Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby Shonin » Sun May 23, 2010 8:34 am

Anyone care to take on this basic question?:

Shonin wrote:
Each of these twelve nidanas are said to condition the next, does this mean that the latter nidana does not exist until conditioned by the former? Or does it mean that both already exist but that conditionality 'flows' only in the direction described? Or does it mean something else?
Shonin
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby retrofuturist » Sun May 23, 2010 9:45 am

Greetings Shonin,

Excuse the slightly clumsy translation, but what the following suggest to you?

MN 115: Bahudhatuka Sutta
http://www.vipassana.info/115-bahudhatuka-e.htm

‘Venerable sir, saying it rightly how is the bhikkhu clever in dependent arising?’

‘Aananda, the bhikkhu knows, when this is present, this happens, when this arises, this arise. When this is not present, this does not happen, when this ceases, this cease. Such as from ignorance arise determinations, from determinations arise consciousness, from consciousness arise name and matter. From name and matter arise the six spheres, from the six spheres arise contact and from contact arise feelings. From feelings arise craving, from craving arises holding, from holding arises being and from being arises birth. From birth arises decay, death, grief, lament, unpleasantness displeasure and distress. Thus arises the complete mass of unpleasantness. With the cessation of ignorance, cease determinations, with the cessaton of determinations cease consciousness, with the cessation of consciousness cease name and matter.With the cessation of name and matter cease the six spheres, with the cessation of the six spheres cease contact. With the cessation of contact cease feelings, with the cessation of feelings cease craving, with the cessation of craving ceases holding. With the cessation of holding ceasesbeing, with the cessaton of being ceases birth and with the cessation of birth cease decay, death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress. Thus ceases the complete mass of unpleasantness.When the bhikkhu knows and sees this, saying it rghtly he becomes clever in dependent arising’

As for the precise rendering of the bolded section, see this recent discussion involving venerable Dhammanando and acinteyyo - viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4307&view=unread#p67509

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14678
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby mikenz66 » Sun May 23, 2010 9:52 am

Hi Shonin,
Shonin wrote:Anyone care to take on this basic question?:

Shonin wrote:
Each of these twelve nidanas are said to condition the next, does this mean that the latter nidana does not exist until conditioned by the former? Or does it mean that both already exist but that conditionality 'flows' only in the direction described? Or does it mean something else?

I did try to reply a little here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4420&start=20#p67543
but it is a complex issue.

My understanding is that some things arise at the same time, some sequentially, and, as I said in the other post, the mentioned factors are not the only causes. So, for example "from contact arises feeling", but other factors made that particular contact possible, and still other factors conditioned whether the particular sense object that is contacted (some sound for example) is discerned as pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful.

Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10414
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby Shonin » Sun May 23, 2010 9:36 pm

It does sound complex and itself open to interpretation. I'm really looking for the dummies' version here. I've taken this from A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPÁDA as a starting point:

avijjā [ignorance] and sankhārā [formations] are kamma in the previous existence, and their vipāka [fruit] is viññāna [consciousness], nāmarūpa [name and form, mind and body], salāyatana [six sense bases], phassa [contact], and vedanā [feeling], in the present existence; tanhā [craving], upādāna [clinging], and bhava [becoming], are kamma in the present existence, and their vipāka is jāti [birth] and jarāmarana [deterioration and death] in the subsequent existence.


OK so far?

So, if this was Life #1 then my ignorance about the true nature of things would be a condition for volitional formations. One or both of these are conditions for the appearance of a primordial consciosness in Life#2. Tell me if I'm getting this right? So, first question:

how can the existence of nāmarūpa [mind and body] be dependent on viññāna [consciousness]? Is consciousness something other than mind? And is it supposed to be prior to both body and mind?
Shonin
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby beeblebrox » Sun May 23, 2010 10:09 pm

I found out that it becomes much easier to understand when you go through it backwards, the way it does in some of the suttas:

Why is there aging and death? Because there was a birth. Why was there birth? Because of existence (or becoming, depending on translation). Why was there existence? Because of the clinging. Why was there clinging? Because of the craving. Why was there craving? Because of feeling. Why was there feeling? Because of contact. Why was there contact? Because of the six sense bases. Why were there six sense bases? Because of the names and forms. Why were there names and forms? Because of consciousness. Why was there consciousness? Because of volitional formations. Why were there volitional formations? Because of ignorance.

The way that I understand it now... it's because of the ignorance of the decaying and death that we went through all of this in the first place; or maybe it's more like the ignorance of this process that makes it seem like dukkha.

edit: Changed from "you" to "we" in the third paragraph, after I realized that it actually takes more than one to make a birth (existence, etc).
Last edited by beeblebrox on Sun May 23, 2010 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby Ben » Sun May 23, 2010 10:45 pm

Hi Shonin
I'm not sure that the three-life model should be taken literally other than to indicate the temporality within the process.
As with regards to how consciousness conditions nama-rupa: I think the answer to this might be buried in vism or within the abhidhamma commentary (CMA). If I get time later on, I'll try and dig some quotations out for you. Right now, I'm late for work!
metta

Ben
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.

Taṃ nadīhi vijānātha:
sobbhesu padaresu ca,
saṇantā yanti kusobbhā,
tuṇhīyanti mahodadhī.

Sutta Nipata 3.725


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16155
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby beeblebrox » Sun May 23, 2010 10:50 pm

Without consciousness, there's no nama-rupas. It's really that simple, or maybe it's just me.
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby retrofuturist » Sun May 23, 2010 11:27 pm

Greetings Ben,

Ben wrote:I'm not sure that the three-life model should be taken literally other than to indicate the temporality within the process.

I hope you don't mind me asking, but is this a personal opinion shared between yourself and Bhikkhu Bodhi, or is it a perspective that is actually attributable to the Visuddhimagga or other Mahavihara treatises? I ask, because my readings of the Visuddhimagga suggested that it was intending something very literal.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14678
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby Ben » Sun May 23, 2010 11:30 pm

I'll get back to you with an answer, Retro.
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.

Taṃ nadīhi vijānātha:
sobbhesu padaresu ca,
saṇantā yanti kusobbhā,
tuṇhīyanti mahodadhī.

Sutta Nipata 3.725


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16155
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby retrofuturist » Sun May 23, 2010 11:35 pm

Much appreciated.

:anjali:

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14678
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby retrofuturist » Mon May 24, 2010 2:43 am

Greetings Shonin,

Shonin wrote:how can the existence of nāmarūpa [mind and body] be dependent on viññāna [consciousness]? Is consciousness something other than mind? And is it supposed to be prior to both body and mind?

I can't promise adherence to the Mahavihara explanation (due to lack of knowledge as opposed to deliberate deviation), but be careful of translating "nama" as "mind".

Viññāna (consciousness) is the presentation of a dhamma via one of the six avenues of consciousness - no more no less. Nama is a collective term for vedana (feeling), sañña (perception), cetana (intention, volition), phassa (sensory contact) and manasikara (attention, advertence). What you're understanding to be 'mind', at present, may inadvertantly be a blurring of the two. You will need to be able to separate nama from viññāna in order to understand their mutual dependence as depicted in the Mahanidana Sutta. From the fact questions are asked about viññāna in the Mahanidana Sutta at various stages (conception, gestation, as a child) demonstrates viññāna is not referring to a once-in-a-lifetime rebirth-linking consciousness. Regarding viññāna and namarupa, Buddhaghosa says "They are like two sheaves of reeds which lean against each other and support each other" (Vism. 595) - source: http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha205.htm

See also...

On Understanding Namarupa by Kingsley Heendeniya
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha262.htm

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14678
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby beeblebrox » Mon May 24, 2010 7:30 pm

"Volitional formations" are pretty much the only thing that I've been having issues with (maybe because it's such a weird phrasing). These are basically my thought process:

"Willful formation" or "intentional formation" doesn't seem right, especially when it's supposed to come "before" the consciousness, according to my own understanding of the dependent origination. These are conscious choices. Seems like it's more like a "tendency"? This would make sense, since tendency can be an unconscious thing...

Then I realize that I've been looking at this wrong. If you view the volitional formations as a condition for the consciousness, then you can say that if there's no will involved (or intentional doings), then there's no consciousness. This appears to make sense. (Kinda?)

I just came across this in Samyutta, this morning, which can be helpful (also shows the relationship between consciousness and name-and-form, and so on) -

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name-and-form. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases. [Etc.]

"If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has tendencies toward something, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name-and-form. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases. [Etc.]

"But, bhikkhus, when one does not intend, and one does not plan, and one does not have a tendency towards anything, no basis exists for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is no basis, there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is unestablished and does not come to growth, there is no descent of name-and-form. With the cessation of name-and-form comes cessation of the six sense bases. [Etc.] Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering."
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby Shonin » Mon May 24, 2010 7:55 pm

retrofuturist wrote:I can't promise adherence to the Mahavihara explanation (due to lack of knowledge as opposed to deliberate deviation), but be careful of translating "nama" as "mind".


Thanks Retro. It seems that Nama is close to 'psychological processes', whereas Viññāna refers to some sort of primordial consciousness. Nevertheless, even if we can say it is coherent for 'mental processes' to be dependent on 'primordial consciousness', it does seem odd to say that Rupa (matter) arises from consciousness (primordial or not). This is not an objection on the basis of Materialistic ontological assumptions, more a query about whether we can justify making ontological assumptions based on the primacy of mind. How did Buddha come up this sequence? As I understand, it was a process of deduction begining with Death and working backwards: 'On what condition does death depend? Birth.' and so on. A process of deduction is not a direct experience - even if it is deduction about experience - even if Buddha recollected his past lives. How could a primordial consciousness know that it existed prior to the body? Interestingly the concept of Namarupa is part of the early Upanishads as is the primacy of primordial consciousness as I understand - which brings us back to Jurewicz (on order).
Shonin
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby Shonin » Mon May 24, 2010 8:11 pm

A few other questions:

As I understand (I may have misunderstood), according to the Nikayas, the Buddha's enlightenment was not a special state of mind like a supreme Jhana, it was the realisation of Dependent Origination and the Four Noble Truths. Is that accurate?


avijjā [ignorance] and sankhārā [formations] are kamma in the previous existence, and their vipāka [fruit] is viññāna [consciousness], nāmarūpa [name and form], salāyatana [six sense bases], phassa [contact], and vedanā [feeling], in the present existence; tanhā [craving], upādāna [clinging], and bhava [becoming], are kamma in the present existence, and their vipāka is jāti [birth] and jarāmarana [deterioration and death] in the subsequent existence.


By this sequence, one could end suffering by ending ignorance, would this have an immediate effect of stopping the chain, or would it take another life or two to work through? And is this the only angle? Or can it be tackled at craving and clinging by practicing non-attachment? Also, surely craving and clinging are conditioned by ignorance right now, in this very life - why go all the way back to a previous life for someone to blame?

It seems odd that a third life is tacked on as the final two steps of the chain. Birth was already conditioned (between sankhārā and viññāna on the first and second lives) and a death would have ended both the first and second lives. Why put birth and death again at the end? Why are they not mentioned at the beginning and end of the second life?

Also, since Buddha defined consciousness in terms of what it was consciousness of eg. 'eye-consciousness', so why do both viññāna and nāma exist prior to salāyatana?
Shonin
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby beeblebrox » Mon May 24, 2010 8:43 pm

Shonin wrote:Also, since Buddha defined consciousness in terms of what it was consciousness of eg. 'eye-consciousness', so why do both viññāna and nāma exist prior to salāyatana?


Consciousness = one thing.

Name-and-form = another thing based on consciousness.

Six sense bases = consciousness based on name-and-form.

If you take away the consciousness, would you experience namarupa? If you say that other people would still experience it, even though your own consciousness is taken away... would they still experience it if their own consciousness were also taken away? And so on?
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby BlackBird » Tue May 25, 2010 1:13 am

pt1 wrote:
BlackBird wrote:Inevitably, I would recommend reading Ven. Nyanavira Thera's 'A note on Paticcasamupada' from Notes on Dhamma/Clearing the Path, if for nothing else: Simply a clear understanding of the traditional interpretation.

Perhaps reading Bhikkhu Bodhi's critique of Ven.Nanavira's work will also be helpful.


And then the counter critique. I want to clarify that I didn't suggest this piece simply to 'win converts' (though I will not deny it as being something I regard as worthwhile) but also because it provided me with a clear understanding of what the Mahavihara account actually meant, in their own terms.

Regarding more recent developments of treating D.O. as a very fast sequence of steps that can be experienced during insight (as described by Venerables Buddhadasa, Nanavira


I apologise for nit-picking but that's a bit of a misrepresentation of what the Bhante was getting at. In his interpretation, Paticcasamuppada represents a structural principle of dhamma X being determined by dhamma Y. Far from being his interpretation being a 'very fast sequence' , Ven. Nyanavira states that Paticcasamuppada has nothing to do with time, that it's intemporal.

Paticcasamuppáda is, in fact, a structural principle (formally stated in the first Sutta passage at the head of this Note), and not one or another specific chain of sankhárá. It is thus an over-simplification to regard any one given formulation in particular terms as paticcasamuppáda. Every such formulation exemplifies the principle: none states it. Any paticcasamuppáda series, purely in virtue of its being an exemplification of paticcasamuppáda, depends upon the fact that there are such things as sankhárá; and a fortiori the series of §17 depends upon the fact of the existence of sankhárá: if there were no such things as sankhárá there would be no such thing as paticcasamuppáda at all, and therefore no such thing as this individual formulation of it.

- A note on paticcasamupada (Notes on Dhamma)

(Ven. Nyanavira renders sankhara as 'dermination' or 'determinant' as in 'something that determines something else')

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby pt1 » Tue May 25, 2010 5:49 am

BlackBird wrote:And then the counter critique. I want to clarify that I didn't suggest this piece simply to 'win converts' (though I will not deny it as being something I regard as worthwhile) but also because it provided me with a clear understanding of what the Mahavihara account actually meant, in their own terms.

Yes, you were quite clear the first time around, so there really wasn't any objection directed at you. Though, if there's anything to object to, then it would rather be Venerable's summarisation of the mahavihara account, which on my reading is not very accurate. E.g. I'm not sure why he didn't really address the citta to citta scale aspect of the mahavihara account, since I feel this would have been directly related to many of his counter-arguments.

BlackBird wrote:
Regarding more recent developments of treating D.O. as a very fast sequence of steps that can be experienced during insight (as described by Venerables Buddhadasa, Nanavira


I apologise for nit-picking but that's a bit of a misrepresentation of what the Bhante was getting at. In his interpretation, Paticcasamuppada represents a structural principle of dhamma X being determined by dhamma Y. Far from being his interpretation being a 'very fast sequence' , Ven. Nyanavira states that Paticcasamuppada has nothing to do with time, that it's intemporal.

Yes, I think you are correct there and perhaps I was too hasty to lump Ven. Nanavira with Ven Buddhadasa. My impression so far was that students who appreciate Ven.Nanavira's notes on d.o. theory would usually quote the same arguments to refute the (supposed) mahavihara account, and then when describing their experience of d.o. in practice - it would often sound similar to Ven.Buddhadasa's account. But, that's just my impression, so as you point out, I might be wrong regarding how exactly Ven.Nanavira himself described the experience of d.o. in practice.

Best wishes
pt1
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby retrofuturist » Tue May 25, 2010 6:19 am

Greetings pt1,

pt1 wrote:I'm not sure why he didn't really address the citta to citta scale aspect of the mahavihara account, since I feel this would have been directly related to many of his counter-arguments.


I think he addresses the Mahavihara notion of cittas and their relationship in Section 7 of his note on Paticcasamuppada and this brief note on citta -
http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=69 . It's worth pointing out that he wasn't interested in detailing everything that he considered to be wrong with the traditional Mahavihara interpretation... I get the impression this is because many of the possible problems would be dissolved simply by abandoning the 3-life-interpretation. Or in his own words "No doubt more such specific inadequacies and inconsistencies in the traditional interpretation of paticcasamuppāda could be found, but since this is not a polemic we are not concerned to seek them out."

I agree with you and Blackbird that Nanavira's presentation of dependent origination is purely structural, rather than temporal and suggest this is precisely why he doesn't "address the citta to citta scale aspect of the mahavihara account" other than to raise concerns similar to those made by alex123 at viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4307

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14678
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby Paññāsikhara » Tue May 25, 2010 7:01 am

Shonin wrote:A few other questions:

As I understand (I may have misunderstood), according to the Nikayas, the Buddha's enlightenment was not a special state of mind like a supreme Jhana, it was the realisation of Dependent Origination and the Four Noble Truths. Is that accurate?




Just to note, that realization did occur within the fourth jhana, however. This is the most standard account given in the Nikayas and Agamas. Though I am not sure whether this would qualify as "special state" or "supreme" in your terminology, or not.

The issue of the object of that realization, eg. dep orig, or ariya truths, is a matter of debate. Many modern scholars see a tension in theories, based on a wide range of texts; others may consider the two to be the same thing, merely described differently.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Paññāsikhara
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Postby Shonin » Tue May 25, 2010 7:15 am

And I have another question:

If the 12-step chain of Dependent Origination represents the mechanism of rebirth, then - given that rebirth is supposedly endless until final Nibbana - why is it a chain at all? Why is it linear rather than being a repeating cycle? And if the answer to that is that really it is a cycle, presented as repeating chain, then why does the end of the chain 'Decay and Death' not neatly join onto the beginning of the chain - 'Ignorance'? Is Ignorance dependent on Decay and Death?
Shonin
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Sati1 and 15 guests