Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Greetings everyone,

I just wanted to share with you a diagrammatical representation of a non-time-delineated that I've designed and modified in conjunction with a few people who have provided useful feedback (who I am also pleased to see are now members of this very board).

This map has been very useful for me in terms of getting a big picture view of dependent origination and I hope others interested in exploring the non-commentarial model will find it of use too.

Comments, feedback and suggestions for improvement all welcome.
(Version 0.5 - Updated 21st April 2010)

Metta,
Retro.

Excellent Paul...

In the 'Nama' segment it's broken down into five different categories...this is a new one on me, as it is usually defined as consisting of the four mental groups...feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness...just wondering a little where you came up with the three besides feeling and perception...

Be well...

Greetings venerable,

Yes, now I'm wondering that too! I'm not ingenious enough to have thought of it myself so it must have come from somewhere. I'll have a think about it.

Metta,
Retro.

I agree with the others that you need the category of mental formations to account for all the other mental constituents.

Why do you call it a non-time-delineated model?

What interests me is how one takes the conceptual model of Dependent Origination into their real life. Care to comment?

Jack

Unlike retro and others I do not see the great value in this model vs the mundane one that applies to more than one lifetime. The former is useful and interesting but no more so than the ordinary one. And "non-time" will not work, for even moments during a day or one lifetime take some time.

Does not sankhara also mean "fabrications" - ie the effect or result? If that is the case, then how can we assume that every single kammic effect will take place in a few moments within this single lifetime? Some conditions for the result may not arise until a future lifetime.

*Off-Topic* Will, your avatar is hiding a lot of your text. I can literally only read half of your posts.

BTT:

Retro, is there any way of making the attachment 'static'? I'm having trouble perusing it all. perhaps if it's not too much trouble, you could send it to me as an e-mail attachment?
I'd be interested in perusing it.

At my stage of study, this would be most welcome!

EDIT:

To my own astonishment, I've actually been able to do this myself!

Will wrote:Unlike retro and others I do not see ....

Yeah.

Greetings Jack,

Jack wrote:I agree with the others that you need the category of mental formations to account for all the other mental constituents.

In compiling this, I've wanted to keep the scope of development restricted to the suttas, and by doing so leaving out anything that could be considered a later-development.

Why do you call it a non-time-delineated model?

This is because it isn't pegged across three lifetimes as it is in the commentaries (and thus, any sutta translations that depend on the commentaries). A good explanation of the differences between the commentarial interpretation and a non-time-delineated model can be found at

Dependent Origination - The Buddhist Law of Conditionality
by Ven. Prayudh Payutto
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... nation.htm

Jack wrote: What interests me is how one takes the conceptual model of Dependent Origination into their real life. Care to comment?

I'm a firm believer that the Buddha taught only that which was related to the cessation of suffering, as per the precedent he outlined in SN 56.31 Simsapa Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html) so it must be relevant in some way. Personally I find it very useful whenever I notice even a slightest moment of discontent, I can try to be mindful firstly of 'what just happened?' and see that it maps to the model and then I can actually try to actively observe discontent and see the model as being true. To me, dependent origination is like a more detailed version of the 2nd and 3rd Noble Truths.

Metta,
Retro.

Greetings venerable,

appicchato wrote:In the 'Nama' segment it's broken down into five different categories...this is a new one on me, as it is usually defined as consisting of the four mental groups...feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness...just wondering a little where you came up with the three besides feeling and perception...

I suspect it was from here - http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/tea ... d-nama.htm

Metta,
Retro.

Dear Retro,

Thank you for posting this here. I did not understand why it was regarded as controversial in the first place. One question: When I first saw this chart, I had the impression that literal rebirth is implicit in it. What do you think?

Metta

Would somebody please explain to me what is meant by Eye/ear/nose/and so on - Feeling?
Craving for certain stimuli contact with certain stimuli and the sense-bases themselves are relatively self-explanatory.
But I don't think I fully comprehend the 'feeling' inference....

Are we talking about actual sensation and action of the sense itself.... the sense in action?

Or is there an 'emotive' angle?

Fede wrote:Would somebody please explain to me what is meant by Eye/ear/nose/and so on - Feeling?
Craving for certain stimuli contact with certain stimuli and the sense-bases themselves are relatively self-explanatory.
But I don't think I fully comprehend the 'feeling' inference....

Are we talking about actual sensation and action of the sense itself.... the sense in action?

Or is there an 'emotive' angle?

their are three types of feeling pleasant painful and neither pleasant or painful so it is the first reaction to the sense object that the feeling is about!

Excellent work, Retro!

Greetings Jechbi,

Jechbi wrote:Thank you for posting this here. I did not understand why it was regarded as controversial in the first place.

It's controversial to the extent that it differs from the commentarial 'three-lives' version. It has significant acceptance though from many Theravadins (and also I notice, Zen practitioners) so to many it's just the natural interpretation.

Jechbi wrote: One question: When I first saw this chart, I had the impression that literal rebirth is implicit in it. What do you think?

[/quote]
I think it constitutes a different subject to rebirth altogether. In other words it's a model of suffering, not a model of transmigration. Accordingly it neither denies nor affirms rebirth in and of itself. I think it's entirely consistent with rebirth though, and that the processes outlined needn't cease, simply because conventional death occurs.

Metta,
Retro.

Greetings,

Some interesting thoughts on the non-time-delineated model of dependent origination from Ajahn Sumedho...

Extract from The Way It Is
http://www.amaravati.org/abmnew/documen ... 20moa.html



Metta,
Retro.