An Alternative Interpretation.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

I would like to share a new interpretation of the Nikaya teachings.

This interpretation combines aspects of the teachings which are not usually
considered together.

The following is the reasoning behind this new model:

1. The noble eightfold path is one description of the path to awakening.
2. The path is said to have four stages.
3. These stages are explained by the sequential breaking of ten fetters.
4. These fetters must be the same thing as the asava's.

But ...

5. Dependent Origination (DO) with the links ceasing (DC), is also said to
be the path to awakening.

Therefore ....

6. The links of DO must be able to cease in four stages.

The idea here is that although each link arises in dependence on the preceding
link, any link can cease without requiring the preceding link to cease.
Imagine a tower made of those wooden blocks that children play with. One can
remove the top block without affecting the others. One can also remove the top
two, or three, blocks.

----------------------------------- o O o ---------------------------------

An Outline of this Model.

I will base my explanation on the ten link version of DO. Why? Because I think
that there is a system of "numerical correspondences" in the teachings.

The First Stage.

The first stage is the stream-winner, often explained by the breaking of the
first three fetters. In this interpretation these three fetters are the same
as the asava of views, and the same as the last three links of DO: being,
birth, and old-age-and-death. So, for the stream-winner, only seven links
remain.

The Second Stage.

The second stage, the "once-returner", is not a real stage in that nothing
is said to cease completely, but craving is reduced. We can understand this
as a reduction of craving and clinging, and of the asava of sense-pleasure.

The Third Stage.

The third stage is the "non-returner". He is said to have broken the next
two fetters, and has now broken all five of the lower fetters. We can
understand this as the removal of the next two links of DO, craving and
clinging. Five links have now been removed, which corresponds to the five
lower fetters. Five links of DO remain, as do the five higher fetters.
Two of the four asava's have now been removed - views and sense-pleasures.
Two asava's still remain.

The Fourth Stage.

The fourth stage is the Arahant, he is said to break the five higher fetters.
We can understand this as the removal of the remaining five links of DO, and
also as the removal of the remaining two asava's - the asava of "becoming"
and the asava of ignorance.

Comments.

So, one becomes a stream-winner - who is said to be "established on the
path" - by removing the asava of views. This does not seem to be stated
explicitly in the Nikaya teachings. But it is supported by a large amount
of circumstantial material.

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by DNS »

vinasp wrote: Because I think
that there is a system of "numerical correspondences" in the teachings.
Me too. There are a lot of overlaps in various teachings, be it the asavas, paramitas, brahma viharas, D.O., four great efforts, etc.

Your analysis looks good. :thumbsup:

The Theragatha / Therigatha contain numerous poetic teachings and typically end with the relinquishment of the asavas.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Vincent,

I do not find this analysis remotely compelling... mainly because:

1. Everything noted in paticcasamuppada occurs for the sekha, regardless of stage
2. This non-linear "chain hopping" is unfounded in the sutta

Also, you seem to have both "being" and "becoming" noted separately (for the stream-winner and arahant respectively)... but aren't they both "bhava"?

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."
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

From Buddhist Dictionary by Nyanatiloka (BPS) - entry on "asava":

āsava: (lit: influxes), 'cankers', taints, corruption's, intoxicant biases. There is a list of four (as in D. 16, Pts.M., Vibh.): the canker of sense-desire (kāmāsava), of (desiring eternal) existence (bhavāsava), of (wrong) views (diṭṭhāsava), and of ignorance (avijjāsava). A list of three, omitting the canker of views, is possibly older and is more frequent in the Suttas , e.g. in M. 2, M. 9, D. 33; A. III, 59, 67; A. VI, 63. - In Vibh. (Khuddakavatthu Vibh.) both the 3-fold and 4-fold division are mentioned. The fourfold division also occurs under the name of 'floods' (ogha) and 'yokes' (yoga).

Through the path of Stream-Entry, the canker of views is destroyed; through the path of Non-Returning, the canker of sense-desire; through the path of Arahatship, the cankers of existence and ignorance. M. 2 shows how to overcome the cankers, namely, through insight, sense-control, avoidance, wise use of the necessities of life, etc. For a commentarial exposition, see Aṭṭhasālinī Tr. I, p. 63f: II, pp. 475ff.

Khīṇāsava, 'one whose cankers are destroyed', or 'one who is canker-free', is a name for the Arahat or Holy One. The state of Arahatship is frequently called āsavakkhaya, 'the destruction of the cankers'. Suttas concluding with the attainment of Arahatship by the listeners, often end with the words: "During this utterance, the hearts of the Bhikkhus were freed from the cankers through clinging no more" (anupādāya āsavehi cittāni vimucciṃsūti).

Link: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by reflection »

It must be said, it's an ingenious way of analysising it, but I don't agree with it. The chain of DO falls apart if one of the members falls. This is only true for an arahant. Until full enlightenment, there is still rebirth and thus still DO. I could put forth some more details I don't agree with, but I don't have the time now.

With metta,
Reflection
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

The entry on "upadana" (clinging) from the Buddhist Dictionary:

upādāna: 'clinging', according to Vis.M. XVII, is an intensified degree of craving (taṇhā, q.v.). The 4 kinds of clinging are: sensuous clinging (kāmupādāna), clinging to views (diṭṭhupādāna), clinging to mere rules and ritual (sīlabbatupādāna), clinging to the personaljty-belief (atta-vādupādāna).

(1) "What now is the sensuous clinging? Whatever with regard to sensuous objects there exists of sensuous lust, sensuous desire, sensuous attachment, sensuous passion, sensuous deludedness, sensuous fetters: this is called sensuous clinging.

(2) ''What is the clinging to views? 'Alms and offerings are useless; there is no fruit and result for good and bad deeds: all such view and wrong conceptions are called the clinging to views.

(3) "What is the clinging to mere rules and ritual? The holding firmly to the view that through mere rules and ritual one may reach purification: this is called the clinging to mere rules and ritual.

(4) "What is the clinging to the personality-belief? The 20 kinds of ego-views with regard to the groups of existence (s. sakkāya-diṭṭhi): these are called the clinging to the personality-belief" (Dhs. 1214-17).

This traditional fourfold division of clinging is not quite satisfactory. Besides kamupādāna we should expect either rūpupādāna and arūpupādāna, or simply bhavupādāna. Though the Anāgāmī is entirely free from the traditional 4 kinds of upādāna, he is not freed from rebirth, as he still possesses bhavupādāna. The Com. to Vis.M. XVII, in trying to get out of this dilemma, explains kāmupādāna as including here all the remaining kinds of clinging.

"Clinging' is the common rendering for u., though 'grasping' would come closer to the literal meaning of it, which is 'uptake'; s. Three Cardinal Discourses (WHEEL 17), p.19.

----------------------------------------- End of Quotation ------------------------------------------

Note that these four kinds of clinging (see MN 11.9) are explained above as:

1. One which is clinging to sense-pleasures.
2. Three which are clinging to views.

In this new interpretation the last four links of DO correspond to the four kinds of clinging.
And the last three links correspond to the three kinds of clinging to views.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

Wrong Views Depend on the First Fetter.

Both the eternalist view and the annihilationist view depend on identity
view (sakkaya-ditthi), the first fetter, and cease when identity view ceases.
In fact, all the sixty-two views in the Brahmajala Sutta (DN.1) depend on identity
view. Also the ten views starting with "the world is eternal" and ending with
"the tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death", depend on
identity view.

"As to the various views that arise in the world, householder,
"The world is eternal" ... - these as well as the sixty-two
speculative views mentioned in the Brahmajala: when there is
identity view, these views come to be; when there is no identity
view, these views do not come to be." [ SN 41.3 - Isidatta (2) ]

Identity view can be understood as the view of a real, presently existing
self. All views about this self are based on identity view. This includes
all views about this self in the past and in the future.

So, if the first fetter has ceased for a stream-winner, then whichever of
these views he previously held, will have now ceased or have been abandoned.
Also, none of these views can now arise again.

It is important to understand that wrong views (ditthi) are either dogmatic or
speculative (unjustified), or both. They involve craving and clinging.
Someone who is clinging to a wrong view will be certain of its truth, and will
feel threatened if anyone else should question it. Such views are an extension
of the apparent "self".

The stream-winner no longer has a view of self. This means that he no longer
has a dogmatic certainty about a self. However, there is still a "regarding"
of things as self, or related to self, this is a well-established habit. In
due course this "regarding" is also eliminated.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

So it seems that there is a major problem with the traditional interpretation
of dependent origination.

The non-returner has eliminated all four kinds of clinging. This means that
the link "clinging" is no longer present. Therefore, the next three links,
"existence", "birth" and "old-age-and-death", have also ceased.

On the traditional interpretation this would mean that the non-returner is
not reborn. But this is only true of the Arahant.

But with this alternative interpretation no such problem arises.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

Some who responded appear not to have understood correctly this alternative
interpretation. I will attempt to clarify how the last three links should be
understood.

In this model the last three links are just the wrong views of a puthujjana.
The same views which cease when he becomes a stream-winner.

This model, therefore, does not say anything about rebirth. The absence of
these three links, in the case of the stream-winner, does not have any bearing
on his rebirth status. For that, one would have to look elsewhere in the
teachings. I am sure that you will find that the stream-winner is said to be
subject to rebirth.

The link "existence" (bhava) is the view of self (sakkaya-ditthi), on which
all the other wrong views depend. This is part of the asava of views and is
clearly not the same thing as the asava of "existence" (bhavasava).

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

There is an obvious difficulty with this alternative model.

Q1. Can any link cease while the preceding link is still present?

Q2. For example, can craving cease completely while there is still feeling?

Q3. Does the fact that there is feeling mean that there must also be craving?

Q4. Does feeling cause craving?

Q5. Or is it only a necessary condition for the arising of craving due to some
other or additional cause?

Q6. What could this other cause be?

And, in the context of the traditional interpretation:

If there is some other cause, then it would be possible to eliminate craving
and bring existence and rebirth to an end, without requiring any of the
preceding links to cease.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

Further reflection has led me to the conclusion that this model, as
originally conceived, cannot be made to work. But just when I was about
to abandon it, I saw a way to achieve the original aim.

But first the problems - there are two of them:

1. The analogy of the "children's wooden play blocks" is too simplistic. The
items in the DO series are not separate, self-contained units. If the last
three links are views, then their removal cannot leave the preceding links
unchanged. For example, there could not any longer be any view-craving or
any feeling involved in those views.

2. I think that the teachings are actually describing two completely
different methods of attaining enlightenment:

1. The insight method.
2. The disenchantment method.

More on these two later. But the important thing here is that the four
stages belong to the insight method. This is based on removing misconceptions
by seeing that they are false. So this method is directed at ignorance. There
are two items in the DO series which represent ignorance - the first link, and
the item called "the six-spheres".

So, if the last three links are views, then their removal entails changes to
all the preceding links back to the six-spheres. but it is only a part of each
of these links which ceases, not all of it. Fortunately, the teachings have
already divided these links into the required parts. For example, craving is
said to be sixfold (MN.9).

To follow soon, an explanation of how the last eight links are the two asava's
"views" and "sense-pleasures". [ When I figure out how to present it without
having to draw a diagram.]

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

So now we attempt to understand the last eight links of DO as representing
the two asava's - views and sense-pleasures.

In MN.9 we find contact, feeling and craving analysed into six kinds in line
with the "six-spheres". Also, clinging is said to be of four kinds.

Step 1. We divide the six-spheres into two groups with eye, ear, nose, tongue
and body-tactile in the first group, and just mind-organ in the second.

Step 2. We divide contact, feeling and craving into two groups in the same way.

Step 3. we divide the four clingings into two groups.

Asava of Views ---------------------- Asava of Sense-pleasure.

Old Age and Death.
Birth.
Existence.
View-Clinging 3 types ............... Clinging to Pleasures.
Mind-object Craving ................ . 5 Sense Cravings.
Mind-object Feeling ................ . 5 Sense Feelings.
Mind-object Contact ................. 5 Sense Contact.
Mind-Sphere ................. 5 Sense Spheres.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mind-Objects ................ . 5 Sense-Objects.

Everything on the left is eliminated first, this is the stage of stream-winner.
The things on the right are reduced at the stage of "once-returner", and then
eliminated at the stage of "non-returner".

In this interpretation the "six-spheres" are not the actual senses, but only
the misunderstanding of the six senses.
All the objects are mental representations and also misconceptions.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

I think that I need to explain the "object psychology" in this interpretation.
The basic idea is that many mental states are "about something" which is termed
the "object".
For example, many feelings are about some object. The same is true of craving
which is a craving for some object. And clinging must be clinging to some object.
Psychologically, the object must come first. The feeling, craving and clinging
are mental reactions to this object.
The term "contact" probably means attention to, or a focus on, the object.

So, in DO, the contact, feeling, craving and clinging all arise in the mind
as a reaction to the object.
If the "object" is only a mental representation, or a misconception, then
removing this object results in the cessation of these mental reactions.
In the teachings, the insight method seems to aim at removing these cognitive
objects.

There is nothing wrong with such cognitive objects in their most basic form.
The objects that need to be removed are more complicated constructions which
include certain fundamental misconceptions.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

Above, when mentioning a problem with the non-returner in the traditional
interpretation, I said:

"On the traditional interpretation this would mean that the non-returner is
not reborn. But this is only true of the Arahant."

On further reflection I have changed my mind about this point.

I now think that the correct understanding in the traditional interpretation
is that the non-returner is not subject to rebirth.

So I would not now say: "But this is only true of the Arahant."

It is said of the Arahant that he is not reborn, but this may also be true
of the non-returner.

On breaking the five lower fetters, the non-returner spontaneously arises
in the "pure abodes", He will probably attain arahantship in a short time,
but if not, he is so close to arahantship that he would attain it on death.

So, there may be no problem with a traditional interpretation, if correctly
understood.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: An Alternative Interpretation.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

How the Last Eight Links Are Two Asava's.

The Asava of Views.

mind-objects and mind-sphere - mind-contact - feeling - craving - clinging -
"existence" - "birth" - "old-age-and-death".

Notes:
a) Mind-objects are dhamma's which are all misconceptions.
b) Mind-sphere is the misconception of the mind organ (manas).
c) Mind-contact is one of the six kinds of contact.
d) The feeling is mind-contact feeling, one of the six feelings.
e) The craving is one of the six cravings, mind-object craving.
f) The clinging is three of the four clingings - view clinging.
g) "existence" is the view of self, - identity view - sakkaya-ditthi.
h) "birth" represents views about self in the past.
i) "old-age-and-death" represents views about self in the future.

A view is when the mind clings to an idea, the view is the clinging, the
idea, which persists because it is clung to, becomes a mind-object (dhamma).

All these items are the asava of views, which ceases for a stream-winner. So
these things all cease - no mind-objects, no mind sphere, no mind contact and
so forth.

--------------------------------- o O o -------------------------------

The Asava of Sense-pleasure.

"sense-objects" and "five senses" - sense-contact - feeling - craving - clinging.

Notes:
a) "sense-objects" are only mental representations, and misconceptions.
b) "five senses" are misconceptions of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body.
c) Sense-contact is five of the six kinds of contact.
d) feeling is five of the six kinds of feeling.
e) Craving is five of the six kinds of craving.
f) Clinging is one of the four kinds of clinging [clinging to sense-pleasures.]

All these items are the asava of sense-pleasure, they have ceased for a
non-returner. So no sense-objects, no sense-spheres, no sense-contact and
so forth.

------------------------------ o O o ----------------------------------------

The main difficulty in understanding this is probably the "objects" and the
need for them to cease. Everyone knows that views persist, often for many
years. The idea which is the basis for the view persists because it is being
clung to. It is clung to because it is the sort of misconception which gives
rise to feeling, craving and clinging. This is how an idea becomes a
mind-object [dhamma]. [views are delusions, obsessions.]

But what about the "sense-objects", what sort of things are these?

These objects do not persist continuously like the misconceptions which are
the basis for views. They are a temporary obsession with some particular
source of pleasure. But they keep recurring due to habits and external
stimulation. One has a tendency to try to repeat previous pleasant experiences.
So these objects keep popping into the mind and causing desires for these
things to arise. When this habit is broken then the mind is free of sense-objects.

But these sense-objects can all vanish in the blink of an eye. They simply
do not arise any more. How is this possible? I think that it is because both
the misconception of the object and the desire involve the idea of self. So
an insight into the truth of no-self removes an essential component. If there
is no persisting self then how can the self which now desires X be the same
self that will enjoy X when the desire is satisfied?

In other words, when the truth of no-self is seen then desire becomes
impossible. No desires means no objects of desire.

Regards, Vincent.
Post Reply