DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby Sylvester » Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:06 am

Drats. After an hour of typing a reply, it's all gone.

Rather than re-do it all over again, could I refer you to SN 12.38, SN 12.39 and AN 3.76? I am reading those texts as furnishing a different sense of "establishment" from the one which you use. In a nutshell, these suttas do not use establishment as meaning the event of phassa as part of the cognitive process, but as meaning the inclination of the mind in the context of rebecoming.

You may be familiar with only DN 15 as the only sutta promoting a biological reading to namarupa, but I'll try to rustle up the others which discuss the descent of namarupa.

It's a rather involved analysis, and I'll pull out the Pali for the above 3 suttas when I'm next on line.

In the meantime, pls refrain from ascribing to me -

However, if you believe the nama-rupa/vinnana combination is just a proxy for a sentient being,

:tongue:
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby acinteyyo » Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:11 am

Sylvester wrote:I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting above. The term used in SN 12.64 was the technical punabbhava, which is then followed by birth (jāti). The Pali says -

Yattha atthi nāmarūpassa avakkanti, atthi tattha saṅkhārānaṃ vuddhi. Yattha atthi saṅkhārānaṃ vuddhi, atthi tattha āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti. Yattha atthi āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti, atthi tattha āyatiṃ jātijarāmaraṇaṃ.

It's a little bit oversimplified imho, if we only take birth (jāti) into consideration in case of punabbhava. I really don't like punabbhava to be understood as "rebirth", I prefer the more precise meaning of "again becoming", which doesn't imply that much "speculative baggage" like "rebirth". So the Pali used in SN12.64 actually doesn't just tell us that rebirth (punabbhava) is followed by birth (jāti) but rather that when there is again becoming, there is birth AND aging AND death (jātijarāmaraṇaṃ). As I understand it, punabbhava is not just followed by birth, then by aging and finally by death but when there is punabhbhava (again becoming, namely someone -> sakkāya which is pañc'upādānakkhandhā) one is subject to birth, aging and death (jātijarāmaraṇaṃ) here and now.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:33 am

Greetings Sylvester,

Sylvester wrote:Drats. After an hour of typing a reply, it's all gone.

That's a shame. But was there even one minute spent watching the arising of consciousness, and what caused that consciousness to arise, and the role of attention and intention in the formation of that consciousness?

Sylvester wrote:Rather than re-do it all over again, could I refer you to SN 12.38, SN 12.39 and AN 3.76?

Well I just read all three of those and these accord perfectly well with my understanding, devoid of explanations of physical biological embryos and transmigrating consciousnesses. Read through your lens though, I can see how you might see them as substantiating transmigratory leanings.

Sylvester wrote:I am reading those texts as furnishing a different sense of "establishment" from the one which you use.

Evidently so.

Sylvester wrote:In a nutshell, these suttas do not use establishment as meaning the event of phassa as part of the cognitive process, but as meaning the inclination of the mind in the context of rebecoming.

Earlier discussions reveal our definitions of phassa differs as well (I understand it in accord with Ven. Nanavira's Notes).

Again, your interpretation is nothing new here... it is 'orthodox' 3-life kammic transmigration. Personally, I prefer what acinteyyo wrote above.

Sylvester wrote:You may be familiar with only DN 15 as the only sutta promoting a biological reading to namarupa, but I'll try to rustle up the others which discuss the descent of namarupa.

Just so long as you know in advance, words translated as "descent" or "establishment" will not cut the mustard if you're attempting to convince me of a biological reading to namarupa, that is not amenable to said 'nama-rupa' ceasing due to vijja within this lifetime.

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: 14674
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:53 am

acinteyyo wrote: I really don't like punabbhava to be understood as "rebirth", I prefer the more precise meaning of "again becoming", which doesn't imply that much "speculative baggage" like "rebirth".
Do you have any thing more to go on other than what you do not like? Pali is a highly idiomatic language. I have yet to see anything convincing that "again becoming" is not to be taken as it traditionally has been understood as referring to what we call rebirth. Also, rebirth is no more "speculative" than any number of things found in the Buddha's teachings.
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: 19578
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby acinteyyo » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:37 am

tiltbillings wrote:
acinteyyo wrote: I really don't like punabbhava to be understood as "rebirth", I prefer the more precise meaning of "again becoming", which doesn't imply that much "speculative baggage" like "rebirth".
Do you have any thing more to go on other than what you do not like? Pali is a highly idiomatic language. I have yet to see anything convincing that "again becoming" is not to be taken as it traditionally has been understood as referring to what we call rebirth. Also, rebirth is no more "speculative" than any number of things found in the Buddha's teachings.

I fully agree that Pali is a highly idiomatic language. This is going to be quite difficult. It's already very difficult for me to express my understanding on this in my native language but I try to explain it anyway why "again becoming" is not to be understood as "rebirth" according to my understanding, please be patient and try to understand why I see it the way I do it. I don't call for infallability so if there obviously is something wrong point it out to me.

It depends on how much the understanding of bhava (and actually the teachings at all) is influenced by belief in self (atta-vada) in the first place. Bhava or "being", "becoming" depends on upādāna (clinging). Clinging to what? Clinging to one, more or all of the khandhā (aggregates). Because of this very clinging to the aggregates regarding one, more or all of them as self, gives rise to "being something/someone" or "becoming something/someone". But not actually being or becoming something/one but rather becoming "personality" (sakkāya). Attention! This doesn't mean truly becoming something/one it (sakkāya) means clinging to aggregates! -> pañc'upādānakkhandhā is sakkāya (see MN44). This leads to birth (jāti). What is birth (MN9)?
Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.


Now this understanding of bhava does not include nor imply any kind of self. It is absolutely necessary to understand "being/becoming something/someone" as "personality-view", namely the view to be in essence somebody which is nothing else but pañc'upādānakkhandhā. In fact the inability to see this delusion is ignorance. I'm not talking about anybody at all. (Hope this important difference can be understood and you're getting the point :? )

So when it comes to punabbhava (puna=again, bhava=being, becoming) it simply means again bhava, again what I explained above, which is to say again clinging to aggregates, again becoming personality. And that is definitely not what has traditionally been understood and is usually called "rebirth". It is not "rebirth" of what so ever after death of this body.

Birth is jāti and to be understood as explained by the Buddha. Why isn't he talking about punajāti then? It seems to me that people tend to think that birth (jāti) has ended, because they are already born but that's not true according to my understanding. As long as there is bhava there is birth, aging and death. The death of this body doesn't even matter at all, this doesn't make an end to bhava nor jāti. It's just death of a body. I don't apply "a certain bhava" and "a certain jāti" particularly to this body and another bhava to another body and so on. This is the way it seems to be commonly understood, like "to me applies my dependent origination and to you applies yours". I really don't see any support for such a view in the teachings of the Buddha.

The problem is, that people think I'm born, I'm aging, I will die. According to my understanding this is delusion. It just shows clinging to aggregates very well. Then they think, when I died I will be reborn, but because of their intellectual understanding of anatta, they try to avoid such formulations still beliefing in self and still not seeing it. The Buddha never taught that "I am born", "I will die" or "I will be reborn" he taught there is birth and death. And this has to be understood by means of dependent origination (see the way the Buddha answers to the questions in SN12.12). But people still understand, ah okay so I was born, I will die and so on thinking in terms of me, mine and I while conceit and atta-vada are playing a dirty trick.

Hm... as I said quite difficult. I'm not really content with this post but I can't express myself better. Please ask as much as you like so that we may do away with any incomprehensibilities.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby Sylvester » Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:04 pm

OK, here’s an analyses of the 3 suttas, starting with Cetana Sutta 1, SN 12.38.

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 the production of future renewed existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

Yañca, bhikkhave, ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā. Ārammaṇe sati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa hoti. Tasmiṃ patiṭṭhite viññāṇe virūḷhe āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti. Āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbattiyā sati āyatiṃ jāti jarāmaraṇaṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā sambhavanti. Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti.


It will not be apparent from BB’s English translation, but take a look at the Pali, especially where the locative absolute are employed in red. Contrast that to the rest of the passage where that construction is not used. Now, if punabbhava is to be understood metaphorically as denoting mere psychological states attendant with consciousness, instead of renewed bhava in the traditional sense (see AN 3.76 later), why bother with the locative absolute, when the genitive absolute would have been more useful and conclusive in indicating contemporaneity?

Iddapaccayata is famous for its locative absolute construction, and there is nothing in iddapaccayata to indicate contemporaneity in each and every of DO’s nidanas. It may be so for vinnana-namarupa (per SN 12.67) and phassa-vedana (per MN 43). But this is one of the unfortunate side-effects of the modern interpretation of DO – if every paccaya is interpreted as being contemporaneous with its consequence, logically one must conclude that birth is simultaneous with death. It must follow that salayatana and phassa must always co-exist, contradicting MN 28’s allowance for it to be otherwise. In fact, every dhamma in the chain would be contemporaneous with its paccaya and its consequence, leaving no time for states to be recognized.


Skipping the middle passage, we come to the final passage –

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 production of future renewed existence. …

Yato ca kho, bhikkhave, no ceva ceteti no ca pakappeti no ca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ na hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā. Ārammaṇe asati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti. Tadappatiṭṭhite viññāṇe avirūḷhe āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti na hoti.


Now, if (i) punabbhava were interpreted to be a metaphor for mere psychological states, and
(ii) “establishment”/patittham were interpreted to be “contacting” in the cognitive series, instead of rebirth consciousness, does this mean that an Arahant free of the anusayas (obliquely referenced by ‘anuseti’) will be unconscious 24/7?

Clearly, “establishment” wrt consciousness is not the event of phassa where consciousness phusati/touches the indriya and ayatana. If phassa or phusati were meant, it is odd that the text speaks of maintenance of consciousness. “ṭhitiyā” is just so far removed from contact.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby Sylvester » Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:09 pm

Moving on to Cetana Sutta 2, SN 12.39.

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 descent of name-&-form. With name-&-form as condition, the six sense bases (etc per the rest of the std DO formula)

Yañca, bhikkhave, ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā. Ārammaṇe sati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa hoti. Tasmiṃ patiṭṭhite viññāṇe virūḷhe nāmarūpassa avakkanti hoti. Nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ;….


Note again the locative absolute used. If namarupa is simply interpreted as the normal mental states attendant on every cognitive event, why need it “descend”? If namarupa had to “descend” in order to be the sheave of reeds supporting consciousness (as cognitive event), then prior to its descent there would be no salayatana. No salayatana = no phassa. No phassa = no consciousness. Surely the salayatana do not need to descend with each and every phassa? MN 28 posits the “persistence” of the salayatana waiting for tajja samanahara, and not a khanika type of rapid arising and dissolution of the salayatana. If DO were to be interpreted as importing contemporaneity of all of its dhammas, this would surely be impossible –

But was there even one minute spent watching the arising of consciousness, and what caused that consciousness to arise, and the role of attention and intention in the formation of that consciousness?


It’s been said before in another thread but it is worth repeating here. The “establishment” of consciousness is to be understood in the context of rebirth. In SN 4.23, we see this query by Mara after Ven Godhika’s suicide –

That, monks, is Mara searching for the consciousness of the clansman Godhika, wondering : “Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Godhika been established?” However, monks, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Godhika has attained final Nibbana.

“Eso kho, bhikkhave, māro pāpimā godhikassa kulaputtassa viññāṇaṃ samanvesati— ‘kattha godhikassa kulaputtassa viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitan’ti? Appatiṭṭhitena ca, bhikkhave, viññāṇena godhiko kulaputto parinibbuto”ti
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby Sylvester » Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:12 pm

Moving on to the Bhava Sutta 1, AN 3.76.

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, this word, 'becoming, becoming' — to what extent is there becoming?
"Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-realm, would sensuality-becoming be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in a lower realm. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.

Ekamantaṃ nisinno kho āyasmā ānando bhagavantaṃ etadavoca— “bhavo, bhavoti, bhante, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, bhavo hotī”ti?
Kāmadhātuvepakkañca, ānanda, kammaṃ nābhavissa, api nu kho kāmabhavo paññāyethā”ti? “No hetaṃ, bhante”.
“Iti kho, ānanda, kammaṃ khettaṃ, viññāṇaṃ bījaṃ, taṇhā sneho. Avijjānīvaraṇānaṃ sattānaṃ taṇhāsaṃyojanānaṃ hīnāya dhātuyā viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ evaṃ āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti.


Certainly, the lines between the kamadhatu, rupadhatu and arupadhatu are porous, here and now, given the possibility of Jhana to move one from one dhatu to the other. This might then import a mere psychological dimension to “bhava”, instead of a cosmological one. But given how “establishment” of consciousness is clearly used to suggest rebirth, I say that the cosmological dimension is intended for bhava.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby Sylvester » Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:28 pm

retrofuturist wrote:Just so long as you know in advance, words translated as "descent" or "establishment" will not cut the mustard if you're attempting to convince me of a biological reading to namarupa, that is not amenable to said 'nama-rupa' ceasing due to vijja within this lifetime.


Well, according to the locative absolute formulation of the negative series in the Cetana Sutta 2, SN 12.39-

Yato ca kho, bhikkhave, no ceva ceteti no ca pakappeti no ca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ na hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā. Ārammaṇe asati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti. Tadappatiṭṭhite viññāṇe avirūḷhe nāmarūpassa avakkanti na hoti


there will be no descent of namarupa when consciousness is not established. The nirodha of namarupa in the reverse order of DO can also read as non-arising, tying nicely to non-descent.

It's not just DN 15, but SN 12.39 which also attests to a biological presentation of rupa in namarupa.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby piotr » Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:01 pm

Hi Acinteyyo,

acinteyyo wrote:The Buddha never taught that "I am born", "I will die" or "I will be reborn"


    "'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' This is the third fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.

    ...

    "Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death'? There are beings who are intoxicated with a [typical] living person's intoxication with life. Because of that intoxication with life, they conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that living person's intoxication with life will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...

    Upajjhatthana-sutta (AN 5.57)
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 retrofuturist » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:12 pm

Greetings Sylvester,

Whether these words are locative absolutes, genitive absolutes, or whatever, is irrelevant if the fundamental understanding of what the root form of each word actually means in terms of its experience or application.

For example, "birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres" means something very real and relevant to existence, here-and-now. If you believe "birth" in this context to refer to some biological thing bursting forth from the womb, then there is nothing to be learned from this teaching in this life. Whereas, regarded phenomenologically, in terms of experience, these words (and the selection of the words used) have very real and profound implications to how one rightly views their experiences with discernment. This way of viewing things is not conventional and worldly, and thus the idiomatic nature of the Pali serves some purpose in leaving openings where openings are apt, and means that language isn't as much of a limitation as it might otherwise be.

To wit, I've read your posts but they have convinced me of nothing, sorry. I hope others find benefit in your exposition, but I do not see how such an understanding can be applied in order to attain liberation... rather, I see a belief system, and I see the liberative elements of the teaching obscured. It feels like the Dhamma being hermitically sealed, studied, and dissected... without at any point being embraced, utilised or fully tested for oneself, not by logic or inference.

AN 3.65 wrote:"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness" — then you should enter & remain in them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

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: 14674
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby acinteyyo » Sun May 01, 2011 12:41 am

piotr wrote:Hi Acinteyyo,

acinteyyo wrote:The Buddha never taught that "I am born", "I will die" or "I will be reborn"


    "'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' This is the third fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.

    ...

    "Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death'? There are beings who are intoxicated with a [typical] living person's intoxication with life. Because of that intoxication with life, they conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that living person's intoxication with life will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...

    Upajjhatthana-sutta (AN 5.57)

This is exactly what I was talking about, unfortunately what I was trying to point out has not been understood. The Buddha tells us "I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death." and you seem to understand it simply as "I will die" not seeing the clinging, the conceit "I am". That this is a hint directly pointing to clinging. Whatever it is which will be regarded as "I am this" is one, more or all of the aggregates. It is impermanent, fabricated and suffering. Arising, passing away, alteration while staying is discernible of what is fabricated and because of unskillfully regarding what is fabricated as "I am this", "I am subject to death" (ceasing) applies as well es "I am subject to birth" (arising) and "I am subject to aging" (alteration while staying).

That means, as long as the aggregates are considered to be "me, mine, this is my self, I am this" this makes the identification subject to birth, aging and death.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby rowyourboat » Sun May 01, 2011 6:56 am

Hi Retro, Sylvester,

My opinion is that to miss out the physical reality of literal rebirth is to consign this great dhamma to mere psychology. It saps it of being something greater than you or me, it's sense of vastness of samsara, and reduces it to therapy.

But that's just me..

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 retrofuturist » Sun May 01, 2011 7:03 am

Greetings RYB,

I don't think anyone here denies the value in rebirth belief... the matter in question is whether it needs to be shoehorned into the Buddha's sublime teachings on dependent origination - turning it from a revolutionary phenomenological framework into a mere belief system of transmigration due to ignorance and craving.

Furthermore, I don't see the problem in the Dhamma being regarded as "therapy"... it's a cure for dukkha.

MN 75 wrote:Magandiya, associate with men of integrity. When you associate with men of integrity, you will hear the true Dhamma. When you hear the true Dhamma, you will practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. When you practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, you will know & see for yourself: 'These things are diseases, cancers, arrows. And here is where diseases, cancers, & arrows cease without trace. With the cessation of my clinging comes the cessation of becoming. With the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

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: 14674
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby ground » Sun May 01, 2011 7:33 am

retrofuturist wrote:... phenomenological framework ... mere belief system of transmigration.


Which may be revealed to be an ill-founded fabricated dichotomy ... if seen from the phenomenological perspective which entails sort of integration as "neither one nor two".


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

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby tiltbillings » Sun May 01, 2011 7:35 am

retrofuturist wrote:the matter in question is whether it [rebirth] needs to be shoehorned into the Buddha's sublime teachings on dependent origination
MN 75 wrote:Magandiya, associate with men of integrity. When you associate with men of integrity, you will hear the true Dhamma. When you hear the true Dhamma, you will practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. When you practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, you will know & see for yourself: 'These things are diseases, cancers, arrows. And here is where diseases, cancers, & arrows cease without trace. With the cessation of my clinging comes the cessation of becoming. With the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."
Well, as this text neatly shows, no shoehorning needed. Taking the language at face value, it is there.
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: 19578
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Sun May 01, 2011 7:39 am

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:Taking the language at face value, it is there.

Oh, I didn't say the shoehorning was recent. As mentioned above, I'm skeptical that DN 15 itself is probably not the Buddha's teaching. I would not be the first to raise such doubts about it.

By the way... wasn't it you who was just talking about Pali being an idiomatic language. 8-)

As for "With the cessation of my clinging comes the cessation of becoming. With the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease.".... if jati is understood to be "literal post-mortem rebirth", then "literal post-mortem rebirth" has to cease before "sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease"... meaning that an arahant (or Buddha, for that matter) cannot bring an end to dukkha in this lifetime. No hop, skips and jumps around the nidanas, at face value, it is there.

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: 14674
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 7:41 am

Greetings TMingyur,
TMingyur wrote:Which may be revealed to be an ill-founded fabricated dichotomy ... if seen from the phenomenological perspective which entails sort of integration as "neither one nor two".

I'm not establishing that as a dichotomy... they're just two different ways to look at it. Doubtless there are others.

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: 14674
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby tiltbillings » Sun May 01, 2011 8:12 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:meaning that an arahant (or Buddha, for that matter) cannot bring an end to dukkha in this lifetime. No hop, skips and jumps around the nidanas, at face value, it is there.
One can try to exorcise rebirth from paticcasamuppada by reading part of it figuratively and part of it literally, as some do, but once there is awakening there is no more becoming – no grasping after, no pushing away, no more impelling self-delusion leading to further birth and death and all that is in between. With the stopping of becoming, dukkha is stopped now. It works with or without rebirth.

Through not seeing the Four Noble Truths,
Long was the weary path from birth to birth.
When these are known, removed is rebirth's cause,
The root of sorrow plucked; then ends rebirth.
DN ii 91

With firm resolve, guard your own mind!
Whoso untiringly pursues the Dhamma and the Discipline
Shall go beyond the round of births and make an end of suffering.
DN ii 123

"Destroyed is birth; the higher life is fulfilled; nothing more is to
be done, and beyond this life nothing more remains."
DN ii 153
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: 19578
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Sun May 01, 2011 8:32 am

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:One can try to exorcise rebirth from paticcasamuppada by reading part of it figuratively and part of it literally, as some do

Yes, some may do, but that's not what I'm advocating. No 'figuratively' or 'literally' at play... just 'phenomenologically', understanding the terms as the Buddha explained (and as he himself experienced prior to becoming Buddha), rather than as how some unenlightened translator rendered them, presumably through the lens of commentaries. So no need to exorcise "rebirth", because it's not there in the first place. The only "rebirth" entailed is the fact we go through that sad process with every sankhara that arises due to avijja... that is the 'round' of 'existence'.... i.e. repeatedly giving these things existence, through failure to see the conditionality underpinning any distorted perception of 'existence'... over and over again. That is why (getting back to the topic) there is no dependent origination that is not dependent upon avijja and sankhara, and importantly, why avijja and sankhara should not be assigned to a 'previous life', where we cannot observe, here-and-now, their active role in influencing and shaping subsequent formations and nidanas being experienced in this lifetime.

tiltbillings wrote:but once there is awakening there is no more becoming – no grasping after, no pushing away, no more impelling self-delusion leading to further birth and death and all that is in between. With the stopping of becoming, dukkha is stopped now. It works with or without rebirth.

Yes, I agree.

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: 14674
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests