DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

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 - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p129331" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by mikenz66 »

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ml#pts.184" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6382" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by piotr »

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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings »

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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by piotr »

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...
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by rowyourboat »

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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

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. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

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. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by rowyourboat »

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
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by ground »

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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings »

TMingyur wrote:
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
THERAVADA VERSION OF THE TWO TRUTHS
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:The reality is, of course, that paticcasamuppada is couched within the broader context of rebirth, which why I quoted those three texts (which could be multiplied considerably).

I would say instead that paticcasamuppada is couched within the broader context of samsara.
Samsara. Itself an expression of death and birth.
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.
No incongruence, except that one must work at the figurative interpretation and it does present a picture of the Buddha not expressing himself directly.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:No incongruence, except that one must work at the figurative interpretation and it does present a picture of the Buddha not expressing himself directly.
Not really... it's well established that the Buddha worked with modern lexicon of the time (karma, nirvana, jati, khandha, sankhara, vinnana, nutriment etc.) and tweaked the meanings to meet the actuality of his observations. The opaqueness arises when those who didn't appreciate the nuances of the Buddha's tweakings started re-affirming the original brahmanic meanings behind certain terms, and the suttas came to be translated through those frames of reference.

Not that I've read anything much by Gombrich, but I've heard that he and others have regularly evidenced such things from a scholastic perspective, whilst the likes of ven. Nanananda, Buddhadasa, Nanavira, Bodhi, Thanissaro etc. have raised visibility of the subtle and obscured meanings (papanca, being a classic example), and hence we have the appearance of a non-time-delineated model of dependent origination in the post-Mahavihara age and it has come to be taught by a good many Buddhist teachers (ordained or otherwise) who are not beholden to the commentarial superstructures. For having the nerve to challenge orthodoxy they are invariably loved or loathed (depending on one's viewpoint) but I praise them for their courage to have the Buddha's words understood in their own light, and for putting forward their findings even though they know full well they will be subject to criticism from 'conservatives' for doing so.

The Buddha spoke clearly and he spoke appropriately to his audience - how the meaning and interpretation of the words he used has evolved over 2,600 years is no fault of his. Hence I would recommend to anyone sincerely interested in Theravada Buddhism to read widely, and with an open mind, in relation to key concepts underpinning the Buddha's teaching... these concepts include, for starters, every link in the dependent origination sequence. Reviewing the concepts, relating them to the teachings and the way the teachings inter-relate, and relating them to one's own experience and knowledge.
Metta Sutta wrote:By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:No incongruence, except that one must work at the figurative interpretation and it does present a picture of the Buddha not expressing himself directly.
Not really... it's well established that the Buddha worked with modern lexicon of the time (karma, nirvana, jati, khandha, sankhara, vinnana, nutriment etc.) and tweaked the meanings to meet the actuality of his observations. The opaqueness arises when those who didn't appreciate the nuances of the Buddha's tweakings started re-affirming the original brahmanic meanings behind certain terms, and the suttas came to be translated through those frames of reference.
Damdifino what you mean here. Modern lexicon of time, what is that? And who working with the brahmanical meanings? Not me.
Not that I've read anything much by Gombrich, but I've heard that he and others have regularly evidenced such things from a scholastic perspective, whilst the likes of ven. Nanananda, Buddhadasa, Nanavira, Bodhi, Thanissaro etc. have raised visibility of the subtle and obscured meanings (papanca, being a classic example), and hence we have the appearance of a non-time-delineated model of dependent origination in the post-Mahavihara age and iy has come to be taught by a good many Buddhist teachers (ordained or otherwise) who are not beholden to the commentarial superstructures.
"non-time-delineated model of dependent origination" if one is dealing with the empirical, phenomenological world, what could possibly even mean?
The Buddha spoke clearly and he spoke appropriately to his audience - how the meaning and interpretation of the words he used has evolved over 2,600 years is no fault of his. Hence I would recommend to anyone sincerely interested in Theravada Buddhism to read widely, and with an open mind, in relation to key concepts underpinning the Buddha's teaching... these concepts include, for starters, every link in the dependent origination sequence. Reviewing the concepts, relating them to the teachings and the way the teachings inter-relate, and relating them to one's own experience and knowledge.
No doubt the language can be difficult at times.
Metta Sutta wrote:By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world.
Yep. After death no further birth.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Damdifino what you mean here. Modern lexicon of time, what is that? And who working with the brahmanical meanings? Not me.
The modern lexicon of the time ... (i.e. the vocabulary as it was then) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

I'm not saying whether you or anyone else here is working with brahmanical definitions or not. As to whether you inadvertently are using meanings influenced by other Indic religions I don't know, or allege to know - the point is simply not to assume that your definitions are bhahman-proof simply because they were received from someone who adheres to an "orthodox" line of transmission. Even though I am cautious myself of this contimation, I strongly suspect there is some degree of "other religionist" influence that's crept into my understanding too, merely on account of the translations and teachings I have read in the name of the Dhamma - I remain vigilant in ferreting it out, if it is there.
tiltbillings wrote:"non-time-delineated model of dependent origination" if one is dealing with the empirical, phenomenological world, what could possibly even mean?

It's stating simply that the model is not time-delineated. Any model that inherently spans multiple lives is inherently time-delineated. If a model is phenomenological, time is not a relevant variable... it's just about causality of experienced phenomena, regardless of time.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply