Dependent Origination

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Element » Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:05 pm

clw_uk wrote:I have only started to appreciate it from buddhadasa interpretation so cant make my mind up on it to quickly.


Thanks OK. Each of us must study, investigate, practise and decide for ourself.

Below is a guide for introspection regarding PATICCA-SAMUPPADA, developed by some of Buddhadasa's western monks years ago. For your consideration.

Whilst it is not vipassana level of introspection, it is applicable to everyday life.

HEY! WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

(some guide questions for introspection)

An easy way to begin studying Paticca-samuppada is to reflect on some on-going issue or problem in your life. It need not be a big deal; any petty old problem will do for a start. It's best to focus on particular instances or situations in which the "problem" has manifested. (The following guide questions are derived from the above "short form" teaching on paticca-samuppada.)

What's the problem? What about it really bugs me, hurts me or feels most burdensome?

How do I relate to it emotionally (fear, resentment, anger, boredom, lust, greed, worry, guilt, pride, …)?

Who do you think you are in this situation ("I am this," "I am not that")? Who's got the problem? What are the particular identities, personas, masks, self-images, roles involved in this problem?

What is mind/thought stuck on & trying to control? To what idea or memory or experience does it keep coming back? What is it hanging on to? How?

What does it want?

Which experiences & events connected with the "problem" feel negative (unpleasant, uncomfortable, painful) and which feel positive (pleasant, nice, convenient, happy) and which are somewhere in between?

Which experiences & events of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, remembering, imagining, and thinking trigger these cycles (the above aspects of the problem)?

These questions are intended to aid introspection and reflection. They may have multiple answers and varying layers of subtlety. They may require time and further observation -- not just thinking -- to go deeper. They may be investigated repeatedly. Go into specifics and real-life detail. Notice how things interdependently co-originate and proliferate. Have fun!


I would like to include an additional question, to cover the link of ignorance that is not included above.
"What view is affecting my mind that is not in accordance to reality or not in accordance with the Dhamma?".


With metta,

Element
Element
 

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Will » Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:39 pm

gavesako wrote:I can recommend this article by Bhikkhu Bodhi for your consideration:

A Critical Examination of Ñānavīra Thera’s “A Note on Paticcasamuppada”
http://pathpress.wordpress.com/other/bodhi/



Thanks much Bhante!

From Bhante Bodhi's Introduction:

My purpose in writing this examination is to vindicate the traditional three-life interpretation against Ven. Nanavira's critique of it. I propose to show that the approach which he considers to be "more satisfactory" not only cannot be justified by reference to the discourses of the Buddha, but is in fact flatly contradicted by those discourses. I also intend to establish that, contrary to Ven. Nanavira's allegations, the three-life interpretation, though not explicitly stated in such terms, is fully in accord with the Buddha's teachings. In my view, this interpretation, far from deviating from the Suttas, simply makes explicit the Buddha's intention in expounding dependent arising.
This noble eightfold path is the ancient path traveled by all the Buddhas of eons past. Nagara Sutta
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Element » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:19 pm

Will wrote:...though not explicitly stated in such terms...

Everyday I have been chanting: "Buddha fully enlightened, Blessed One perfect teacher & expounder of Dhamma...blah, blah, blah"...

Now it appears this is untrue. :o :weep:
Element
 

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby meindzai » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:22 pm

Element wrote:
Will wrote:...though not explicitly stated in such terms...

Everyday I have been chanting: "Buddha fully enlightened, Blessed One perfect teacher & expounder of Dhamma...blah, blah, blah"...

Now it appears this is untrue. :o :weep:


The teaching was just as good then as it is now, but the students are different. He didn't have to be explicit becuase most of his audience was bright enough to figure it out on their own.

-M
meindzai
 
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:55 pm

Dear Venerable,
gavesako wrote:I can recommend this article by Bhikkhu Bodhi for your consideration:

A Critical Examination of Ñānavīra Thera’s “A Note on Paticcasamuppada”
http://pathpress.wordpress.com/other/bodhi/

Thank you for the link. It sums up many of the points of contention that have arisen on this thread very well.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10414
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Will » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:47 pm

Element wrote:
Will wrote:...though not explicitly stated in such terms...

Everyday I have been chanting: "Buddha fully enlightened, Blessed One perfect teacher & expounder of Dhamma...blah, blah, blah"...

Now it appears this is untrue. :o :weep:



Not a Will quotation, but from Bhante Bodhi.
This noble eightfold path is the ancient path traveled by all the Buddhas of eons past. Nagara Sutta
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Element » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:53 pm

meindzai wrote:The teaching was just as good then as it is now, but the students are different. He didn't have to be explicit becuase most of his audience was bright enough to figure it out on their own.

M

I would suggest what you have said is an opinion rather than a fact. Where you there 2,500 years ago?

Further, the Buddha advised his Dhamma is here & now, timeless, inviting inspection & to be verified for each person for themselves.

Now, I am confident I have verified for myself how suffering occurs due to self-view, how self-view occurs due to craving & attachment, etc.

Thus a question for you Meindzai? Have you verified through your own experience & insight what you are talking about?

I would normally look forward to your answer but do not need to.

Are you confident most of today's audience including yourself have worked it out?

Buddha taught perfectly. There is nothing to work out. There is only seeing the dependently arising dhammas as they arise & cease. All twelve of them.

In MN 38 and elsewhere, the Buddha has advised clearly, the whole mass of suffering arises "when the eye sees the form, when the ear hears a sound, etc,..."

Best wishes

Element
Element
 

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Element » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:00 pm

Will wrote:Not a Will quotation, but from Bhante Bodhi.

Bhante Bodhi is an arahant, is he?
Element
 

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Prasadachitta » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:18 pm

Element wrote
Now, I am confident I have verified for myself how suffering occurs due to self-view, how self-view occurs due to craving & attachment, etc.


I am pleased to hear this. I have developed at least some level of confidence in this also. How confident are we in our verification? When it comes to actually identifying "self view" and craving and attachment are we actually finding a consistently discernible phenomena? Are we certain that our discernment criteria apply to the whole mass of what causes suffering or just a portion of it?

Element wrote
Buddha taught perfectly. There is nothing to work out. There is only seeing the dependently arising dhammas as they arise & cease. All twelve of them.


Obviously you have allot of confidence in your opinion of what is and is not the actual word of the Buddha. There are many expositions of D.O. to be found in the Suttas. Some have twelve links some have more and some have less. Some show how suffering arises and some show how suffering is transcended. Saying there is nothing to work out seems to me a bit over simplistic.

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby meindzai » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:28 pm

Element wrote:
meindzai wrote:The teaching was just as good then as it is now, but the students are different. He didn't have to be explicit becuase most of his audience was bright enough to figure it out on their own.

M

I would suggest what you have said is an opinion rather than a fact. Where you there 2,500 years ago?


Not if you go by the one lifetime model. :)

But If we go by the Suttas, the Buddha was there, and his disciplies became Arahants by listening to the same discourses that we have access to. The teaching hasn't changed, so clearly the problem is with the students, as I do not see any Arahants around.


Further, the Buddha advised his Dhamma is here & now, timeless, inviting inspection & to be verified for each person for themselves.

Now, I am confident I have verified for myself how suffering occurs due to self-view, how self-view occurs due to craving & attachment, etc.

Thus a question for you Meindzai? Have you verified through your own experience & insight what you are talking about?



Your insight is fine, and doesn't contradict anything about the three lifetimes model. It just means D.O. occurs both presently and over periods of time, as we've said over and over in this thread. But we're not talking about personal experience. We're talking about what's in the teachings. The three lifetimes model is just a logical working out of D.O. based on what the Buddha taught, which I believe is most clear in the Sammaditthi Sutta, with unambiguous definitions of Birth and Death.

I certainly did not figure it out on my own. I needed help from those much more well versed than me to get it. But now that I see it, it's clear as day. I previously subscribed to the same model as you at the exclusion of the three lifetimes model. I was a physicalist.


Are you confident most of today's audience including yourself have worked it out?



No, obviously many people including yourself (and Buddhadassa) have not yet managed to figure it out. I'm not going to engage in the same circular discussion about it. There doesn't seem to be any increase in understanding for either of us in this conversation.

-M
meindzai
 
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:39 pm

Greetings,

A couple of thoughts based on the above posts.

The non-time-delineated model of dependent origination does not in any way deny literal rebirth... it just suggests that literal rebirth is not an aspect of the Dhamma specifically addressed by the Buddha's teachings on dependent origination. That some rebirth-deniers use the non-time-delineated model to justify their position, does not mean that the non-time-delineated model should be tarred with the same brush.

In this brief document, Patrick Kearney explains how both interpretations of dependent origination are viable and in fact compatible...

Vibhanga (PDF file)
http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/library ... aipath=260

Highly recommended reading for anyone who currently thinks otherwise.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14678
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Element » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:03 am

meindzai wrote:Not if you go by the one lifetime model. :)


One definition of false speech in the Buddha-Dhamma:
2. NOBLE & IGNOBLE WAYS OF SPEAKING
Bhikkhus, there are these eight kinds of anariyavohara (ignoble ways of speaking). What are the eight kinds? The eight kinds are:

the tendency to speak of having seen things that have not (really) been seen;
the tendency to speak of having heard things that have not (really) been heard;
the tendency to speak of having experienced things that have not (really) been experienced;
the tendency to speak of having realized things that have not (really) been realized;

the tendency to speak of having not seen things that have been seen;
the tendency to speak of having not heard things that have been heard;
the tendency to speak of having not experienced things that have been experienced;
the tendency to speak of having not realized things that have been realized.

Bhikkhus, these are the eight anariyavohara.

Bhikkhus, there are these eight kinds of ariyavohara (noble ways of speaking). What are the eight kinds? The eight kinds are:

the tendency to speak of having not seen things that have not been seen;
the tendency to speak of having not heard things that have not been heard;
the tendency to speak of having not experienced things that have not been experienced;
the tendency to speak of having not realized things that have not been realized;

the tendency to speak of having seen things that have (really) been seen;
the tendency to speak of having heard things that have (really) been heard;
the tendency to speak of having experienced things that have (really) been experienced;
the tendency to speak of having realized things that have (truly) been realized.

Bhikkhus, these are the eight ariyavohara.

2. Anguttara-Nikaya, Eights.
Element
 

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Element » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:08 am

meindzai wrote: But If we go by the Suttas, the Buddha was there, and his disciplies became Arahants by listening to the same discourses that we have access to. The teaching hasn't changed, so clearly the problem is with the students, as I do not see any Arahants around.


The teaching has changed. There are no volitional or karma formations, no relinking consciousness & no rebirth in dependent origination in the suttas.
Element
 

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Element » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:24 am

meindzai wrote: We're talking about what's in the teachings. The three lifetimes model is just a logical working out of D.O. based on what the Buddha taught, which I believe is most clear in the Sammaditthi Sutta, with unambiguous definitions of Birth and Death.

I certainly did not figure it out on my own. I needed help from those much more well versed than me to get it. But now that I see it, it's clear as day.


Meindzai

The three lifetimes is not in the teachings. To infer that is clearly illogical. What makes it logical from what is in the suttas?

Buddha has declared suffering arises from contact and death occurs at contact before dukkha. Death is merely impermanence, the sense of loss. Without "death" there is no dukkha. Following your logic, there is no dukkha in this world and dukkha only exists after death.

Please read the quote belown from MN 38:
On seeing a form with the eye, he is passionate for it if it is pleasing; he is angry with it if it is displeasing. He lives with mindfulness to the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand realistically the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful - he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding on to it. As he does so, delight (nandi) arises in him. Now,
delight in feelings (vedanàsu nandi) is clinging (upàdàna). Becoming is conditioned by his clinging; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions ageing-&-death; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair come to be. Thus is the arising of this entire mass of suffering.

You have advised you know no arahants. Thus, whom is more versed than you? What you describe 'as clearly as day' is merely a unfounded belief.

Buddha has advised above, the mass of suffering occurs from ageing-&-death; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair.

Logic tells us there is one moment in the quote above rather than three lifetimes.

Logic tells us sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair and the whole mass of suffering occur due to ageing-&-death.

With metta

Element

[Reformatted excessive font size in body of text. Please use bold, colours etc. for emphasis.
Last edited by Element on Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Element
 

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Dhammanando » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:25 am

Hi Element,

Element wrote:There are no volitional or karma formations [in the Suttas],


    Bhava Sutta

    "It is said, lord, 'becoming, becoming.' In what way, lord, is there becoming?"
    "If, Ānanda, there were no kamma ripening in the sense realm, would sense-sphere becoming be discerned?"
    "No, lord."
    "Thus, Ānanda, kamma is the field, consciousness is the seed, craving the moisture; for beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered to craving, consciousness becomes grounded in a low realm. Thus, Ānanda, there is the production of re-becoming in the future. It is thus, Ānanda, that there is becoming.
    "If, Ānanda, there were no kamma ripening in the fine-material realm, would fine-material becoming be discerned?"
    "No, lord."
    "Thus, Ānanda, kamma is the field, consciousness is the seed, craving the moisture; for beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered to craving, consciousness becomes grounded in a middling realm. Thus, Ānanda, there is the production of re-becoming in the future. It is thus, Ānanda, that there is becoming.
    "If, Ānanda, there were no kamma ripening in the immaterial realm, would immaterial becoming be discerned?"
    "No, lord."
    "Thus, Ānanda, kamma is the field, consciousness is the seed, craving the moisture; for beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered to craving, consciousness becomes grounded in a superior realm. Thus, Ānanda, there is the production of re-becoming in the future. It is thus, Ānanda, that there is becoming."
    (AN.i. 223-24)

no relinking consciousness [in the Suttas]


There is the gandhabba as a necessary condition for birth, which Theravada tradition understands to be the relinking consciousness.

& no rebirth in dependent origination in the suttas.


From the Vibhanga Sutta – the second discourse of the Nidānasamyutta, whose suttas are entirely about dependent origination:

    "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
    ...and this thought arose in the mind of the Blessed One:
    “Who lives without reverence lives miserably.”
    Uruvela Sutta, A.ii.20

    It were endless to dispute upon everything that is disputable.
    — William Penn Some Fruits of Solitude,
User avatar
Dhammanando
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Wat Pa Mieng Khun Pang, Chiang Mai

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Element » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:28 am

Dhammanando wrote:Hi Element,

Element wrote:There are no volitional or karma formations [in the Suttas],


Element said these dhammas do not appear in the formula of dependent origination. :reading:
Element
 

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Element » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:30 am

Dhammanando wrote: here is the gandhabba as a necessary condition for birth, which Theravada tradition understands to be the relinking consciousness.


The suttas advise there are six types of consciousness. 'Tradition' is not the suttas. Buddha has taught in the SN, gandhabba are fragrances that dwell in plants.
Element
 

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Element » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:36 am

retrofuturist wrote:In this brief document, Patrick Kearney explains how both interpretations of dependent origination are viable and in fact compatible...

Vibhanga (PDF file)
http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/library ... aipath=260

Highly recommended reading for anyone who currently thinks otherwise.

Metta,
Retro. :)


Greetings Retro,

Who is Patrick Kearney? Patrick Kearny was a Mahasi student, ordained as a monk living in Burma. There was an uprising in Burma in 1989. The Western monks & nuns were forced to leave. Partick then came to Suan Mokkh when I was there. He learned dependent origination per Ajahn Buddhadasa, disrobed and returned to Australia & obtained his PHD using the traditional framework plus Buddhadasa's views as the basis of his PHD.

Regards,

Element
Element
 

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Dhammanando » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:38 am

Hi Element,

Element wrote:
Dhammanando wrote:Hi Element,

Element wrote:There are no volitional or karma formations [in the Suttas],


Element said these dhammas do not appear in the formula of dependent origination. :reading:


Your sentence –["There are no volitional or karma formations, no relinking consciousness & no rebirth in dependent origination in the suttas."]– is actually ambiguous, but thanks for clarifying the intended meaning.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
    ...and this thought arose in the mind of the Blessed One:
    “Who lives without reverence lives miserably.”
    Uruvela Sutta, A.ii.20

    It were endless to dispute upon everything that is disputable.
    — William Penn Some Fruits of Solitude,
User avatar
Dhammanando
 
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Wat Pa Mieng Khun Pang, Chiang Mai

Re: Dependent Origination

Postby Will » Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:36 am

A little more from Bhante Bodhi's paper on Nanavira:

Fundamental Attitudes

4. Before I turn to examine specific points in Ven. Nanavira's Note I wish to focus on one discomfiting consequence entailed by his insistence that his view of paticca-samuppada is exclusively and absolutely correct. The three-life interpretation of paticca-samuppada has been maintained by the Theravada tradition virtually from the time that tradition emerged as a distinct school. It goes back long before the time of Buddhaghosa's commentaries and can be found already in near-definitive form in the Vibha"nga of the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the Patisambhidamagga of the Sutta Pitaka, works dating from around the 3rd century BC. Further, this interpretation, in its essential outlines, is by no means peculiar to the Theravada school. It was also shared, with minor differences in details, by the early rivals of the Theravada, the Sarvastivada and Mahasanghika, which suggests that at least in outline this way of explaining paticca-samuppada already preceded the first schisms. The same three-life division can be found in the works of the great Madhyamika philosopher Nagarjuna (e.g. in his Muula Madhyamika Karika, chapter 26), and is also held in the present day by the Mahayana schools that have inherited the exegetical methodology of ancient Indian Buddhism.

In contrast, Ven. Nanavira's view of paticca-samuppada, as pertaining solely to a single life, appears to be without a precedent in the tenet systems of early Buddhism. Thus, when Ven. Nanavira holds that he has correctly grasped the Buddha's intention in expounding PS, this implicitly commits him to the thesis that the entire mainstream Buddhist philosophical tradition has utterly misinterpreted this most fundamental Buddhist doctrine, and had already done so within two centuries after the Master's demise. While it is not altogether impossible that this had occurred, it would seem a lapse of an astonishing magnitude on the part of the early Buddhist community.


It does seem most unlikely that the 3 lifetime teaching was fabricated or a mangled misunderstanding that has been maintained by all major Dharma lineages, for around 2300 years, yet only now, when a solitary Occidental monk comes along - is the truth revealed.
Last edited by Will on Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This noble eightfold path is the ancient path traveled by all the Buddhas of eons past. Nagara Sutta
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests