Paticcasamuppada

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: Paticcasamuppada

Postby Ben » Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:44 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Sunrise wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. There are plenty of references to the womb in the texts:


Not in the pali suttas except in one. At least I haven't come across any.

Did you click on the search that I posted above?
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&sa ... =&gs_rfai=
You might be right that there are not many suttas specifically about paticcasamuppada that have the actual word "womb" in them, but there are plenty on that link talking about the workings of kamma that mention wombs.

Mike


Yes, and lets not forget the concept of the 'gandharba' (sp?) entering the womb occurs in the suttas.
kind regards

Ben
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Hereclitus


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: 16071
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: Paticcasamuppada

Postby Ben » Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:53 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Porpoise,

porpoise wrote:It depends on whether you accept the sutta at face value, or choose to interpret it metaphorically. I've noticed that sometimes people choose the metaphorical meaning because they don't like the implications of the literal meaning.

I see two problems with this...

Firstly, it assumes one must be either 'literal' or 'metaphorical'... all very black and white, yes and no, this one or the other. It doesn't account for subtle definitions and shades of meaning, nor does it acknowledge how the Buddha put a twist on existing words (loka comes to mind as a good example, satta is another) to frame them away from worldly conventions and orientate them towards the Dhamma.

Secondly, it assumes that the decision of how to interpret a phrase or doctrine is a matter of personal likes or dislikes. This is a classic straw man argument seen repeatedly on Buddhist forums - so common in fact, I think the people who state it must actually believe it. On the other hand, it's quite possible that people are driven not by their own personal ignorant preferences, but by the coherent explanations of many modern bhikkhus and lay teachers, who have looked at the suttas on their own terms, not interpreted through commentarial frames of references, and have seen the "subtle definitions and shades of meaning" that I referred to above. People I know who believe in a structural, rather than temporal model of dependent origination, invariably do so because they genuinely believe that is what the Buddha meant, and they take it thus, out of respect for their teacher... not on account of personal preference.

Metta,
Retro. :)


well said, mate!
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Hereclitus


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: 16071
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Previous

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], mikenz66, Samraj, SarathW and 5 guests