Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Now at XX 93-104 we are into the insight sections. In particular, "Knowledge of Rise and Fall". It seems to me that here the focus is much more on the actual experience. Just seeing formations rising an falling. This is said to be a , key step, often misinterpreted as awakening, hence the discussion starting at XX 105 on "The Ten Imperfections of Insight".
Just to follow up on the bolded bit briefly, the earlier Section XIX-27 sees the attainment of stream-entry, so...

- Is the Visuddhimagga intended to show a chronological/sequential path to purification, chapter by chapter?
- If so, would the teaching in Chapter XX (and beyond) pertain then only to a sekha?

Also, in the sections mentioned above, did you get the impression that for those time periods which were deemed future or past, they were known through inference and extrapolation, as opposed to direct observation, facilitated by recollection of past lives, omniscience or mental time-travel? That is how it seemed, to me. It seemed as if the impermanence of x was observed and this impermanence was extrapolated to the past and future.
mikenz66 wrote:Since I don't find the approach of Ven Nanavira convincing, I don't find the standard interpretation of the Visuddhimagga any more complex.
I know you're reticent to proceed too far along this path, but I have a question that I think is relevant to the topic, and I promise to tread carefully...

In Bhikkhu Bodhi's critique of Nanavira he says the following...
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:I am not saying that the detailed exposition of pa.ticca-samuppaada (PS) as found in the Pali Commentaries can in all particulars be traced back to the Suttas. The aim of the Commentaries, in their treatment of PS, is to correlate the Suttanta teaching of PS with the systematic analysis of phenomena and their conditional relations as found in the Abhidhamma. This results in an explanation of PS that is far more complex and technical than anything that can be drawn out from the Sutta texts themselves. I do not think that acceptance of the basic dynamics of the "three-life" approach entails acceptance of all the details of the commentarial explanation, and I also believe that the Commentaries take unnecessary risks when they try to read back into the Suttas ideas deriving from tools of interpretation that appeared perhaps centuries after the Suttas were compiled. All that I wish to maintain is that the essential vision underlying the commentarial interpretation is correct: namely, that the twelvefold formula of PS extends over three lives and as such describes the generative structure of sa.msaara, the round of repeated births.
Obviously, I find it confusing personally because I'm not au fait with the "the systematic analysis of phenomena and their conditional relations as found in the Abhidhamma" and like Bhikkhu Bodhi, "I also believe that the Commentaries take unnecessary risks when they try to read back into the Suttas ideas deriving from tools of interpretation that appeared perhaps centuries after the Suttas were compiled" - risks I'm reticent to take (and you already know my reasons why, so I won't elaborate further here).

So when you say "I don't find the standard interpretation of the Visuddhimagga any more complex" are you simply suggesting, like Bhikkhu Bodhi that "the essential vision underlying the commentarial interpretation is correct: namely, that the twelvefold formula of PS extends over three lives" or are you actually explicitly saying you find that "correlat[ion of] the Suttanta teaching of PS with the systematic analysis of phenomena and their conditional relations as found in the Abhidhamma" isn't particularly complex even though Bhikkhu Bodhi says it is "far more complex and technical than anything that can be drawn out from the Sutta texts themselves"?

The relevance of this line of questioning?... I want to ascertain whether adhering to the Mahavihara account necessitates embracing "the whole box and dice", or whether adoption of simply the three-life version of dependent origination (devoid of the complexities Bhihhu Bodhi refers to) is sufficient in order to claim full compliance with the Mahavihara position. Are there shades of grey in what constitutes the "Mahavihara account" that Shonin is inquiring about?

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."
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by Ben »

The Visuddhimagga is probably best regarded as a detailed manual for meditation masters, and as a work of reference.
-- p xliii
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ben,
Ben wrote:
The Visuddhimagga is probably best regarded as a detailed manual for meditation masters, and as a work of reference.
-- p xliii
Accepting that as so, that doesn't mean though that the "Mahavihara account" is best suited to "meditation masters, and as a work of reference", does it?

What about the average run-of-the-mill Theravadin - is the Mahavihara account presently beyond the scope of their cognition and understanding?

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."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Now at XX 93-104 we are into the insight sections. In particular, "Knowledge of Rise and Fall". It seems to me that here the focus is much more on the actual experience. Just seeing formations rising an falling. This is said to be a , key step, often misinterpreted as awakening, hence the discussion starting at XX 105 on "The Ten Imperfections of Insight".
Just to follow up on the bolded bit briefly, the earlier Section XIX-27 sees the attainment of stream-entry, so...

- Is the Visuddhimagga intended to show a chronological/sequential path to purification, chapter by chapter?
- If so, would the teaching in Chapter XX (and beyond) pertain then only to a sekha?
I think that the terminology is confusing. XIX-27 talks about a "lesser stream enterer", not a stream enterer.

The rise and fall stage discussed in XX93-104 is the fourth vipassana nana (where 15 and 16 are path and fruition). Reading the contents page of Mahasi Sayadaw's Progress of Insight is helpful.
http://aimwell.org/Books/Mahasi/Progress/progress.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Or Ven Nyanatiloka's Vipassana entry: http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... ssan%C4%81" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And page 345 of Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=hxop ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Note that the numberings are different in different summaries. Also note that one has to go through the same process for each path. I.e. after stream entry you go back to observing rise and fall etc, but with better insight.)
retrofuturist wrote: Also, in the sections mentioned above, did you get the impression that for those time periods which were deemed future or past, they were known through inference and extrapolation, as opposed to direct observation, facilitated by recollection of past lives, omniscience or mental time-travel? That is how it seemed, to me. It seemed as if the impermanence of x was observed and this impermanence was extrapolated to the past and future.
Yes. I think it's clear that some things we find out through observing them and some by extrapolation. Besides, things that happened in the past are known from observation, just not observation at this precise moment. In fact, if you want to observe the coming and going of anything that implies comparison over some finite period of time.
retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Since I don't find the approach of Ven Nanavira convincing, I don't find the standard interpretation of the Visuddhimagga any more complex.
I know you're reticent to proceed too far along this path, but I have a question that I think is relevant to the topic, and I promise to tread carefully...

In Bhikkhu Bodhi's critique of Nanavira he says the following...
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:I am not saying that the detailed exposition of pa.ticca-samuppaada (PS) as found in the Pali Commentaries can in all particulars be traced back to the Suttas. The aim of the Commentaries, in their treatment of PS, is to correlate the Suttanta teaching of PS with the systematic analysis of phenomena and their conditional relations as found in the Abhidhamma. This results in an explanation of PS that is far more complex and technical than anything that can be drawn out from the Sutta texts themselves. I do not think that acceptance of the basic dynamics of the "three-life" approach entails acceptance of all the details of the commentarial explanation, and I also believe that the Commentaries take unnecessary risks when they try to read back into the Suttas ideas deriving from tools of interpretation that appeared perhaps centuries after the Suttas were compiled. All that I wish to maintain is that the essential vision underlying the commentarial interpretation is correct: namely, that the twelvefold formula of PS extends over three lives and as such describes the generative structure of sa.msaara, the round of repeated births.
Obviously, I find it confusing personally because I'm not au fait with the "the systematic analysis of phenomena and their conditional relations as found in the Abhidhamma" and like Bhikkhu Bodhi, "I also believe that the Commentaries take unnecessary risks when they try to read back into the Suttas ideas deriving from tools of interpretation that appeared perhaps centuries after the Suttas were compiled" - risks I'm reticent to take (and you already know my reasons why, so I won't elaborate further here).

So when you say "I don't find the standard interpretation of the Visuddhimagga any more complex" are you simply suggesting, like Bhikkhu Bodhi that "the essential vision underlying the commentarial interpretation is correct: namely, that the twelvefold formula of PS extends over three lives" or are you actually explicitly saying you find that "correlat[ion of] the Suttanta teaching of PS with the systematic analysis of phenomena and their conditional relations as found in the Abhidhamma" isn't particularly complex even though Bhikkhu Bodhi says it is "far more complex and technical than anything that can be drawn out from the Sutta texts themselves"?

The relevance of this line of questioning?... I want to ascertain whether adhering to the Mahavihara account necessitates embracing "the whole box and dice", or whether adoption of simply the three-life version of dependent origination (devoid of the complexities Bhihhu Bodhi refers to) is sufficient in order to claim full compliance with the Mahavihara position. Are there shades of grey in what constitutes the "Mahavihara account" that Shonin is inquiring about?
I'm not really qualified to answer this, since I'm not inclined to do a systematic analysis of all this stuff, and completely disinclined to study two versions in sufficient depth for the purposes of determining which is, in fact, the most complicated! I'm more interested in putting it into practise.

I'm sure Bhikkhu Bodhi is right. If one does want to study the whole of the Abhidhamma and commentarial explanations, it's going to be complicated.
But I don't find Chapter VIII, Compendium of Conditionality, in Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=hxop ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
particularly difficult to follow. Or the similar description in Ven Nyanatiloka's entry on Paticcasamuppāda
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... pp%C4%81da" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[Defining difficult In a purely intellectual-analytical sense. Like anatta, a simply logical understanding is not too hard. Realising it properly is another issue...]

Remember that there are a number of Suttas that use various versions of DO, and have various "feedback loops" in them, so any kind of comprehensive explanation beyond: "Here's the most common 12 steps, there are other variations" is going to have to be complicated.

It's up to you whether you want to embrace the whole thing. Personally, I approach the Dhamma with the attitude that if I find something difficult I'll put it aside and think about it later. That's not to say that I think that the commentaries are perfect, but one only has a finite amount of time to deal with this stuff.

Since the teachers I trust use the Mahasi approach, and seem to have a few clues about it, I have some confidence in the Dhamma. Since Mahasi Sayadaw's exposition is based on the commentaries, and I don't have any serious issues with the commentarial explanation, I have no particular reason to pay a lot of attention to other expositions, except as a matter of some intellectual interest to see what others are up to. I make no apologies that this is the way I approach the Dhamma. Others may find analysing the alternatives useful, and good luck to them.

As I said, it seems clear to me from the Visuddhimagga passages we've been discussing that those commentaries are based on the experience of many people who have gone through the process, and analysed it in that way. So I take it more seriously than the pronouncements of any one modern commentator. And, of course, many modern commentators such as Mahasi Sayadaw, U Pandita, Joseph Goldstein, Steve Armstrong, describe those same insight steps from their own point of view. And my guess is that that others who use different interpretations, such as Ajahn Buddhadasa or Ven Nanavira, are describing the same things using a different language.

Hmm, this is getting rather long...

Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:
Ben wrote:
The Visuddhimagga is probably best regarded as a detailed manual for meditation masters, and as a work of reference.
-- p xliii
Accepting that as so, that doesn't mean though that the "Mahavihara account" is best suited to "meditation masters, and as a work of reference", does it?
Yes, that is probably what it sets out to do, and why it includes so many alternative ways of approaching various meditation subjects and insights. Just as you wouldn't expect any one person to use all 40 samatha objects, a particular person would not use all of the several alternatives presented in the insight chapters.

In my experience a real-life teacher will try to just tell the meditator the minimum necessary to not to get stuck, and certainly not all the alternatives...
retrofuturist wrote: What about the average run-of-the-mill Theravadin - is the Mahavihara account presently beyond the scope of their cognition and understanding?
This seems like a slightly pointless question that could just as easily be applied to Ven Nanavira's explanations. And it depends what you mean by "the Mahavihara account". Do you mean reading the entire Visuddhimagga, and vast tracts of Abhidhamma and commentaries? Or do you mean skimming through the CMA and Ven Nyanatiloka's dictionary entries?

One answer (that has been expressed on this board) that it is pointless to read stuff you are not ready for, including most of the Suttas, and better to wait for your teacher to give you material depending on your progress. I'm sure that you would not find that answer useful.

Mike
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by Ben »

mikenz66 wrote:As I said, it seems clear to me from the Visuddhimagga passages we've been discussing that those commentaries are based on the experience of many people who have gone through the process, and analysed it in that way. So I take it more seriously than the pronouncements of any one modern commentator. And, of course, many modern commentators such as Mahasi Sayadaw, U Pandita, Joseph Goldstein, Steve Armstrong, describe those same insight steps from their own point of view. And my guess is that that others who use different interpretations, such as Ajahn Buddhadasa or Ven Nanavira, are describing the same things using a different language.
What I want to say is that I share Mike's assessment for exactly the same reasons. And Mike's point above cannot be stated too firmly. The Visuddhimagga, sadly, is vastly under-rated and I think that is because of its formality. In reality it is a treasure chest for those who are only willing to put in the effort to read it, understand it and put it into practice.
kind regards

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by Ben »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Ben,
Ben wrote:
The Visuddhimagga is probably best regarded as a detailed manual for meditation masters, and as a work of reference.
-- p xliii
Accepting that as so, that doesn't mean though that the "Mahavihara account" is best suited to "meditation masters, and as a work of reference", does it?
Then it begs the question: why is it (probably) the most cited Theravadin text besides the Nikayas?
retrofuturist wrote:What about the average run-of-the-mill Theravadin - is the Mahavihara account presently beyond the scope of their cognition and understanding?
For this run-of-the-mill theravadin, and I can assure you that there is no-one more run-of-the-mill, the Vism is of profound practical value. My recommendation to you Retro (and to anyone) is to spend some time getting acquianted with it and getting reacquainted with it, and on its own terms.
kind regards

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Ben,
Ben wrote: Then it begs the question: why is it (probably) the most cited Theravadin text besides the Nikayas?
This is certainly true in English language literature. Perhaps harder to say if we were reading in Burmese, Thai, or Sinhalese...

However, one might ask why the commentaries themselves are not more widely quoted, when the Visuddhimagga is a kind of summary and selection from the commentaries. In the English literature clearly that's because most of the commentaries are inaccessible unless one can read commentarial Pali, which I understand is much more difficult than reading Suttas. Luckily Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thanissaro Bhikku, and others, do include selections from the commentaries with their translations.

I think it is a pity that more commentary is not available in English, since reading the commentary of a single Sutta (such as the Satipatthana Sutta, which is available in print and on-line) is much easier than coming to grips with a huge meta-summary-commentary like the Visuddhimagga... This is going a little off topic. See this thread: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4340#p65535" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Getting a little more on-topic, I would urge people to see the commentaries and Vism as collections of various observations and advice gleaned from experience since the time of the Buddha, rather than as some sort of unified position paper from the Theravada bureaucracy. If the statements sometimes seem somewhat random, contradictory, or even useless, I think that's because their nature is like a summary of a number of Dhamma talks from various teachers...

Due to this nature, I find statements and questions about "Ven Buddhaghosa's opinion" or "the Mahavihara position" rather miss the point. There are places where Ven Buddhaghosa actually makes statements like: "On this point the Majjhima reciters say X and the Samyutta reciters say Y...". A commentary is a conversation, not a "last word".

Mike
Last edited by mikenz66 on Sun May 23, 2010 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by Ben »

Hi Mike

Yes, I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, there isn't a great amount of material translated into English. Even still, the Vism is cited by scholars and authors who are familiar with Pali, and it would be reasonable to assume that they have access to other commentarial literature.
I don't think its a good idea to dismiss it (Vism).
kind regards

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote: What about the average run-of-the-mill Theravadin - is the Mahavihara account presently beyond the scope of their cognition and understanding?
This seems like a slightly pointless question that could just as easily be applied to Ven Nanavira's explanations. And it depends what you mean by "the Mahavihara account". Do you mean reading the entire Visuddhimagga, and vast tracts of Abhidhamma and commentaries? Or do you mean skimming through the CMA and Ven Nyanatiloka's dictionary entries?
I don't know, because I don't know at what level of depth people approach these things. For many, Theravada Buddhism extends barely beyond sila, a few Jataka Tales and the Dhammapada, so to them these things would seem very alien, yet they may claim to support or endorse the classical Mahavihara account. Others may have them filtered through their teachers (which sounds like what happens to you), some may approach the Visuddhimagga on their own to complement their own teacher's instruction (which sounds like what happens to Ben)... so I don't know. I'm sure even I know more about it than most Theravadins, having actually read Visuddhimagga, A Manual of Abhidhamma and other writings pertaining to the Mahavihara period. The level of complexity involved in the "whole box and dice" Mahavihara account (which I've seen, but not necessarily grasped in toto) seems prohibitive for most people. I assume I "could" understand it better conceptually if I tried harder but once it reaches a certain point of complexity it becomes either so far divorced from the suttas, or (from my perspective) speculative or pedantic, that I hear the echoes of the Simsapa Sutta calling me back to the suttas. I guess that's just a threshold tolerance I have for some Dhamma writings which I don't pass through. In the absence of a teacher, I use suttas like the Simsapa Sutta and the Mahaparinibbana Sutta to keep the from going off-track.
mikenz66 wrote:Getting a little more on-topic, I would urge people to see the commentaries and Vism as collections of various observations and advice gleaned from experience since the time of the Buddha, rather than as some sort of unified position paper from the Theravada bureaucracy. If the statements sometimes seem somewhat random, contradictory, or even useless, I think that's because their nature is like a summary of a number of Dhamma talks from various teachers...
Which raises the question of whether there's even a "Mahavihara account" at all... or is it just an omnibus of "various observations and advice"?
mikenz66 wrote:One answer (that has been expressed on this board) that it is pointless to read stuff you are not ready for, including most of the Suttas, and better to wait for your teacher to give you material depending on your progress. I'm sure that you would not find that answer useful.
Not having a teacher, no... though I don't find I have problems with anything in the suttas... only that over time, one may gain a deeper and more subtle appreciation of them compared to one's earlier encounters with the same text.

I'm not sure how much of this helps Shonin, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

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."
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by Shonin »

Anyone care to take on this basic question?:
Shonin wrote:
Each of these twelve nidanas are said to condition the next, does this mean that the latter nidana does not exist until conditioned by the former? Or does it mean that both already exist but that conditionality 'flows' only in the direction described? Or does it mean something else?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Shonin,

Excuse the slightly clumsy translation, but what the following suggest to you?

MN 115: Bahudhatuka Sutta
http://www.vipassana.info/115-bahudhatuka-e.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
‘Venerable sir, saying it rightly how is the bhikkhu clever in dependent arising?’

‘Aananda, the bhikkhu knows, when this is present, this happens, when this arises, this arise. When this is not present, this does not happen, when this ceases, this cease. Such as from ignorance arise determinations, from determinations arise consciousness, from consciousness arise name and matter. From name and matter arise the six spheres, from the six spheres arise contact and from contact arise feelings. From feelings arise craving, from craving arises holding, from holding arises being and from being arises birth. From birth arises decay, death, grief, lament, unpleasantness displeasure and distress. Thus arises the complete mass of unpleasantness. With the cessation of ignorance, cease determinations, with the cessaton of determinations cease consciousness, with the cessation of consciousness cease name and matter.With the cessation of name and matter cease the six spheres, with the cessation of the six spheres cease contact. With the cessation of contact cease feelings, with the cessation of feelings cease craving, with the cessation of craving ceases holding. With the cessation of holding ceasesbeing, with the cessaton of being ceases birth and with the cessation of birth cease decay, death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress. Thus ceases the complete mass of unpleasantness.When the bhikkhu knows and sees this, saying it rghtly he becomes clever in dependent arising’
As for the precise rendering of the bolded section, see this recent discussion involving venerable Dhammanando and acinteyyo - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ead#p67509" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Shonin,
Shonin wrote:Anyone care to take on this basic question?:
Shonin wrote:
Each of these twelve nidanas are said to condition the next, does this mean that the latter nidana does not exist until conditioned by the former? Or does it mean that both already exist but that conditionality 'flows' only in the direction described? Or does it mean something else?
I did try to reply a little here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... =20#p67543" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
but it is a complex issue.

My understanding is that some things arise at the same time, some sequentially, and, as I said in the other post, the mentioned factors are not the only causes. So, for example "from contact arises feeling", but other factors made that particular contact possible, and still other factors conditioned whether the particular sense object that is contacted (some sound for example) is discerned as pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful.

Mike
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by Shonin »

It does sound complex and itself open to interpretation. I'm really looking for the dummies' version here. I've taken this from A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPÁDA as a starting point:
avijjā [ignorance] and sankhārā [formations] are kamma in the previous existence, and their vipāka [fruit] is viññāna [consciousness], nāmarūpa [name and form, mind and body], salāyatana [six sense bases], phassa [contact], and vedanā [feeling], in the present existence; tanhā [craving], upādāna [clinging], and bhava [becoming], are kamma in the present existence, and their vipāka is jāti [birth] and jarāmarana [deterioration and death] in the subsequent existence.
OK so far?

So, if this was Life #1 then my ignorance about the true nature of things would be a condition for volitional formations. One or both of these are conditions for the appearance of a primordial consciosness in Life#2. Tell me if I'm getting this right? So, first question:

how can the existence of nāmarūpa [mind and body] be dependent on viññāna [consciousness]? Is consciousness something other than mind? And is it supposed to be prior to both body and mind?
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Dependent Origination: Mahavihara account

Post by beeblebrox »

I found out that it becomes much easier to understand when you go through it backwards, the way it does in some of the suttas:

Why is there aging and death? Because there was a birth. Why was there birth? Because of existence (or becoming, depending on translation). Why was there existence? Because of the clinging. Why was there clinging? Because of the craving. Why was there craving? Because of feeling. Why was there feeling? Because of contact. Why was there contact? Because of the six sense bases. Why were there six sense bases? Because of the names and forms. Why were there names and forms? Because of consciousness. Why was there consciousness? Because of volitional formations. Why were there volitional formations? Because of ignorance.

The way that I understand it now... it's because of the ignorance of the decaying and death that we went through all of this in the first place; or maybe it's more like the ignorance of this process that makes it seem like dukkha.

edit: Changed from "you" to "we" in the third paragraph, after I realized that it actually takes more than one to make a birth (existence, etc).
Last edited by beeblebrox on Sun May 23, 2010 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply