DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby mikenz66 » Sun May 01, 2011 11:39 pm

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:I see absolutely no contradiction between phenomenology and long time scales (multiple lifetimes, universes, etc, etc).

Neither do I, so long as you can experience them and relate them to present experiences.... but I know I can't 'experience' other lives, nor 'experience' other universes. If any people involved in this discussion can, well, good for them. :thumbsup:

So you're not just talking about just phenomenology. You're adding this "instant gratification" idea, which is another concept altogether. I don't see how phenomenology, in itself, restricts us to the present moment.

Even within this lifetime, we are (generally) talking about developments that take months, years, decades, requiring faith in the Dhamma, effort, etc, etc.... Just because we don't experience nibbana (or previous lives for that matter) right in this particular moment doesn't rule out such experience in the future. I can't (yet) fully test the Buddha's teaching in this particular moment...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10538
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby mikenz66 » Sun May 01, 2011 11:51 pm

retrofuturist wrote:Is this to imply that the Buddha himself did not experientially know that jati had ended, whilst still alive? Was the jubilant statement 'jati has ended!' of the arahants merely a 'thought experiment'?

It's perfectly logical that one could know that 'jati has ended' in the sense of a knowledge that there will be no jati in the future.

As we discussed above:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p127073
MN 140 wrote: He understands: ‘On the dissolution of the body, with the ending of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here.’


:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10538
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Sun May 01, 2011 11:52 pm

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:So you're not just talking about just phenomenology. You're adding this "instant gratification" idea, which is another concept altogether.

I don't understand the basis for this "instant gratification" assessment. What I'm saying is that you need to be able to see the causality and relationships involved - in other words, the structures of the nidanas, in their arising and cessation modes. If you can't see them, you're just 'believing' them out of faith. Belief is fine, but it's putting them into practice to attain knowledge which is important.

mikenz66 wrote:I don't see how phenomenology, in itself, restricts us to the present moment.

As I just said in the last post, neither do I. Sati (memory) can be used, and is arguably essential in terms of associating cause with effect (i.e. seeing this/that conditionality).

mikenz66 wrote:Even within this lifetime, we are (generally) talking about developments that take months, years, decades, requiring faith in the Dhamma, effort, etc, etc.... Just because we don't experience nibbana (or previous lives for that matter) right in this particular moment doesn't rule out such experience in the future. I can't (yet) fully test the Buddha's teaching in this particular moment...

No problems with any of that, but we can see the arising of cessation of nidanas one by one, all the way back to vinnana and nama-rupa, even as putujjanas (unless of course, one holds a definition of the dependent origination terms which precludes the ability to see them here-and-now).

Of course, it's only temporary observation, but it's enough to "know" that the this/that conditionality associated with the nidanas is true, rather than simply having faith that it is so.

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: 14728
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Sun May 01, 2011 11:59 pm

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:It's perfectly logical that one could know that 'jati has ended' in the sense of a knowledge that there will be no jati in the future.

Indeed it is.... but only if you have seen jati arise, know what it is, know that it is always caused by bhava and that you can see that you've done what needs to be done in order to prevent bhava (and thus jati) from arising in the future.

Even if jati is regarded as "literal post-mortem rebirth", then the Buddha could have known it, based on his knowledge of previous lives.

However, based on the suttas it is seen that arahantship can be attained without knowledge of previous lives, so on what basis would "jati has ended"(if regarded as "literal post-mortem rebirth") be known for such an arahant whose memory extends only to this lifetime? How has such an arahant ever seen jati arise, let alone know that they have done what is needed to prevent its future arising?

Leigh Brasington wrote:Dig deep - this is a rich vein, there is much to learn here if you can approach it with an open mind and lack of fixed concepts.
(Source: http://www.leighb.com/deporg1.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: 14728
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby mikenz66 » Mon May 02, 2011 12:29 am

retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:It's perfectly logical that one could know that 'jati has ended' in the sense of a knowledge that there will be no jati in the future.

Indeed it is.... but only if you have seen jati arise, know what it is, know that it is always caused by bhava and that you can see that you've done what needs to be done in order to prevent bhava (and thus jati) from arising in the future.

Even if jati is regarded as "literal post-mortem rebirth", then the Buddha could have known it, based on his knowledge of previous lives.

However, based on the suttas it is seen that arahantship can be attained without knowledge of previous lives, so on what basis would "jati has ended"(if regarded as "literal post-mortem rebirth") be known for such an arahant whose memory extends only to this lifetime? How has such an arahant ever seen jati arise, let alone know that they have done what is needed to prevent its future arising?

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I simply don't accept your reasoning:
How has such an arahant ever seen jati arise, let alone know that they have done what is needed to prevent its future arising?

What matters is that he knows that he has done what is needed to prevent its future arising, not that he knows it in the particular way you seem to be assuming.

If I come across a fire, and put it out by pouring water on it, I'm confident that it's out. I don't need to have direct experience of how it started to know that. Which, according to the Buddha, is not possible anyway:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on."


:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10538
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Mon May 02, 2011 12:39 am

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:If I come across a fire, and put it out by pouring water on it, I'm confident that it's out. I don't need to have direct experience of how it started to know that.

But you do know, Mike.... flame and fuel. And when you are confident, you are confident because you have extinguished the flame, and/or rendered the fuel inoperable. If you had no idea of the causality involved, the confidence in relation to the fire staying out would simply be "faith" on your part.

To give an example pertinent to the Dhamma, during deep jhana, the asavas are suppressed... does that mean that once suppressed they will not return once jhana ceases? No. Knowledge of the causality involved is required in order to make a proper assessment and to actually know.

mikenz66 wrote:I don't need to have direct experience of how it started to know that. Which, according to the Buddha, is not possible anyway

We will certainly have to agree to disagree then, and in this particular instance it seems to be based primarily on different understandings of what jati means.

P.S. Re: SN 15.9, do you know what Pali word is being rendered here as "transmigration"?

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: 14728
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Mon May 02, 2011 12:56 am

Greetings,

Something relevant to the topic of whether there can be "DO not depending on avijja and sankhara", from Leigh Brasington - http://www.leighb.com/deporg1.htm#cc

But look what happens when you lay the "cessation chain" on top of the 3 Lives Model: With the ceasing of Ignorance in your previous life, there is the ceasing of Sankharas in your previous life. Therefore since the Sankharas ceased, your Consciousness and Mind & Body have ceased in this life. Oh wait, if you are reading this, then I guess your Consciousness and Mind & Body have not ceased in this life! So in order to get free of Dukkha in your next life, you need to go back to your previous life and generate the "remainderless fading & cessation of ignorance." This does present a serious problem - the way out of Dukkha is to banish Ignorance in a previous life so that in the next life after that previous life you won't have Consciousness and Mind & Body so thus you can avoid Craving and Clinging so you won't have a life after the life after you banished Ignorance! This make NO sense whatsoever.

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: 14728
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby Sylvester » Mon May 02, 2011 1:21 am

mikenz66 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Is this to imply that the Buddha himself did not experientially know that jati had ended, whilst still alive? Was the jubilant statement 'jati has ended!' of the arahants merely a 'thought experiment'?

It's perfectly logical that one could know that 'jati has ended' in the sense of a knowledge that there will be no jati in the future.

As we discussed above:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6382&start=400#p127073
MN 140 wrote: He understands: ‘On the dissolution of the body, with the ending of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here.’


:anjali:
Mike



I think the suttas are with you on this, Mike. Inferential knowledge of DO is knowledge of DO, and that seems to be good enough for Stream Entry.

In the Kosambi Sutta, SN 12.68, both Ven Musila and Ven Narada demonstrate personal knowledge of DO and DC, including personal knowledge that "Nibbana is the cessation of existence". However, when questioned if the last-mentioned knowledge implied Arahanta, Ven Narada said NO and gave this simile -

Suppose, friend, there was a well along a desert road, but it had neither a rope or a bucket. Then a man would come along, oppressed and afflicted by the heat, tired, parched and thirsty. He would look down into the well and the knowledge would occur to him, "There is water", but he would not be able to make bodily contact with it. So too, friend, though I have clearly seen as it really is with correct wisdom, "Nibbana is the cessation of existence", I am not an Arahant, one whose taints are destroyed.


The "making bodily contact with it" phrase is well-known in the context of an Arahant, where other suttas describe how he/she dwells touching with his/her body Nibbana or the highest truth etc (kayena phusitva viharati).
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1550
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby Sylvester » Mon May 02, 2011 1:33 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Something relevant to the topic of whether there can be "DO not depending on avijja and sankhara", from Leigh Brasington - http://www.leighb.com/deporg1.htm#cc

But look what happens when you lay the "cessation chain" on top of the 3 Lives Model: With the ceasing of Ignorance in your previous life, there is the ceasing of Sankharas in your previous life. Therefore since the Sankharas ceased, your Consciousness and Mind & Body have ceased in this life. Oh wait, if you are reading this, then I guess your Consciousness and Mind & Body have not ceased in this life! So in order to get free of Dukkha in your next life, you need to go back to your previous life and generate the "remainderless fading & cessation of ignorance." This does present a serious problem - the way out of Dukkha is to banish Ignorance in a previous life so that in the next life after that previous life you won't have Consciousness and Mind & Body so thus you can avoid Craving and Clinging so you won't have a life after the life after you banished Ignorance! This make NO sense whatsoever.

Metta,
Retro. :)


A fairly useless reductio ad absurdum from Mr Brasington. He's obviously oblivious to the suttas that explain that the sankhara-vinnana nidana was for the explication of the "establishment of consciousness" and "descent of namarupa". Or did he bother addressing those "establishment of consciousness" and "descent of namarupa" suttas?

And again, the banishment of Avijja in a past life can easily happen with Stream Entry. And his reductio is based on the premise that DC must proceed over 3 time periods just like DO. Why force this attribute to DC, just because it is used for DO?
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1550
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby Sylvester » Mon May 02, 2011 1:35 am

retrofuturist wrote:P.S. Re: SN 15.9, do you know what Pali word is being rendered here as "transmigration"?



Samsara.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1550
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Mon May 02, 2011 1:53 am

Greetings Sylvester,

Sylvester wrote:Samsara.


Thanks for that. :thumbsup:

(For anyone interested in how I would regard 'samsara' (lit. wandering on) without recourse to 'transmigration', I did so back here - viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8064&start=40#p129331 )

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: 14728
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby mikenz66 » Mon May 02, 2011 1:55 am

Drat, Beat me to it.

Hint: There is a link to the Pali from the Translations on ATI:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ml#pts.184
Anamataggoyaṃ bhikkhave, saṃsāro.

And I completely agree with Sylvester that Leigh's logic is absurd. This is also related to the other perennial, whether the Arahant still has dukkha, and what ceases at Nibbana, and what at the breakup of the body:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6382
I'm happy with the idea that the Arahant knows that there will be no re-arising with the breakup of the body. I don't see that everything has to have disappeared before then.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10538
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby piotr » Mon May 02, 2011 3:26 pm

Hi Retrofuturist,

retrofuturist wrote:But then, dependent origination would not be as useful. Alternatively one could just use the Four Noble Truths.


What do you mean by that?
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
User avatar
piotr
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby tiltbillings » Mon May 02, 2011 3:40 pm

piotr wrote:Hi Retrofuturist,

retrofuturist wrote:But then, dependent origination would not be as useful. Alternatively one could just use the Four Noble Truths.


What do you mean by that?
Damdifino, but the FNT are built upon the same principle as paticcasamuppada:

This being, that becomes; from the arising of this, that arises; this not becoming, that does not become; from the ceasing of this, that ceases. -- MN II 32; SN II 28. Understanding one is to understand the other.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19764
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby piotr » Mon May 02, 2011 5:03 pm

Hi Tiltbillings,

tiltbillings wrote:Damdifino, but the FNT are built upon the same principle as paticcasamuppada:

This being, that becomes; from the arising of this, that arises; this not becoming, that does not become; from the ceasing of this, that ceases. -- MN II 32; SN II 28. Understanding one is to understand the other.


Actually, paṭiccasamuppāda anuloma is the second noble truth & paṭiccasamuppāda paṭiloma is the third noble truth (see AN i 176).
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
User avatar
piotr
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby rowyourboat » Mon May 02, 2011 5:22 pm

Hi Retro,

What I'm interested in is, do you believe in literal post-mortem rebirth? I'm not expecting you to accept it, just trying to understand the stance you have taken on this matter. I suspect it is not a big part of why you practice (I maybe wrong). I am reminded that the Buddha's udana at the point of liberation was all about stopping samsara.


"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

— SN 15.3

Note how the Buddha deftly switches between the mundane endless (no place in ultimate truth talk) transmigration, and says that this will make you dispassionate about fabrications (ultimate truth, here and now). By seeing and understanding what is in front of our eyes, we become able to overcome the past and the future, metaphorically speaking.

[The Buddha:] "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It's because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.

Now, if he were so concerned about literal rebirth, he would include it in the DO- as it is road map; it's not seeing, the cause for transmigration. As you correctly pointed out, if all that mattered was what is happening in the present moment (ie if it were 'therapy'), then avijja paccaya sankhara is all that is required to be stated. But this is far more than that. We are required to have faith in the Buddha, dhamma and sangha and accept that not everything can be known directly, to everyone (such as rebirth and kamma). But that doesn't mean they are not relevant. One could state that it is possible to do without them, and that would be true, especially if you are prepared to leave out those teaching from the suttas (which you could do), but better to be consciyosly aware of that fact, rather than saying that those teachings are corruptions and that you hold the entire teaching within your view (and that others are wrong- which I see you are not doing).

I might tbrow this in- If all there was, was the removal of the three poisons, and after that there was life (becoming), minus the suffering it wouldn't be much of a proxy for the ending of rebirth - who knows, you might have just suppressed lobha, dosa, moha. But if you experienced the suffering of arising and passing away, and then saw the non-arising of fabricated phenomena once you got rid of avijja, even momentarily, you would have some reassurance that this path can stop the suffering of arising and passing away AND any form of rebecoming. It is not absolute proof, but is as good as it gets, IMHO. The rest of it takes sadda, the type that cannot be replaced with panna (quite possibly the reason why it is a faculty in it's own right).

With metta

Matheesha
Ps- as to the utility of a mixed (mundane/conventional/ultimate/internal/external) DO, as I believe in rebirth, (as per mundane right view) and Siddharta Gotama's initial problem was old age, disease and death (not the impermanence of fabrications), so it makes perefect sense that the epitome of Buddhist teaching should contain answers to those very exalted questions, lest it be rather unsatisfactory (mind the pun) and rather bland, threadbare fare, for those poor in view. Not only does it contain answers to that but it contains the solution to 1) overcoming becoming, which happens in a future life, in this life 2) the answer to the eradication of suffering through the eradication of craving 3) the eradication of sankhara dukkha, by the erradication of avijja 4) a explanation anyone at any level of practice can appreciate (Buddha asked his disciples to at least take it on.. faith, in one sutta). 5) is a summary containing within it many threads, but has enough for disciples to practice from various angles, according to their predispositions 6) shows exactly how the cards are stacked and exactly how the cards fall as well- it is pure genius!
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
rowyourboat
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Mon May 02, 2011 10:50 pm

Greetings Piotr,
piotr wrote:Hi Retrofuturist,

retrofuturist wrote:But then, dependent origination would not be as useful. Alternatively one could just use the Four Noble Truths.


What do you mean by that?

What I mean is that all these teachings are tools and frames of reference to be used on the path. However, not every single teaching the Buddha gave is necessarily required for liberation. You don't need to use each and every framework and each and every list that was ever recorded in sutta. Accordingly, nobility is possible without using the detailed teachings of dependent origination as a raft. You don't necessarily need to use the detailed teachings on dependent origination.

My comment, put back in context, was in relation to RYB's comment that he felt there was redundancy involved in a non-time-delineated model because... "It would not be necessary to talk of bhava or even suffering as all that would be covered under the more present moment elements like phassa and vedana.". What I was saying is that speaking in terms of redundancy isn't the right way to regard it.... there's detailed versions and brief versions of the teaching.... and if you wanted a really 'brief' version of dependent origination, you could simply stop the teaching after avijja and sankhara, since sabbe sankhara dhukka.

However, that Dhamma in brief, isn't as detailed or as elucidating as an exposition in detail. The Buddha taught D.O. in different levels of detail and brief, and as Tilt points out, the Four Noble Truths in some sense are a 'brief' version of D.O. When he taught in an abbreviated form, as he did in the quote back in the OP, it's not because avijja and sankhara are absent from the process, merely that they are not included in the 'brief'.

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: 14728
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Mon May 02, 2011 11:16 pm

Greetings RYB,

rowyourboat wrote:What I'm interested in is, do you believe in literal post-mortem rebirth?

I do provisionally, and see the benefits in it as per MN60... though I give primacy to the doctrine of anatta and ensuring that any view I have does not lead me to fall into Sati's error of a transmigrating consciousness. As I see it, when someone is a puthujjana, even if they fully accept the teaching on anatta... if they think in terms of self, when they think of rebirth they will invariably falsely regard it due to avijja and that is dangerous. Therefore, I endeavour not to focus on it and prefer to focus on what is at hand and what I can actually do about the situation, because "If a monk is absorbed in speculation about the other world, then his mind is enthralled" (MN 48).

rowyourboat wrote:I suspect it is not a big part of why you practice (I maybe wrong).

"The future" is, though I don't subscribe to translating future as "future lives" in line with the Mahavihara. To me, the future is the future, whatever it is, or however long it is... such parameters are not integral to it being "the future". Likewise, the speculative biological or geographical configuration of the elements that might eventuate does not concern me as much as the reality I know that there will be dukkha, whilst there is craving. As long as there is existence, dukkha and nirodha will be of interest and personal concern.

rowyourboat wrote:I am reminded that the Buddha's udana at the point of liberation was all about stopping samsara.

I am reminded that samsara means 'wandering on'... and does not in itself draw line markers in the sand been linked lives. As far as I'm concerned, dukkha is dukkha regardless of when it is dukkha. SN 15.3 which you quote is consistent with my non-lifetime-delineated understanding of samsara. I can't remember a point in time beyond which I was not ignorant and fettered by craving. Long enough have I experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss... and quite possibly swelled the cemeteries to boot. Either way, it's certainly enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released. Hence my interest in applying the Dhamma.

rowyourboat wrote:"We are required to have faith in the Buddha, dhamma and sangha and accept that not everything can be known directly, to everyone (such as rebirth and kamma)."

But kamma and its effects can be seen, to some extent. Kamma and vipaka are simply "in brief", what the full dependent origination exposition is "in detail". Again, kamma isn't just a "faith" teaching either. It has some value as such (for example, as a Jataka tale), but it has more value as a way of understanding how cetana (as a sankhara) forms the cognitively distorted perception of existence, and the suffering that you are prone to when you exist, and how the mindstate underpinning the cetana flavours the nature of that experience in accord with its wholesomeness or unwholesomeness. I have very strong "faith" in the Buddha's teaching, but it is grounded in understanding as much as it can be at this point in time.... if something can be known I will endeavour to know. Given what the Buddha says about the Dhamma (open to inspection, nothing held back, timeless, leading onwards, to be seen by the wise) I'm inclined to think this is an appropriate approach.

I hope that goes some way to answering your question.

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: 14728
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby rowyourboat » Wed May 04, 2011 2:50 am

Hi Retro,

Thank you for your reply. I feel the descriptions of dhamma apply only to the teachings unique to the Buddha- ie, those related to ultimate truth/vipassana, as elements of mundane right view (karma and rebirth, in a mundane sense) cannot be verified but must be taken on some foundation of faith. The conventional truth is also a truth, even though less true, compared to the ultimate truth. We cannot say it is a lie compared to the ultimate truth. Otherwise the putajjana would have no hope of kusala kamma. Therefore we are left in a situation where we must straddle both truths and the ultimate truth must be able to explain (in a more refined manner), what happens in the conventional world. The Buddha didn't abandon the conventional world because he saw the truth.

when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.-kaccayanagotta sutta


So we tread a middle path of sorts, not loosing touch with the conventional reality of the putajjanas nor betraying the Ariya sacca of the sekhas. It is here, we can make maximum use of the teachings (coventionl truths being used to drive the mind towards disenchantment for example).

With metta

Matheesha
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
rowyourboat
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby ground » Wed May 04, 2011 3:17 am

rowyourboat wrote:The conventional truth is also a truth, even though less true, compared to the ultimate truth.


If there is no thought "conventional truth" there is no thought "ultimate truth". Thoughts are one type of manifestation of the aggregates.
The so called "conventional truth" is caused by compassionately taking into account so-called "worldly" experience which is non-informed in the first place. The notion "true" (or "false") also belongs to that sphere as does the term "ultimate truth" as do all verbal expressions including this post.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests