Dhammanando wrote:Hi Stuka,
stuka wrote:I have seen another of Brahmavamso's writings entitled "Some Notes on Paticcasamuppada" or similar.
Brahmavamso: Some Remarks on Paticcasamuppāda:
http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/tea ... _brahm.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
One could fill the "examples" section of the Fallacyfiles website out of this work.
Do you have an example or two?
Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
No advocate of the "one-life" interpretation of Paticca-samuppada has ever been able to explain how Vinnanam can be something existing in this life and yet ceases in this life for an Arahat!
The Buddha wrote:
"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness.
...
Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.
Also, text without context is
pretext. The essay is filled with vague "cites" to various suttas and works, but he avoids quoting exactly what he is referring to and analyzing it and relating it to his arguments.
A typical passage in this Sutta is analysed in Rune E A Johansson’s ‘Pali Buddhist Texts - explained to the beginner’. I recommend that you find this book, look up the passage on pages 66 and 67 and see how the word Sankhara is used in the meaning of a willed activity of body, speech or mind which causes rebirth.
The meaning of Bhava can be found at Anguttara Nikaya, Book Of The Threes, Sutta 76. Look this up in Pali and you will relish its deeper meaning.
Lastly, it becomes obvious that the full Paticca-samuppada cannot be interpreted as existing in one life when one looks at the first 3 links in reverse order: When Avijja ceases so does Sankhara and, consequently, so does Vinnanam. In other words the ending of Avijja causes the ending of Vinnanam. Now what type of Vinnanam can possibly cease as a result of a person eradicating Avijja, the ignorance of the full meaning of the Four Noble Truths? We all know that an Arahat, one who has eradicated Avijja, remains fully conscious, retaining Vinnanam, after his attainment. He does not become unconscious at the moment of his attainment, ever more to be comatose until he dies! So Vinnanam cannot mean the ordinary, arising in every moment, type of consciousness
This is a Straw Man. Also, this same argument , based upon the same
assumptions, negates the "three-lives" argument. We have already discussed Dependent Co-Arising as a concomitant process, and we have discussed its role as explaining how the influence of ignorance on mental processes causes suffering. (Ignorance --> The Person --> Suffering). Brahmavamso's argument doesn't touch that at all.
...and so on...You are a scholar, Bhante. You know what scholarly work is
not. Brahmavamso is preaching to the choir, writing for the sort of audience who would not be likely to challenge his specious arguments.