DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

[piotr]

Hi Retrofuturist,

Even still, it's hard to see how it fits to nirodha more than it does to the Dhamma (e.g. "fit for making use of")

I think that as sandiṭṭhika and akālika are more or less synonymous (i.e. visible in this life, not after [completion of] time — death), so are ehipassika, opaneyyika and paccatta veditabba viññūhi. It's common to see in Pāli Canon synonymous given one by one so the meaning isn't lost. If that's the case then the meaning of opaneyyika is close to paccattaṃ veditabbaṃ viññūhi. Then the best translation would be “fit for bringing near [to oneself]”.

In my opinion attainment of cessation fits better in this context (i.e. something experienced). But that's not the only reason:

• 1. The formula (svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko…) is often mentioned in the context of faith and confidence, where it applies to nirodha and transcendent factors of the noble eightfold path (Iti 90), not to the Teaching or particular subset of Teaching.
  2. The formula has variant readings with nibbāna (AN i 152) and nijjāra (e.g. AN i 220) instead of dhamma. Second case is interesting because it takes place in Jain context. But what's the most important, whatever context one finds, the formula always applies to attainment of the highest goal.

Anyway, it only came in discussion because you objected (?) to me using it with reference to the Dhamma. Seeing MN 38 and those comments from Dmytro, I trust you no longer object?

It didn't change my perspective. In MN 38 the Buddha asks whether monks speak only of what they have known (ñāta), seen (diṭṭha), and experienced (vidita) for themselves. When they confirm, he applauds and says that indeed he brought to them near this dhamma that is sandiṭṭhika, akālika, …, to be experienced (veditabba) personally by the wise. This dhamma is the cessation of dukkha that they were talking about.

[mikenz66]

I would say instead that paticcasamuppada is couched within the broader context of samsara. Those three texts, like dependent origination, can be read through many frames of reference... I of course choose phenomenologically, and they do not present any incongruence.

As usual, I find this invocation of "phenomenology" completely spurious. I don't see how you can argue that if something is "phenomenological" then this restricts the timescale over which the phenomenology operates.

I see absolutely no contradiction between phenomenology and long time scales (multiple lifetimes, universes, etc, etc).

And, of course (unlike some) I read almost all expositions of the Dhamma as phenomenological. So, again, for me, it's a completely moot point. I think that the important question is "What do the texts say?"


Mike

[rowyourboat]

Hi Retro,

If the DO was entirely phenomenological, the redundancies in it would not make sense. 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.

It is important to remember, that this is something the bodhisattva thought through, backwards. That us to say, starting with suffering, he simply wanted to find the cause of it. He kept going until no earlier cause could be discerned. So if I were to have a go..

Why am I suffering
Because I was born

Why was I born? Because there was clinging and so on..

I guess he started from very broad brush strokes and really refined it. He could see that by the removal of avijja there could be removal of those elements of consciousness, contact vedana etc. Pure wisdom dissolving 'reality'- marvellous! But for the old avijja in the form of the mind and body to resolve, there had to the physical death. I guess the phenomenology provides 'proof' (as close as we can get) that literal rebirth can be stopped, as non-arising can be experienced, even now.. and how much more, at death; and yes, the stream entrant is aware and has experiences at some level paticcasamuppada and p-nirodha. The stream entrant has not 'removed' avijja, but is mere suppression (tadanga pahana). The arahath removes curretly active avijja from his mind, removes the fetters to conditioned phenomena, is able to partake in the deathless but like the Buddha himself, was not able to stop aging disease and death which are universal truths, applicable to everyone. You could argue that what is removed is the cause for rebirth and suffering in the future. There is no way to fully verify it- short of the 'thought experiment' (if it is not too demeaning to call it that) of experiencing Nirodha... and no, faith (sadda) is not out of place in the dhamma- in fact it is essential to even start the journey to a goal which cannot be fully described. I see no other way to reconcile this. .. and it is good enough for me- I have 'nothing' to loose and everything to gain

With metta

Matheesha

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

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 and apply this direct experience in their practice, well, good for them. On the other hand, all I can use as reference from outside the present is all I can remember.

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings RYB,

If the DO was entirely phenomenological, the redundancies in it would not make sense. 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.

I disagree with the logic here. You could use the same logic to say that anything beyond sankhara is redundant, because all the rest are sankhata dhammas, and sabbe sankhara dukkha. But then, dependent origination would not be as useful. Alternatively one could just use the Four Noble Truths. However, if taken as series of nidana to be investigated, it is a powerful analytical tool.

You could argue that what is removed is the cause for rebirth and suffering in the future. There is no way to fully verify it- short of the 'thought experiment' (if it is not too demeaning to call it that) of experiencing Nirodha...

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'?

faith (sadda) is not out of place in the dhamma

No problem with faith, but the sooner it can be surmounted by knowledge the better.

I see no other way to reconcile this. .. and it is good enough for me- I have 'nothing' to loose and everything to gain

With regards to your satisfaction with your interpretation, how do you apply it and derive benefit? Is it a combination of faith and understanding the present life nidanas?

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Greetings Mike,

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.

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...


Mike

[mikenz66]

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.’

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

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.

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).

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.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

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?

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"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."

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

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.

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.

[retrofuturist]

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

[Sylvester]

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.’

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]

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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]

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

Samsara.