Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

[sentinel]

The biological/physical descriptions of birth, aging and death in DO do suggest a biological/physical dimension to the process.

We have probably discussed this before. I personally have fully considered your personal viewpoint but it seems obvious you did not consider my viewpoint or, more importantly, refute what I posted from the suttas. The actual evidence from the suttas does not appear to support a biological/physical descriptions of birth, aging and death in DO however it is pointless posting those suttas again because they will not be acknowledged. As is taught in MN 8, others will misapprehend according to their individual views, hold on to them tenaciously and not easily discard them. My personal objective analysis of the suttas finds they do not support biological/physical descriptions of birth, aging and death in DO.

Does AGING ever used in the sense of Psychological aspect ? As one can see Death for human being is always on the Physical sense . Because ordinary people always grief over the Separation resulted from death .

[DooDoot]

As one can see Death for human being is always on the Physical sense . Because ordinary people always grief over the Separation resulted from death .

For me, death is psychological, that is, grieving over a "person" or "being" ("satta") the mind is attached to, as described below. For example, you do not grieve when you see a dead body of a stranger or the dead body of an animal, fish or insect. You grieve over people you love. If you have a pet dog, cat or fish you love, you may grieve more about your dead dog or cat or fish than when you see 1000 dead human bodies on TV die in an earthquake. In SN 12.2, the description of aging & death is the aging & death of "beings" ("satta"). You look in the mirror and you grieve when you think: "My hair is getting grey, my teeth are rotting, my skin is wrinkling". The grieving is not about the physical body but grieving over the "self" that identifies with the physical body. When your loved one dies, you grieve. When the loved one of another person dies, you do not grieve, because you do not identify with the aggregates of strangers.

That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear."

MN 87

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

SN 15.3

[sentinel]

As one can see Death for human being is always on the Physical sense . Because ordinary people always grief over the Separation resulted from death .

For me, death is psychological, that is, grieving over a "person" or "being" ("satta") the mind is attached to, as described below. For example, you do not grieve when you see a dead body of a stranger or the dead body of an animal, fish or insect. You grieve over people you love. If you have a pet dog, cat or fish you love, you may grieve more about your dead dog or cat or fish than when you see 1000 dead human bodies on TV die in an earthquake. In SN 12.2, the description of aging & death is the aging & death of "beings" ("satta").

That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear."

MN 87

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

SN 15.3

Grieving is psychological but Death is surely Physical . Sometimes I felt a sense of sadness over corpse of people I don't know or animal dies on the road . And I feel happy when I buried them.
Once a while I buy fishes going to be slaughtered (every day whether got people buy or not) in the market and release them into the river and I felt quite happy after that to be able to prevent their physical death .

[DooDoot]

Grieving is psychological but Death is surely Physical .

The suttas do not use the word "death" ("marana") to describe the termination of life of an arahant & also often Noble Ones. Regardless, D.O. says how death is the preceding condition for grieving. Therefore, the "death" in D.O. must cause grieving, at least according to what is written in the suttas. The termination of life without grieving is not D.O.

[sentinel]

Grieving is psychological but Death is surely Physical .

The suttas do not use the word "death" ("marana") to describe the termination of life of an arahant & also often Noble Ones. Regardless, D.O. says how death is the preceding condition for grieving. Therefore, the "death" in D.O. must cause grieving, at least according to what is written in the suttas. The termination of life without grieving is not D.O.

The cessation order of the dependent origination is for the practitioner whereas the arisen of the dependent origination is for those ordinary people whom have suffering and for them Death or Termination of Physical life is the main problem . Physicality separation mean suffering .

[Circle5]

@DootDot: Sorry but I can not lose my time discussing ideas like "Buddha never taught rebirth" because of the same reason I can not discuss ideas like "Buddha predicted the coming of Jesus and was actually a christian".

This is why I keep telling people to actually read the nikayas. Imagine a person who has read the biology book. Another person comes to him and tell him that they actually teach creationism in biology books. The only thing you can do is to tell the person to go read the biology book himself before having an opinion. There is no point discussing with him in a serious manner because he has not even bothered to read the biology book and is therefore not respecting you and other people that have actually read the biology book. When one hasn't read a book, he should be more respectful towards those that did read it and have at least a modicum of restraint when it comes to formulating strong opinions about that book, since he has not bothered to read it.

‘’And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."

S.N. 44.9

[boundless]

Hence, I wonder if "the cessation of the links" is best seen as structural while the "arising of the links" is best seen as sequential...

Thinking of how birth, aging and death are described, it might be the other way way round, like a "winding down" of successive nidanas.

Hello Dinsdale,

what I meant in that post is that the Arahant does not "see",for example, "death" as a "death of a being". So, in this sense "death" ceases (i.e. there is a change in how "death" is seen). In my understanding, for proponents of the "structural model" this "change in understanding" means "cessation of death".

However, like you, I am not convinced by this explanation. In fact, I still think that SN 12.2 (and others) implies that the event "physical death" is conditioned by the event "physical birth". So (at least for now) I respectfully disagree with the "timeless" model. As I said in other posts, I think that (maybe) it is right in some cases.

[Circle5]

Hello Dinsdale,

what I meant in that post is that the Arahant does not "see",for example, "death" as a "death of a being". So, in this sense "death" ceases (i.e. there is a change in how "death" is seen). In my understanding, for proponents of the "structural model" this "change in understanding" means "cessation of death".

Neither does a stream enterer understand death as "death of a self", another point that is totally refuting Nanavira ideas about the problem. Neither is the sutta description of "aging and death" describing such things or hinting it any way that it is reffering to such ideas.

According to Nanavira view, aging and death has ceased for a stream enterer, not for the arahant. Plus the problem of "aging and death" meaning "the idea that a self dies" (and this idea being removed) instead of physical death as the sutta defines the term.

However, like you, I am not convinced by this explanation. In fact, I still think that SN 12.2 (and others) implies that the event "physical death" is conditioned by the event "physical birth". So (at least for now) I respectfully disagree with the "timeless" model. As I said in other posts, I think that (maybe) it is right in some cases.

[SDC]

....
Explain it to me like you would explain it to a bronze age indian peasant.

A page or two ago I showed you a few examples of how you clearly are not reading what I write in response to your questions. This has been going on for about a year despite your claims that I refuse to answer your questions. And just like you said to Doodoot above, I too do not have all the time in the world to spend on the forum.

So what you are going to do to restore faith is respond to what wrote to you a year ago in reference to your question about aggregates:

In terms of significance: the nature of manifestation is the very same for arahat as it is for puthujjana. That is why you have the arahat described as the five aggregates and the puthujjana as the five holding aggregates (see SN 22.48). Holding is in regards to the five aggregates, i.e. those aggregates are held/clung to as mine. With removal of the holding you have the ceasing of that holding, not of the aggregates. The aggregates continue to do what they have always done: arise, cease and change while standing.

The answer is right there. If you want I can post the five or so threads where I answered most of the questions that you continue to repeat.

Neither does a stream enterer understand death as "death of a self", another point that is totally refuting Nanavira ideas about the problem. Neither is the sutta description of "aging and death" describing such things or hinting it any way that it is reffering to such ideas.

According to Nanavira view, aging and death has ceased for a stream enterer, not for the arahant. Plus the problem of "aging and death" meaning "the idea that a self dies" (and this idea being removed) instead of physical death as the sutta defines the term.

Again, you are off the mark with your understanding of Ven. Nanavira. Maybe you should read his book again.

[Circle5]

A page or two ago I showed you a few examples of how you clearly are not reading what I write in response to your questions. This has been going on for about a year despite your claims that I refuse to answer your questions. And just like you said to Doodoot above, I too do not have all the time in the world to spend on the forum.

So what you are going to do to restore faith is respond to what wrote to you a year ago in reference to your question about aggregates:

In terms of significance: the nature of manifestation is the very same for arahat as it is for puthujjana. That is why you have the arahat described as the five aggregates and the puthujjana as the five holding aggregates (see SN 22.48). Holding is in regards to the five aggregates, i.e. those aggregates are held/clung to as mine. With removal of the holding you have the ceasing of that holding, not of the aggregates. The aggregates continue to do what they have always done: arise, cease and change while standing.

I don't want to sound like a guy who has read a book speaking with a guy who has not read the book. I just hate it to sound like that. But really how can one claim that there are 2 sets of aggregates, different from each other, one being the "5 clinging aggregates" and reffering to the non-arahant, and another the "clinging aggregates" reffering to the arahant ? I mean I suppose you've at least browsed the "Book of aggregates" from which that quote was taken from.

There are countless suttas and simply the whole book using agreegates or clinging aggregates to reffer to both arahant and non-arahant. There is no mention anywhere about a distinction between the aggregates of arahant and non-arahant or ideas like DO only applying to aggregates of one type.

You even have a sutta where the Buddha is asked something that answers your idea:

“Well then, bhikkhu, sit down in your own seat and ask whatever
you wish.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” that bhikkhu replied. Then he sat down in
his own seat and said to the Blessed One:
“Aren’t these the five aggregates subject to clinging, venerable
sir: that is, the form aggregate subject to clinging, the feeling
aggregate subject to clinging, the perception aggregate subject to
clinging, the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging,
the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging?”
“Those are the five aggregates subject to clinging, bhikkhu:
that is, the form aggregate subject to clinging, the feeling aggregate
subject to clinging, the perception aggregate subject to clinging,
the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging, the
consciousness aggregate subject to clinging.”
Saying, “Good, venerable sir,” that bhikkhu delighted and
rejoiced in the Blessed One’s statement. Then he asked the
Blessed One a further question:
“But, venerable sir, in what are these five aggregates subject to
clinging rooted?”
“These five aggregates subject to clinging, bhikkhu, are rooted
in desire.”139
“Venerable sir, is that clinging the same as these five aggregates
subject to clinging, or is the clinging something apart from
the five aggregates subject to clinging?”
“Bhikkhus, that clinging is neither the same as these five aggregates
subject to clinging, [101] nor is the clinging something apart
from the five aggregates subject to clinging. But rather, the desire
and lust for them, that is the clinging there.”

In the very sutta you then have the same bhikkhu asking:

“In what way, venerable sir, does the designation ‘aggregates’
apply to the aggregates?”
“Whatever kind of form there is, bhikkhu, whether past,
future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or
superior, far or near: this is called the form aggregate. Whatever
kind of feeling there is, whether past, future, or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this
is called the feeling aggregate. Whatever kind of perception there
is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or
subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the perception
aggregate. Whatever kind of volitional formations there are,
whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or
subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the volitional
formations aggregate. Whatever kind of consciousness there is,
whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or
subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the consciousness
aggregate. It is in this way, bhikkhu, that the designation
‘aggregates’ applies to the aggregates.”

Nobody who has actually read the book could ever even phantom the idea of agrregates and clinging aggregates being different things and DO applying to one of these different 2 sets.

There are simply the 5 aggregates. If there is clinging existing, there will be future rebirth. If clinging has been "cut off at the root", as in the case of an arahant, you simply reffer to them as aggregates without the use of "clinging aggregates" because there is no possibility for clinging to arise in regards to those aggregates that continue to exist. They are reffered as aggregates when speaking about non-arahants basically 95% of the time to begin with. There are some suttas that call them "clinging aggregates" because "whatever one can cling to, he can only cling to the 5 aggregates or a particular one of them." So of course you can call them clinging aggregates too if you want to emphasise a specific aspect of them, which is the whole point of calling them "clinging aggregates" in some suttas.

How do you make a jump from this to the ideas of 2 sets of different aggregates, DO working only for one of them? How far can one go with twisting one sutta and building such outlandish ideas, while totally ignoring basically the whole book having a totally diferent vision on the 5 aggregates ?

[DooDoot]

[Circle5]

To make the situation even more embarrasing....

120 (8) Things That Fetter
At S›vatthı. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the things that fetter and
the fetter. Listen to that….
“And what, bhikkhus, are the things that fetter, and what is the
fetter? Form, bhikkhus, is a thing that fetters; the desire and lust
for it is the fetter there. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations
… [167] Consciousness is a thing that fetters; the desire
and lust for it is the fetter there. These are called the things that
fetter, and this the fetter.”

121 (9) Things That Can Be Clung To
“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the things that can be clung to and
the clinging. Listen to that….
“And what, bhikkhus, are the things that can be clung to, and
what is the clinging? Form, bhikkhus, is a thing that can be clung
to; the desire and lust for it is the clinging there. Feeling …
Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness is a thing
that can be clung to; the desire and lust for it is the clinging there.
These are called the things that can be clung to, and this the
clinging.”

And to put the nail in the coffin:

is a once-returner should carefully attend to?”
“Friend Ko˛˛hita, a bhikkhu who is a once-returner should
carefully attend to these five aggregates subject to clinging as
impermanent … as nonself. When, friend, a bhikkhu who is a
once-returner carefully attends thus to these five aggregates subject
to clinging, it is possible that he may realize the fruit of nonreturning.”
“But, friend S›riputta, what are the things that a bhikkhu who
is a nonreturner should carefully attend to?”
“Friend Ko˛˛hita, a bhikkhu who is a nonreturner should carefully
attend to these five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent
… as nonself. When, friend, a bhikkhu who is a nonreturner
carefully attends thus to these five aggregates subject to
clinging, it is possible that hemay realize the fruit of arahantship.”
“But, friend S›riputta, what are the things that a bhikkhu who
is an arahant should carefully attend to?”
“Friend Ko˛˛hita, a bhikkhu who is an arahant should carefully
attend to these five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent,
as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery,
as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself.
For the arahant, friend, there is nothing further that has to be
done and no repetition of what he has already done.226 [169]
However, when these things are developed and cultivated, they
lead to a pleasant dwelling in this very life and to mindfulness
and clear comprehension.”

[DooDoot]

Death or Termination of Physical life is the main problem . Physicality separation mean suffering .

No. The problem is separation from the loved. When the termination of life occurs to what you love, this is Death and this is suffering. The termination of life is not "Death", as explained in SN 22.85 and many suttas. Arahants do not die.

When one hasn't read a book, he should be more respectful towards those that did read it and have at least a modicum of restraint when it comes to formulating strong opinions about that book, since he has not bothered to read it.

‘’And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."

S.N. 44.9

Circle5. The above is just a translation, which your mind is interpretation personally. It is you that is not respecting the text because you are not literate in Pali. Please post the Pali and we can discuss it.

Neither does a stream enterer

Circle5. Stream-entry is not attained by believing you personally have an intellectual understanding of the teachings.

"the idea that a self dies" (and this idea being removed) instead of physical death as the sutta defines the term. I still think that SN 12.2 (and others) implies that the event "physical death" is conditioned by the event "physical birth". So (at least for now)

SN 12.2 appears to refer to mental death, as Nanavira suggested. At least for me, it is impossible to refute when examining the Pali (although Nanavira did not know enough Pali to make an irrefutable argument). The Pali is:

Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhā tamhā sattanikāyā cuti cavanatā bhedo antaradhānaṃ maccu maraṇaṃ kālakiriyā khandhānaṃ bhedo kaḷevarassa nikkhepo

SN 23.2, SN 5.10 and MN 98 say that "a being" ("satta") is merely a "view" or "convention". Therefore, it appears Nanavira may have been correct.

“Friend Ko˛˛hita, a bhikkhu who is an arahant should carefully
attend to these five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent,
as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery,
as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself.
For the arahant, friend, there is nothing further that has to be
done and no repetition of what he has already done.226 [169]
However, when these things are developed and cultivated, they
lead to a pleasant dwelling in this very life and to mindfulness
and clear comprehension.”

Circle5 appears to be inferring an Arahant has clinging.

[SDC]

How do you make a jump from this to the ideas of 2 sets of different aggregates, DO working only for one of them? How far can one go with twisting one sutta and building such outlandish ideas, while totally ignoring basically the whole book having a totally diferent vision on the 5 aggregates ?

You aren't understanding what I am saying. At all. There aren't two sets. I never said that. You aren't reading carefully enough. Do you know what the first noble truth is? "In short the five aggregates subject to cling are suffering". The origin of this mass of suffering is DO. And it was you who pointed this out in your lounge thread last year. Go drag it up and you will find that you were insistent that DO and the aggregates were related:

Wait just a minute sir. The DO is not explaining only how suffering arises. It also explains how the 5 aggregates arise or cease.

So there you go. Even though you aren't precisely correct, you are aware of the connection. When there is suffering (DO/PS is the origin of this mass of suffering), the aggregates are subject to clinging, when suffering is gone, the aggregates are no longer subject to clinging (it is upadana nirodha). If you would deny that "the five aggregates" is in reference to the arahat you are admitting a major misunderstanding. There is no reference to the putthujana that says "the five aggregates". I would love to see it.

[SDC]

And to put the nail in the coffin:

is a once-returner should carefully attend to?”
“Friend Ko˛˛hita, a bhikkhu who is a once-returner should
carefully attend to these five aggregates subject to clinging as
impermanent … as nonself. When, friend, a bhikkhu who is a
once-returner carefully attends thus to these five aggregates subject
to clinging, it is possible that he may realize the fruit of nonreturning.”
“But, friend S›riputta, what are the things that a bhikkhu who
is a nonreturner should carefully attend to?”
“Friend Ko˛˛hita, a bhikkhu who is a nonreturner should carefully
attend to these five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent
… as nonself. When, friend, a bhikkhu who is a nonreturner
carefully attends thus to these five aggregates subject to
clinging, it is possible that hemay realize the fruit of arahantship.”
“But, friend S›riputta, what are the things that a bhikkhu who
is an arahant should carefully attend to?”
“Friend Ko˛˛hita, a bhikkhu who is an arahant should carefully
attend to these five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent,
as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery,
as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself.
For the arahant, friend, there is nothing further that has to be
done and no repetition of what he has already done.226 [169]
However, when these things are developed and cultivated, they
lead to a pleasant dwelling in this very life and to mindfulness
and clear comprehension.”[/b]

It isn't the nail in the coffin. If suffering is gone then the factors of PS are all nirodha. They have ceased to be this mass of suffering. Upadana (clinging) is no more for the arahat. He knows already that they are "suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself. For the arahant, friend, there is nothing further that has to be done and no repetition of what he has already done." Sariputta is clearly talking to a non-arahat about an arahat so he is sure to keep the phrasing on those terms. You can't see that?