Paṭṭhāna-mātikā-pāṭho (Paṭṭhāna 1 Abhidhamma) wrote:Hetu-paccayo, - Causes for the conditioned.
Ārammaṇa-paccayo, - Causes for sense objects.
adhipati-paccayo, - Causes that are predominant.
anantara-paccayo, - Causes that adjoin the conditioned.
samanantara-paccayo, - Immediate causes.
saha-jāta-paccayo, - Causes that are born together with the conditioned.
añña-m-añña-paccayo, - Mutually conditioning causes and effects.
nissaya-paccayo, - Causes that are dependent upon each other.
Upanissaya-paccayo, - Causes & effects that are associated closely.
pure-jāta-paccayo, - Causes that are born before the conditioned.
pacchā-jāta-paccayo, - Causes that are born after the conditioned.
Āsevana-paccayo, - Causes that are in pursuit of the conditioned.
kamma-paccayo, - Causes of actions.
vipāka-paccayo, - Cause of the fruit of actions.
āhāra-paccayo, - Causes that sustain the conditioned.
indriya-paccayo, - Causes that are controlling principles of the conditioned.
jhāna-paccayo, - Causes for the concentration of mind.
magga-paccayo, - Causes for the path.
sampayutta-paccayo, - Causes that are associated with the conditioned.
vippayutta- paccayo, - Causes that are not associated with the conditioned.
atthi-paccayo, - Causes that exist simultaneously with the conditioned.
n’atthi-paccayo, - Causes that do not exist simultaneously as the conditioned.
vigata-paccayo, - Causes that cease the conditioned.
Avigata-paccayo. - Causes that do not cease the conditioned.
"Ignorance is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation.
Sam Vega wrote:It would be even more possible to present a coherent "reading" of it and claim that one had set aside the perplexity, without having done so.
Sam Vega wrote:I would need to know whether we are talking about birth as an abstract concept; all "births" of all possible phenomena; some "births" of some significant phenomena; human biological birth; or my own biological birth; etc. ... This seems all the more important, as I take the bit about "whether or not is the arising of a Tathagata..." to mean that irrespective of teachings and understandings, here is an account of the way things are.
Sam Vega wrote:The dependence (etc...) of ignorance is particularly interesting. What it depends upon is not given here, yet undermining ignorance is presumably the key to the whole sequence.
Cittasanto wrote:There are two interpretations found within the canon, the Sutta of the three lifetime model, and the Abhidhamma version of moment to moment model.
We're seeing in these suttas that there are many variations on DO, so it's a rather non-linear web of dependencies, not just linear or circular.
We can't just think of some "primordial ignorance" that originates the rest. If ignorance wasn't simply arising due to conditions, the process not be ended.
daverupa wrote:This is inaccurate. The Suttas never suggest it is something which occurs over three lifetimes.
Hi Sam Vega,
I have responded roughly in order of appearance in your post, so sorry if this post seams confused or jumpy.
what do you mean by
Sam Vega wrote:
It would be even more possible to present a coherent "reading" of it and claim that one had set aside the perplexity, without having done so.
The sequence is not seen, and we proliferate as to the nature of the world, adding what is not there, or simply not seeing what is, so why don't you try to see the listed phenomena from each of the abstract; in general terms; specific to human beings; or specific to me, and see what you find?
Try reading this related sutta which explains the sequence
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
There are two interpretations found within the canon, the Sutta of the three lifetime model, and the Abhidhamma version of moment to moment model. Birth is physical birth, becoming for me is the moment to moment aspect and the part which shapes the next life (rebirth), although the moment to moment interpretation can be seen as valid and at play, we all have different persona's and birth could be interpreted as the birth of a different aspect of ones persona, and becoming the moods and fluctuations within these persona's. I should add this isn't a Multiple personality disorder, but different aspect of ones personality which may be emphasized at different points.
The Buddha only pointed out the way things are and the path to transcend Dukkha, so irrespective of whether the Tathagata is pressent or not, the truth/reality is the way it is, this is why the Dhamma is timeless, or not subject to time and place.
The list is not always the same in every occurrence within the texts, sometimes more or less and the order is sometimes different also, however, the sequence also contains many of the parts in different places, showing that it feeds itself so the omited or included parts may not matter as they are playing either a different role in the sequence in the context of the text, or are already there in a different guise.
Ignorance is the requisite condition, and all the other links of the chain (to my understanding) feed into this
Yes, the difficulty is that this relies (as do all interpretations) on the provision of the "lost" context. As you can see from a later post on this thread, it is not uncontentious!
The idea that the DO process "feeds itself" is an inference drawn from the fact of the different orderings of the phenomena within the sequence. I would be more trusting of this inference were it to be supported by some text.
Sam Vega wrote:
I have not yet seen a sutta which presents DO as a circle - are there any? I am also tempted to ask why, if the reality is a non-linear web, we are not told as much. I know some interpretations require it to be non-linear, but the suttas normally give a line. The variations are in what features in the line; the ordering, etc.
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?
From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: 'Name-&-form doesn't exist when consciousness doesn't exist. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.' Then the thought occurred to me, 'Consciousness doesn't exist when what doesn't exist? From the cessation of what comes the cessation of consciousness?' From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: 'Consciousness doesn't exist when name-&-form doesn't exist. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness.'
Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it. And he says: ‘See! With birth as condition, bhikkhus, aging-and-death.’
mikenz66 wrote:We're seeing in these suttas that there are many variations on DO, so it's a rather non-linear web of dependencies, not just linear or circular.
vinasp wrote: If the word is "jati" then it is the same word that is used in Dependent
Origination. Does this show that "jati" was commonly used to mean re-birth?
Spiny O'Norman wrote:
I think DO can be looked at in different ways, but I'm not clear why you're saying DO is non-linear? It seems to me that the order in which the nidanas appear is very significant to understanding the process.
I guess by non-linear I'm thining of how the links vary, and sometimes consciousness and name-and-form "turn back on themselves":...
"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests