget about it, however I know many Buddhists have great scientific background and could help here. Is there any detailed description, maybe Abidhamma, of this process of Kamma/information flow? Has anyone ever tried to shed a light on this topic?

Where are the English Translations of Commentary? Have all of them translated in to English?

In Theravada, the Concepts are considered unreal ("person", "chariot" etc.). Then what about the "Concepts about Real" ("red", "perception")? Are they Concepts? or Real?