the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

I never implied anything of the sort. Knowing that Iron Age people mastered the Buddhist Path, your comparison of it with quantum mechanics is laughable. It's a blatant caricature of what I said.
But a justified one since you made the assertion that I was implying that Dhamma was as simple as ABC.

Apologies if it came across that way, my intent was to argue that the Dhamma is not necessarily as hard as it's sometimes made out to be, so in essence I was trying to show encouragement. My reference to quantum mechanics was in response to your (apparent) assertion that Dhamma is very hard to understand (like quantum mechanics).


However we are getting off track, and if it gets you to answer my main (repeated) question, then I will admit defeat in this part of the discussion.

So:

"What is right view without taints?"

You are saying "it's not that hard". That implies that you've completed the work which, of course, you haven't.
How do you know that? I'm not saying I have but it's difficult to take you seriously when you succumb to logical fallacies such as this one.

You don't know what my attainment is, if any.
clw_uk wrote:
And please answer my last post

No, I'm afraid not. We're talking past each other here. I'll probably come back later but I'm done with this conversation for now.

What is right view without taints?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

clw_uk wrote:What is right view without taints?
From MN117: "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view..."

Does "analysis of qualities" here refer to dhamma-vicaya?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by culaavuso »

Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote:What is right view without taints?
From MN117: "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view..."

Does "analysis of qualities" here refer to dhamma-vicaya?
It appears to be a translation of dhamma vicaya. "Analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening" is dhamma­vicaya­sam­boj­jhaṅgo
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

culaavuso wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote:What is right view without taints?
From MN117: "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view..."

Does "analysis of qualities" here refer to dhamma-vicaya?
It appears to be a translation of dhamma vicaya. "Analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening" is dhamma­vicaya­sam­boj­jhaṅgo
Thanks!
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

I found this, which I will call the degenerative loop of suffering (dukkha):
"And what are the taints, what is the origin of the taints, what is the cessation of the taints, what is the way leading to the cessation of the taints?

There are three taints:

the taint of sensual desire,

the taint of being and

the taint of ignorance.

With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints.

With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints. The way leading to the cessation of the taints is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration."

— MN 9 (Ñanamoli/Bodhi, trans.)
source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... vijja.html

So, the way I read this: "Ignorance, the root cause of dukkha, is a type of taint. When ignorance arises, all taints (3) arise: ignorance, being, and sensual desire.

My questions are:

"Can one be ignorant if one does not first exist?"...if we aren't already "being".

"Can one have desire if they do not first exist?"...since only beings have desires.

If the above makes sense, then: "How does one come into being?" Do we as beings just arise? If so, what is the cause? :shrug:

Dependent Co-Arising states:
"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for aging and death?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition do aging and death come?' one should say, 'Aging and death come from birth as their requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for birth?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does birth come?' one should say, 'Birth comes from becoming as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for becoming?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does becoming come?' one should say, 'Becoming comes from clinging as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for clinging?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does clinging come?' one should say, 'Clinging comes from craving as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for craving?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does craving come?' one should say, 'Craving comes from feeling as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for feeling?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does feeling come?' one should say, 'Feeling comes from contact as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for contact?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does contact come?' one should say, 'Contact comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for name-and-form?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does name-and-form come?' one should say, 'Name-and-form comes from consciousness as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for consciousness?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does consciousness come?' one should say, 'Consciousness comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.'


So, it appears to me that consciousness arises concurrently from name and form, which in turn is the cause for all other factors leading to dukkha.

Therefore, should we all strive to be unconscious as a means to end dukkha, or should we live in accordance with The Noble Eight Fold Path? The prior seems to me to be less work. :thinking:

source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by culaavuso »

Ron-The-Elder wrote: My questions are:

"Can one be ignorant if one does not first exist?"...if we aren't already "being".

"Can one have desire if they do not first exist?"...since only beings have desires.
SN 12.12: Moḷiyaphagguna Sutta wrote: "Lord, who craves?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'craves.' If I were to say 'craves,' then 'Who craves?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes craving?' And the valid answer is, 'From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.'"
It seems that the situation is more that to the extent of craving there are beings, and not that beings have cravings.
SN 23.2: Satta Sutta wrote: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Mkoll »

culaavuso wrote:It seems that the situation is more that to the extent of craving there are beings, and not that beings have cravings.
:goodpost:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

culaavuso wrote:
SN 23.2: Satta Sutta wrote: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
So presumably if one isn't "caught up", then one is an Arahant?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Mkoll »

Spiny Norman wrote:
culaavuso wrote:
SN 23.2: Satta Sutta wrote: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
So presumably if one isn't "caught up", then one is an Arahant?
Sounds like it. If there's craving, there's being caught up (clinging maybe?). Since the arahant has extirpated craving, there is no being caught up. No pun intended. :mrgreen:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

I wonder what the difference is between:

Unconscious....

and, "not conscious" ? :shrug:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by culaavuso »

Ron-The-Elder wrote:I wonder what the difference is between:

Unconscious....

and, "not conscious" ?
"Unconscious" seems to be an adjective to apply to something, while "not conscious" seems to be a denial of the applicability of an adjective without stating whether another adjective is applicable or not. Both of these adjectives differ from the phrase "cessation of consciousness" in which consciousness is a noun and not an adjective applied to something else.

The view that beings are conscious sounds like one of the forms of self-identification (MN 44) which seems different from a description of the arising and cessation of consciousness.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

Thanks, culaavuso. I was thinking more of Buddha's teachings with regard to consciousness, rather than English grammar.

But, you raise two good points as discussed in (MN 44):

In the case of consciousness subsiding, are we unconscious, or not conscious?

In the case of consciousness not arising, are we unconscious, or not conscious?

Again, since it appears that consciousness arises concurrently from name and form, which in turn is the cause for all other factors leading to dukkha, how do we prevent consciousness and still remain a living being? :shrug:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

There's no prevention of consciousness in that way; it isn't to be ended but to be fully comprehended. What ends are the fermentations.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

daverupa wrote:There's no prevention of consciousness in that way; it isn't to be ended but to be fully comprehended. What ends are the fermentations.
So how do we interpret cessation of consciousness in DO ( cessation mode )?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by culaavuso »

Ron-The-Elder wrote:I was thinking more of Buddha's teachings with regard to consciousness, rather than English grammar.
Perhaps it would be more fruitful then to discuss the meanings of some particular teaching of the Buddha's rather than the meaning of English words. Is there a particular discourse that is motivating these questions?
Ron-The-Elder wrote: In the case of consciousness subsiding, are we unconscious, or not conscious?
In the case of consciousness not arising, are we unconscious, or not conscious?
These questions seem to assume that consciousness is a possession of one's self ("we"), and that one's self somehow exists apart from the aggregates.
MN 44: Cūḷavedalla Sutta wrote: There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma
...
He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
SN 12.12: Moḷiyaphagguna Sutta wrote: When this was said, Ven.-Moliya-Phagguna said to the Blessed One, "Lord, who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'feeds.' If I were to say 'feeds,' then 'Who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'Consciousness-nutriment for what?' And the valid answer is, 'Consciousness-nutriment for the production of future coming-into-being. When that has come into being and exists, then the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.'"
Post Reply