the great ignorance debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: the great ignorance debate

Postby PeterB » Tue May 11, 2010 8:43 am

Ok Nathan ....I Peter am forced to use conventions of temporality.. :)

User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: the great ignorance debate

Postby Pannapetar » Tue May 11, 2010 8:43 am

PeterB wrote:How is a negative eradicated ?


With a positive!? :rofl:

Cheers, Thomas

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: the great ignorance debate

Postby PeterB » Tue May 11, 2010 9:04 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Peter,

I'm trying to reconcile these two perspectives...

PeterB wrote:(Avijja is) A given in that as long as we are not enlightened our perception/cognitions will always have their origin in Avijja. It is an a priori. The first link in paticcasamuppada.


PeterB wrote:Avijja is something that we actively do. Avijja is what arises until and to the degree that Insight has not arisen.


When you say enlightened, are you talking about one who is a sekha or an asekha?

What about the degree to which insight has arisen? How does that factor into dependent origination?

(Sorry if any of these questions have in fact been answered above)

Metta,
Retro. :)

I guess Paul that i was thinking more along the lines of one who is sekha, now that you ask. For me these debates are a way of articulating my own conclusions at the moment, but they are a work in progress... :smile:
Perhaps Insight could be described as the "gap" that arises between the processes of perception and the objects of perception.
I was tempted to answer in terms of Cittas but that might not help..

User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 15729
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great ignorance debate

Postby retrofuturist » Tue May 11, 2010 9:13 am

Greetings Peter,

PeterB wrote:I guess Paul that i was thinking more along the lines of one who is sekha, now that you ask. For me these debates are a way of articulating my own conclusions at the moment, but they are a work in progress... :smile:

Understood... it's the same for myself. Discussions such as these with other dedicated practitioners are a blessing, and I'm appreciative of you all.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Never again...

PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: the great ignorance debate

Postby PeterB » Tue May 11, 2010 9:15 am

Its mutual Paul..

:anjali:

nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: the great ignorance debate

Postby nathan » Tue May 11, 2010 10:12 am

Thanks everyone for taking an interest in the thread. Very interesting so far, only thirty-five more pages to go.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}

User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 15729
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great ignorance debate

Postby retrofuturist » Tue May 11, 2010 10:48 pm

Greetings,

In relation to the question I was posing about avijja and its cessation in the context of dependent origination, I came across the following from Nanavira Thera.

http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=62

23. Sankhārapaccayā viññānam, as we now see, can be taken to mean that any specific series of sankhāra-sankhatadhamma pairs (one or more) of which the first contains viññāna is dependent upon the very fact that there are sankhārā at all. Avijjāpaccayā sankhārā will then mean that the very fact that there are sankhārā at all is dependent upon avijjā; and with cessation of avijjā—avijjānirodhā—all sankhārā whatsoever will cease—sankhāranirodho. This is perhaps most simply stated in the lines from the Vinaya Mahāvagga:

Ye dhammā hetuppabhavā
Tesam hetum Tathāgato āha
Tesañ ca yo nirodho
Evamvādī mahāsamano.

Of things originating with conditions,
The Tathāgata has told the condition,
And what their cessation is.
The Great Recluse speaks thus.

Here, Ye dhammā hetuppabhavā are all things whatsoever that depend upon hetū ('conditions'—synonymous with paccayā). Since each of these things depends upon its respective hetu (as in any paticcasamuppāda formulation), it shares the same fate as its hetu—it is present when the hetu< is present, and absent when the hetu is absent. Thus the hetu of them taken as a whole (all things that are hetuppabhavā) is no different from the hetu of their individual hetū taken as a whole. When there are hetū at all there are hetuppabhavā dhammā, when there are no hetū there are no hetuppabhavā dhammā; and hetū, being nothing else than sankhārā, have avijjā as condition. Tesam hetum ('their condition'), therefore, is avijjā. To see the Dhamma is to see paticcasamuppāda (as noted in §7), and avijjā is therefore non-seeing of paticcasamuppāda. Avijjāpaccayā sankhārā will thus mean 'paticcasamuppāda depends upon non-seeing of paticcasamuppāda'. Conversely, seeing of paticcasamuppāda is cessation of avijjā, and when paticcasamuppāda is seen it loses its condition ('non-seeing of paticcasamuppāda') and ceases. And this is cessation of all hetuppabhavā dhammā. Thus tesam yo nirodho is cessation of avijjā.

Dhammas are dependent upon avijja. 8-)

Metta,
Retro. :)
"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)

“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)

Never again...


Return to “Open Dhamma”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Coyote, understanding27 and 10 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine