DooDoot wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:28 am
Abhidhamma or commentaries...
Thank you, Paul. No problem. I think the Vsm on Dependent Origination alone can be critiqued based on the Pali suttas.
We can use this thread to discuss where/if Buddhaghosa - the great Mahavihara Bhikkhu- taught the Dependent Origination wrongly.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:22 amLikewise. Indeed, that's what venerables Nanavira, Buddhadasa and Nanananda (amongst others) have done.
Actually, we can't because the forum guidelines for this section will not allow it.
Metta,The Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums are specialized venues for the discussion of the Abhidhamma and the classical Mahavihara understanding of the Dhamma. Within these forums the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries are for discussion purposes treated as authoritative. These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature.
Posts should also include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view).
Posts that contain personal opinions and conjecture, points of view arrived at from meditative experiences, conversations with devas, blind faith in the supreme veracity of one's own teacher's point of view etc. are all regarded as off-topic, and as such, will be subject to moderator review and/or removal.
I have never read the Vsm before about D.O. & suppose it can only be compared with the suttas & other views. First comparison:
The stock sutta (SN 12.2; MN 9) say the three sankhara are kaya, vaci & citta sankhara. The sutta (SN 12.51) that refers meritorious volitional formation seems to not be describing the 2nd nidana but explicitly describing one of the four types of attachment (clinging) of 9th nidana, as follows:Buddhaghosa wrote:“They form the formed” (S III 87), thus they are formations. Furthermore, formations are twofold, namely, (a) formations with ignorance as condition, and (b) formations given in the texts with the word “formations” (saòkhára). Herein, (a) the three, namely, formations of merit, of demerit, and of the imperturbable, and the three, namely, the bodily, the verbal, and the mental formations, which make six, are “formations with ignorance as condition.” And all these are simply mundane profitable and unprofitable volition. 45. But (b) these four, namely, (i) the formation consisting of the formed (saòkhata-saòkhára), [527] (ii) the formation consisting of the kamma-formed (abhisaòkhata-saòkhára), (iii) the formation consisting in the act of kamma-forming (forming by kamma—abhisaòkharaóa-saòkhára), and (iv) the formation consisting in momentum (payogábhisaòkhára), are the kinds of formations that have come in the texts with the word “formations.”.... Profitable and unprofitable volition of the three planes is called the formation consisting in the act of kamma-forming.
The above phrase is replicated, for example, in MN 37 and MN 140, where it refers to attachment rather than to the 2nd nidana:Since he does not generate or fashion volitional formations, he does not cling to anything in the world....
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.51
Similarly, Buddhaghosa seems to be describing 'kamma' occurring before contact, where as the Pali suttas (SN 12.25 & AN 6.63) seem to say there can be no kamma without contact:One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). MN 140
Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling (think about) to anything in the world. MN 37
Therein, friend, in the case of those ascetics and brahmins, proponents of kamma, who maintain that pleasure and pain are created by oneself, and those who maintain that pleasure and pain are created by another, and those who maintain that pleasure and pain are created both by oneself and by another, and those who maintain that pleasure and pain have arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another—in each case that is conditioned by contact. SN 12.25
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect. "And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play. AN 6.63
However, Buddhaghosa seems to take a guess below, which accords with SN 12.2 & MN 9:Bhikkhus, on account of the sensual element arise sensual perceptions. On account of sensual perceptions arise sensual thoughts. On account of sensual thoughts arise sensual interest. On account of sensual interest arise sensual burning. On account of sensual burning is a sensual search. Bhikkhus, in the sensual search the not learned ordinary man, in three instances falls to the wrong method (kamma), by body, words and mind. SN 14.12
Then later Buddhaghosa seems to say 'sankhara' are all sankharas, equating the with the four kinds of generation in MN 12 and the five results of kamma in AN 6.63:47. And not only these, but many other kinds of formations are given in the texts with the word “formation” (saòkhára), in the way beginning, “When a bhikkhu is attaining the cessation of perception and feeling, friend Visákha, first his verbal formation ceases, then his bodily formation, then his mental formation” (M I 302). But there is no formation among them not included by (i) “formations consisting of the formed.”
Later, again, Buddhaghosa refers to 29 volitions as 'sankhara":53. Formations are singlefold as states subject to cankers (Dhs 3), states with the nature of result (Dhs 1), and so on (cf. Vibh 62).9 They are twofold as profitable and unprofitable; likewise as limited and exalted, inferior and medium, with certainty of wrongness and without certainty. They are threefold as the formation of merit and the rest. They are fourfold as leading to the four kinds of generation. They are fivefold as leading to the five kinds of destiny.
Again, Buddhaghosa seems to be asserting kamma occurring before contact.60. Formations are the six mentioned in brief above thus, “the three, namely, formations of merit, etc., and the three, namely, the bodily formation, etc.” (§44); but in detail here the [first] three formations are twenty-nine volitions, that is to say, the formation of merit consisting of thirteen volitions, counting the eight sense-sphere profitable volitions that occur in giving, in virtue, etc., and the five fine-material profitable volitions that occur in development [of meditation]; then the formation of demerit consisting of the twelve unprofitable volitions that occur in killing living things, etc.; then the formation of the imperturbable consisting in the four profitable volitions associated with the immaterial sphere, which occur in development [of those meditations].
MN 43 supports cognizing. Dhp 1 does not support consciousness as 'mano'. Where do the suttas refer to consciousness as 're-linking'? AN 3.76 says there must be craving & kamma for the production of renewed becoming in the future.Buddhaghosa wrote:Consciousness has the characteristic of cognizing. Its function is to go before (see Dhp 1). It manifests itself as rebirth-linking.
Third comparison:Buddhaghosa wrote:54. Consciousness is singlefold as mundane (Dhs 3), resultant (Dhs 1), and so on. It is twofold as with root-cause and without root-cause and so on. It is threefold as included in the three kinds of becoming; as associated with the three kinds of feeling; and as having no root-cause, having two root-causes, and having three root-causes. It is fourfold and fivefold [respectively] according to generation and destiny.
The suttas do not literally say this, apart from MN 19, which mentions 'namati'.Buddhaghosa wrote:Mentality (náma) has the characteristic of bending (namana).
55. Mentality-materiality is singlefold as dependent on consciousness, and as having kamma as its condition.
movedretrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:59 am Greetings Robert,
Actually, we can't because the forum guidelines for this section will not allow it.
Metta,
Paul.
Looking at Paticcasamuppada - Practical Dependent Origination by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (of Thailand) (now deceased).etrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:22 amLikewise. Indeed, that's what venerables Nanavira, Buddhadasa and Nanananda (amongst others) have done.
This is, of course, evident to anyone who has had even a cursory look at the Tipitaka; anatta is really the bedrock of Dhamma. However, in the next sentence he says that"...therefore teaching Paticcasamupada in such a way that there is a self persisting over a series of lives is contrary to the principle of dependent origination."
This I don't follow. Kamma is simply a conditioned phenomenon - and it is just natural law that certain types of action lead to certain results. We can think of this as a moral law without evoking any self. In the following paragraph on p.6 he says that an incorrectly explained theory has been taught for a thousand years. On p8 he explains with regard to this that the"dependent origination is on no way concerned with morality which must depend upon a theory of Eternalism".
He lays the blame for all this on Buddhaghosa (ancient composer of the Visuddhimagga and many important commentaries)"during the time the commentaries were composed there arose a widespread tendency to explain matters of ultimate truths in terms of the Eternalist theory."
He is not sure how this wrongview arose but he speculates that it either happened because of lack of insight OR he thinks that it was a deliberate plot to destroy Buddhism for Brahmins who believed in atta (self)see page 51-52. He notes that there is no written evidence before the time of the Visuddhimagga [written by Buddhaghosa] where Paticcasamupada was explained wrongly. And that at the time of the third council (long before Buddhaghosa ) if one had "said there was a self that spun around in the cycle of birth and death and rebirth as in the case of Bhikkhu Sati he was held to be holding wrong views in the sense of Eternalism and was made to leave the order." He equates such wrong views with the Visuddhimagga.p8."the same person who collected all the commentaries together so that total blind acceptance..will allow only one voice to be heard."
And he carries on (p63) to note that he"BUT I don't agree with him at all regarding Dependent Origination because he spoke of it in terms of a soul and so it became Brahministic."
So to sum up venerable Buddhadasa is suggesting that Buddhaghosa taught an Eternalistic (self, atta) version of the Paticcasamuppada. Is that true? I think it is best to let the ancient texts speak for themselves."[he]is not going to defile of defame or villify
Buddhaghosa..I only want to make some observations. Buddhaghosa was born a Brahmin..and he completed a study of the three vedas like any other Brahmin. His spirit was that of a Brahmin..if he later came to explain the Buddhist theory of Dependent Origination as a form of Brahminism it is most reasonable to supsect that he was careless and forgetful so that he cannot be considered to be an Arahat."
Firstly, I'd like to say that truly there is no one who receives results but that results arise by conditions (just to be pedantic). From the Visuddhimagga 172"Experiencer is a convention for mere"kamma in this life gives rise to results in some far off future life it as if there are no kammic results(vipaka) at all which we receive in the birth in which the deed was done.....to suggest that defilements and kamma from a past life become effective in this, a later life, is impossible"
" Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening
during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma),
ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma),
ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedaníya kamma)
...." (A.VI, 63).
I have given up nowretrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:59 am Greetings Javi,
I beg to differ. The Visuddhimagga world-view is based at least as much on Abhidhammic concepts as it is Sutta ones, and against this background, it reinterprets suttas through an Abhidhammic lens. That's fine if you believe the Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha, but it's a complete distortion of the Dhamma if you are of the opinion that the Abhidhamma is a later work, which is in many ways incompatible with the suttas.
Even the politically correct Bhikkhu Bodhi has this to say on the matter, with specific reference to paticcasamuppada...
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.
after discerning the Abhidhamma in the Visuddhimagga. It is full of Abhidhamma, such as the sankkara above and now about multitudes of consciousness. It is way too excessive, for me, unrelated to discernment but a mere listing exercise.
[(1) Kinds of Mundane Resultant Consciousness]
120. In the clause, with formations as condition, consciousness, consciousness is
sixfold as eye-consciousness, and so on. Herein, eye-consciousness is twofold,
namely, profitable [kamma-]resultant and unprofitable [kamma-]resultant (see
Table II for bracketed numbers that follow). Likewise ear-, nose-, tongue-, and
body-consciousness ((34)–(38) and (50)–(54)). But mind-consciousness is twentytwo-fold,
namely, the two profitable and unprofitable resultant mind elements
((39) and (55)), the three root-causeless mind-consciousness elements ((40), (41)
and (56)), the eight sense-sphere resultant consciousnesses with root-cause
((42)–(49)), the five of the fine-material sphere ((57)–(61)), and the four of the
immaterial sphere ((62)–(65)). So all the thirty-two mundane resultant
consciousnesses ((34)–(65)) are included by these six kinds of consciousness.
But the supramundane kinds do not belong to the exposition of the round [of
becoming], and so they are not included.
121. Here it may be asked: “But how is it to be known that this consciousness
of the kind stated actually has formations as its condition?”—Because there is
no kamma-result when there is no stored-up kamma. For this consciousness is
kamma-result, and kamma-result does not arise in the absence of stored-up
kamma. If it did, then all kinds of kamma-resultant consciousnesses would
arise in all kinds of beings, and they do not do so. This is how it should be
known that such consciousness has formations as its condition.
122. But which kind of consciousness has which kind of formations as its
condition?
Firstly, the following sixteen kinds arise with the sense-sphere formation of
merit as condition: the five profitable resultants beginning with eyeconsciousness
((34)–(38)), and in the case of mind-consciousness one kind of
mind element (39) and two kinds of mind-consciousness element ((40)–(41)),
and the eight kinds of sense-sphere resultant ((42)–(49)), according as it is said:
“Owing to profitable kamma of the sense sphere having been performed, stored
up, resultant eye-consciousness” (Dhs §431), “ear-, nose-, tongue-, bodyconsciousness”
(Dhs §443), “resultant mind element arises” (Dhs §455), “mindconsciousness
element accompanied by joy arises” (Dhs §469), “mindconsciousness
element accompanied by equanimity arises” (Dhs §484),
“accompanied by joy and associated with knowledge … accompanied by joy,
associated with knowledge and prompted … accompanied by joy and
dissociated from knowledge … accompanied by joy, dissociated from knowledge
and prompted … accompanied by equanimity and associated with knowledge
… accompanied by equanimity, associated with knowledge and prompted …
accompanied by equanimity and dissociated from knowledge … accompanied
by equanimity, dissociated from knowledge and prompted” (Dhs §498).
123. There are five kinds of resultant fine-material-sphere consciousness ((57)–
(61)) with the fine-material-sphere formation of merit as condition, according as
it is said: “Owing to that same profitable kamma of the fine-material sphere
having been performed, stored up, [by the development of that same profitable
jhána,] [546] secluded from sense desires … he enters upon and dwells in the
resultant first jhána … fifth jhána” (Dhs §499).
124. There are seven kinds of consciousness with the formation of demerit as
condition: the five unprofitable resultants beginning with eye-consciousness
((50)–(54)), one mind element (55), and one mind-consciousness element (56),
according as it is said: “Because of unprofitable kamma having been performed
and stored up, resultant eye-consciousness has arisen … ear- … nose- … tongue-
… body-consciousness has arisen” (Dhs §556), “resultant mind element” (Dhs
§562), “resultant mind-consciousness element has arisen” (Dhs §564).
125. There are four kinds of immaterial resultant consciousness ((62)–(65)) with
the formation of the imperturbable as condition, according as it is said: “Owing to
that same profitable kamma of the immaterial sphere having been performed, stored
up [by the development of that same profitable immaterial jhána, with the abandoning
of bodily pleasure and pain … he enters upon and dwells in the resultant fourth
jhána, which,] with the complete surmounting of perceptions of material form … is
accompanied by the base consisting of boundless space” (Dhs §501), “accompanied
by the base consisting of boundless consciousness” (Dhs §502), “accompanied by
the base consisting of nothingness” (Dhs §503), “accompanied by the base
consisting of neither perception nor non-perception” (Dhs §504).
126. After knowing what kind of consciousness has what formations as its
condition, one should now understand how it occurs as follows.
[(2) The Occurrence of Resultant Consciousness]
Now, this resultant consciousness all occurs in two ways, namely, (a) in the
course of an individual existence (or continuity), and (b) at the rebirth-linking
[moment].
Herein, there are the two fivefold consciousnesses ((34)–(38) and (50)–(54)),
two mind elements ((39) and (55)), and root-causeless mind-consciousness....
... 130. As to the remaining nineteen ((41)–(49) and (56)–(65)), there is none that
does not occur as a rebirth-linking (a) appropriate to it (see §133). But in the
course of an individual existence, firstly, two, namely, profitable-resultant and
unprofitable-resultant root-causeless mind-consciousness elements ((41) and
(56)) occur accomplishing four functions, that is to say, the function of investigating
in the five doors (j) next after profitable-resultant and unprofitable-resultant
mind element, the function of registration (m) in the six doors in the way already
stated, the function of life-continuum (b) that continues after rebirth-linking given
by themselves, as long as there is no thought-arising to interrupt the lifecontinuum,
and lastly the function of death (n) at the end [of the course of an
existence]. And so these two are invariable as to [p
[2. (b) At Rebirth-Linking]
133. But what was said above, namely, “as to the remaining nineteen, there is
none that does not occur as a rebirth-linking appropriate to it” (§130), is hard to
understand since it is too brief. Hence, in order to show the details it may be asked:
(i) How many kinds of rebirth-linking are there? (ii) How many kinds of rebirthlinking
consciousness? (iii) Where and by what means does rebirth-linking come
about? (iv) What does rebirth-linking [consciousness] have as its object?
134. (i) Including the rebirth-linking of non-percipient beings there are twenty
kinds of rebirth-linking.
(ii) There are nineteen kinds of rebirth-linking consciousnesses, as already
described.
Ven.BD certainly had his views however what I have read today is too much for me to devote time too. This verse might need to be explained against accusations of eternalism:
Regardless, the Vsm is certainly of a complexity immeasurably greater than the suttas & is, without doubt, Abhidhamma.287. The past, the present and the future are its three times. Of these, it should be understood that, according to what is given as such in the texts, the two factors ignorance and formations belong to the past time, the eight beginning with consciousness belong to the present time, and the two, birth and ageingand-death, belong to the future time.
288. Again, it should be understood thus:
(1) It has three links with cause, fruit, cause,
As first parts; and (2) four different sections;
(3) Its spokes are twenty qualities;
(4) With triple round it spins forever.
289. 1. Herein, between formations and rebirth-linking consciousness there is one link consisting of cause-fruit. Between feeling and craving there is one link consisting of fruit-cause. And between becoming and birth there is one link consisting of cause-fruit. This is how it should be understood that it has three links with cause, fruit, cause, as first parts.
290. 2. But there are four sections, which are determined by the beginnings and ends of the links, that is to say, ignorance/ formations is one section;
consciousness/mentality-materiality/ sixfold base/contact/feeling is the second; craving/clinging/ becoming is the third; and birth/ageing-and-death
is the fourth. This is how it should be understood to have four different sections
Though it’s true that there can be no kamma without contact, I don’t think it’s what the first of your two quoted suttas is saying. The pronoun ‘that’ in the phrase ‘in each case that is conditioned by contact’ doesn’t refer to kamma but to what the ascetics and brahmins say about kamma; in other words, ‘in each case of the ascetics’ and brahmins’ views’. This sutta’s teaching seems to be a specialized case of the Brahmajālasutta’s more general formulation, in which exactly the same phrase (tadapi phassapaccayā) is applied to all sixty-two views.DooDoot wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:50 amSimilarly, Buddhaghosa seems to be describing 'kamma' occurring before contact, where as the Pali suttas (SN 12.25 & AN 6.63) seem to say there can be no kamma without contact:
Therein, friend, in the case of those ascetics and brahmins, proponents of kamma, who maintain that pleasure and pain are created by oneself, and those who maintain that pleasure and pain are created by another, and those who maintain that pleasure and pain are created both by oneself and by another, and those who maintain that pleasure and pain have arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another—in each case that is conditioned by contact. SN 12.25
1. If Buddhaghosa defined 'paticca-sam-uppada' as 'dependent-co-arising', how can there be three lifetimes when it seems 'co-arising' means all twelve nidana must arise together?Buddhaghosa wrote: Again: it arises as a togetherness (saha), thus it is a coarising (samuppáda); but it does so having depended (paþicca—ger.) in combination with conditions, not regardless of them. Consequently: it, having depended (paticca), is a co-arising (samuppáda), thus in this way also it is dependent origination (paticca-samuppáda).
2. If Buddhaghosa said birth-aging-death happen in a future life, what is the death occurring in the present life, which people often grieve & suffer over?Buddhaghosa wrote:46. Death is suffering: death too is twofold, as a characteristic of the formed, with reference to which it is said, “Ageing and death are included in the aggregates” (Dhátuk 15), and as the severing of the connection of the life faculty included in a single becoming, with reference to which it is said, “So mortals are in constant fear … that they will die” (Sn 576). The latter is intended here. Death with birth as its condition, death by violence, death by natural causes, death from exhaustion of the life span, death from exhaustion of merit, are names for it. 47. It has the characteristic of a fall. Its function is to disjoin. It is manifested as absence from the destiny [in which there was the rebirth]. It should be understood as suffering because it is a basis for suffering. Hence this is said:
Without distinction as they die
Pain grips their minds impartially
When wicked men their foul deeds see
Or sign of new rebirth, may be.
Also when good men cannot bear
To part from all that they hold dear.
Then bodily pain severs sinews.
Joints and so on, and continues [503]
Torture unbearable, which racks
All those whose vitals death attacks
With grip that shall no more relax.
Death is the basis of such pain.
And this suffices to explain
Why death the name of pain should gain.
This is the exposition of death.
3. If aging-&-death are the condition for sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair (as described in the suttas), how does sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair occur in this present life when it is supposed to occur in a future life according to Buddhaghosa?Buddhaghosa wrote:272. And when there is no birth, neither ageing and death nor the states beginning with sorrow come about; but when there is birth, then ageing and death come about, and also the states beginning with sorrow, which are either bound up with ageing and death in a fool who is affected by the painful states called ageing and death, or which are not so bound up in one who is affected by some painful state or other; therefore this birth is a condition for ageing and death and also for sorrow and so on. But it is a condition in one way, as decisive-support type.
4. Based on the quote above, was Buddhaghosa actually referring to three-lifetimes? Or was Buddhaghosa referring to the past, present & future in the present life?Buddhaghosa wrote:287. The past, the present and the future are its three times. Of these, it should be understood that, according to what is given as such in the texts, the two factors ignorance and formations belong to the past time, the eight beginning with consciousness belong to the present time, and the two, birth and ageingand-death, belong to the future time.
Buddhaghosa wrote:290. 2. But there are four sections, which are determined by the beginnings and ends of the links, that is to say, ignorance/ formations is one section; consciousness/mentality-materiality/ sixfold base/contact/feeling is the second; craving/clinging/ becoming is the third; and birth/ageing-and-death is the fourth. This is how it should be understood to have four different sections.
Buddhaghosa wrote:32. Now, this word birth (játi) has many meanings. For in the passage “[He recollects … ] one birth (játi), two births” (D I 81) it is becoming. In the passage, “Visákhá, there is a kind (játi) of ascetics called Nigaóþhas (Jains)” (A I 206) it is a monastic order. In the passage, “Birth (játi) is included in two aggregates” (Dhátuk 15) it is the characteristic of whatever is formed. In the passage, “His birth is due to the first consciousness arisen, the first cognition manifested, in the mother’s womb” (Vin I 93) it is rebirth-linking. [499] In the passage “As soon as he was born (sampatijáta), Ánanda, the Bodhisatta …” (M III 123) it is parturition. In the passage “One who is not rejected and despised on account of birth” (A III 152) it is clan. In the passage “Sister, since I was born with the noble birth” (M II 103) it is the Noble One’s virtue
Buddhaghosa explains how Paticcasamupada applies to lifetimes, to successive moments and even to one moment.DooDoot wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:02 am I think it is probably useful to try to figure out what Buddhaghosa was attempting to say.
5 questions:
1. If Buddhaghosa defined 'paticca-sam-uppada' as 'dependent-co-arising', how can there be three lifetimes when it seems 'co-arising' means all twelve nidana must arise together?Buddhaghosa wrote: Again: it arises as a togetherness (saha), thus it is a coarising (samuppáda); but it does so having depended (paþicca—ger.) in combination with conditions, not regardless of them. Consequently: it, having depended (paticca), is a co-arising (samuppáda), thus in this way also it is dependent origination (paticca-samuppáda).
."the whole system of analysis with its very specific definitions is designed to show that in the same way as the general cyclic continuity of process, stated in the suttanta analysis, applies to existence as a whole, so also the arising of one state of consciousness as being dependent for its becoming to be on the resultant of a preceeding state, and that the resultant of that present state is to be the root cause of a future conscious state, demonstrates the action of that same law. Paticcasammuppada exemplifies most clearly the self-containedness of the Buddha's teaching. External agency does not come into the question of existence, either in its broadest or in its most detailed aspects. All is the working of Causal relationship, automatic, capable of infinite variety and of incomparable continuity. Only the Buddha's have shown how this continuity is to be broken
"nd now, because this structure of conditions exists not only in a plurality of consciousnesses but also in a
single consciousness, he said avijjapaccaya sankharo (with ignorance as condition, a formation arises) and so on thus setting forth the schedule in order to teach, as to its various aspects, the structure of conditions of a single conscious moment
------:p245 "Twelve membered section with two members incomplete" because it is stated with mentality in the place of mentailty-materialty (nama-rupa) and sixth base in place of the six-fold base." This is because in one moment we can't have all 6 sense bases working simultaneously. p246 "and because only a single kind of contact is composed within a single conscious moment here, therefore taking the appropriate sense base as its condition, it is said "with mentality as condition the sense base' giving the mind base alone in the place of the 6fold base. p246 "instead of saying 'formations'[in the plural] as in the Suttanta division, sankharo [a formation] is said in the singular. Why is that? Because it refers to single conscious moments. For there [in the Suttanta division] the structure of conditions of a number of conscious moments is explained. here that of a single conscious moment is undertaken. And since there is not a plurality of volitions in a single conscious moment, 'formation' is said instead of saying formations" p246 "And admittedly the clause 'with a formation as condition, consciousness' is also stated here; but for the purpose of showing the distinction between cause and fruit and for the purpose of completing the factors it is taken again here. For there a formation(sankharo) in particular is the cause of that, and mentality in general is the fruit. But here mentality in general is its cause and contact in particular is the fruit. But because sorrow lamentation etc are not all produced in a single conscious moment , and do not occur in every instance where consciousness occurs or in every consciousness, there fore they are not included. But birth, ageing and death , although not measurable by conscious moments,a re nevertheless included because they exist within the conscious moment, and also for the purpose of completing the factors."
Thank you Robert for sharing your knowledge of non-sutta teachings. Similar to these commentaries, my impression from browsing the Vsm is Buddhaghosa was covering many bases or interpretations; like presenting an 'Encyclopedia of Buddhism'.
