Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

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

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by vinasp »

Hi Mike,

MN 9.26 explains birth in this way:

"And what is birth .....?
The birth of beings in the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation [in a womb], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact - this is called birth ......" [BB, MLDB]

What does 'manifestation of the aggregates' mean in your interpretation?

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Vincent:

Perhaps:
  • "The manifestation of [experiences/things] that can be classified by the aggregates."
I don't think this is a particularly novel interpretation. Reading the link I gave above, it seems quite common.

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

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by vinasp »

Hi Mike,

So, for you, the aggregates are 'experiences/things' which are classified in a fivefold way.

But, when there are no longer any such 'experiences/things', what do you say then?

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by mikenz66 »

Nothing to classify...

According to this theory...

A counter-question: do you think that the aggregates are like building blocks?

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by SDC »

Spiny Norman wrote:
SDC wrote: Neither the idealistic (purely psychological) nor the materialistic (actual physical event) interpretations are holding much water.
OK, but doesn't that point to a psycho-physical interpretation being correct?
Well, it would seem so, however such an approach tends to be made up of the most accessible parts of the two extremes creating a hybrid which will certainly succumb to the same pitfalls as either of the former. I would go as far to say, that a psycho-physical interpretation is an accurate description of the putthujana's experience as he/she deals in so-called tangible aspects of both the subjective and objective. The experience is known as an interplay between the self and world, and while it is certainly within this psycho-physical relationship that the practice of the commoner begins, it is only when a broader, external perspective is taken that it can be understood.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by SDC »

Spiny Norman wrote:
chownah wrote:.....perhaps more than one meaning was intended.
That's possible, but then wouldn't the Buddha have made these alternative meanings clear?

If he meant psychological (re)birth rather than physical (re)birth, then why didn't he just say that, clearly and unambiguously? If we can understand the distinction then I'm sure the Buddha's contemporaries would have understood it too.
Aside from my past concerns with certain modern translations, I think it is important to keep in mind that the atmosphere in which the teachings were delivered may have been drastically different than that of the modern world. The common understanding was likely of a different quality, so such distinctions were probably not necessary. However, in modern times, certain aspects of the teaching seem to point in multiple directions. While the Buddha likely was referring to something very specific, we may have a little more exploring to do in order to figure out what he meant. Just my opinion.

EDIT- Added to last sentence for clarification.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by Spiny Norman »

SDC wrote: Aside from my past concerns with certain modern translations, I think it is important to keep in mind that the atmosphere in which the teachings were delivered may have been drastically different than that of the modern world.
I'm not sure what you're basing that view on, given that there was a broad range of philosophical and religious views around at the Buddha's time, including atheism and skepticism. Why is it assumed that people back then were fundamentally different from the way they are now?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by Spiny Norman »

vinasp wrote: So, for you, the aggregates are 'experiences/things' which are classified in a fivefold way.
I would say a fivefold classification of human experience. How would you describe them?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by Spiny Norman »

vinasp wrote: I think the noble disciple is able to understand the teachings in a different way because he does not have this literal understanding of the aggregates.
For him, the aggregates can cease, and so suffering can cease, in this life.
Isn't it clinging to the aggregates which ceases? And if the aggregates cease, then how can there by any experience?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by SDC »

Spiny Norman wrote:
SDC wrote: Aside from my past concerns with certain modern translations, I think it is important to keep in mind that the atmosphere in which the teachings were delivered may have been drastically different than that of the modern world.
I'm not sure what you're basing that view on, given that there was a broad range of philosophical and religious views around at the Buddha's time, including atheism and skepticism. Why is it assumed that people back then were fundamentally different from the way they are now?
Like I said, it was only an opinion, but let me clarify a bit: of course there were many views during the time, but in some cases the Buddha was speaking only to monks or lay followers and when the discourses were actually being given, perhaps a certain context was already established that made it clear what was being discussed. So there was no need, IN THESE CASES, to make any distinctions. However we do not have that luxury to know what that context was. We are, of course, welcome to take the suttas at face value in the context of our modern culture (like I said earlier, my issues with translation aside), but I think it is worth adjusting the context to explore other options.

EDIT - Spiny, any thoughts on my post on the bottom of the previous page? If not, no worries.
Last edited by SDC on Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by vinasp »

Hi Mike,

Mike said:-"Are the aggregates really things?..."

In one sense yes, in another sense no. They are constructive activities (sankhara). What is constructed from moment to moment may differ, but the process continues.

The begining of the process is called the arising of the aggregates. The end of the process is called the cessation of the aggregates. This way of talking treats the processes as things for simplicity.

Mike said:-"Your whole discussion seems to be based on the assumption that we are "made of aggregates" in some sense."

This is what the teachings (sutta pitaka) say. A 'being' (sato) is the five aggregates subject to clinging. A 'person' Is the five aggregates. A fully enlightened one is neither a 'being' nor a 'person.'

Mike said:-"A counter-question: do you think that the aggregates are like building blocks?"

Yes, when considered as things. The five aggregates arise first, when they are established then the five aggregates subject to clinging arise.

The deconstruction is in the reverse order, with the five aggregates subject to clinging being removed first, then the five aggregates are removed.

Except in some cases where both sets are removed together simultaneously.

Regards, Vincent.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by chownah »

SDC,
It sounds like you are saying that important or even perhaps crucial contextual elements have been consistently omitted in conveying the teachings....that we must guess what that context is. To me this seems like it would be a serious flaw in the transmission of the teachings....if that were the case.
chownah
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by SDC »

chownah wrote:SDC,
It sounds like you are saying that important or even perhaps crucial contextual elements have been consistently omitted in conveying the teachings....that we must guess what that context is. To me this seems like it would be a serious flaw in the transmission of the teachings....if that were the case.
chownah
It seems probable when it comes to certain concepts.

We don't have to guess, but we may have to do a little more work to see if an adjustment in context brings out more meaning in the pursuit freedom from suffering.

EDIT - added "in the pursuit of freedom from suffering"

EDIT #2 - It would also seem likely that any contextual omission was unintentional; more and more so as time went on. Early on there was likely no need for any contextual assistance, and later (up until the present) any context was lost and therefore not included.
Last edited by SDC on Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by vinasp »

Hi Spiny,

Spiny said:-"I would say a fivefold classification of human experience. How would you describe them?"

I would try to avoid the word 'experience.' But if you insist on using it, then I would say that the aggregates are a fivefold classification of constructed experience.

To take the aggregates as experience, without any qualification, is to deny that the aggregates can cease.

Spiny said:-"Isn't it clinging to the aggregates which ceases?.."

Yes, but clinging requires a constructed 'object' to cling to. It is the cessation of these objects which brings clinging to an end. The five aggregates subject to clinging should be understood as these constructed objects.

Spiny said:-"And if the aggregates cease, then how can there by any experience?"

That is why you should not understand the aggregates as experience.

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

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

In attempting to imagine how the 'ordinary man', at that time, understood the teachings of the Sutta Pitaka, in particular the four noble truths, we see:

That the 'ordinary man' is said to be 'ignoble' and to have wrong view. It is also said that he does not understand the four truths. But since right view is the understanding of the four truths, it is probable that wrong view is the misunderstanding, rather than no understanding at all.

So how does the 'ordinary man' understand the truths?

1. The suffering of the first truth is in the future.
2. The birth, decay and death are in the future.
3. The five aggregates of clinging are in the future.
4. These all represent the next life, understood in a LITERAL SENSE.
5. The second truth, the origination of suffering is understood in the present.

But this is exactly the same as the noble disciples understanding except for the two words "LITERAL SENSE."

For the noble disciple substitute "FIGURATIVE SENSE."

Regards, Vincent.
Post Reply