Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

On 'Present Moment Paticca Samuppada' explained by several teachers:

1. Some say this interpretation is the correct one and the traditional one is false.
2. Some say the traditional one is correct and this one is false.
3. Some say both can be considered as correct and both are needed.
4. Some say no matter whatever it is.

Then on Meditation:

1. Some say whatever the interpretation, we just have to eradicate 'Avijja' or 'Tanha' or 'Sankhara' ..etc by 'Samatha' and 'Vipassana' meditation.
5. Some say without eradicating 'Avijja' by knowing everything about 'Paticca Samuppada', one cannot eradicate Sankhara or Tanha or ..etc because they are the results of 'Avijja'.
6. Some say eradicating 'Tanha' by 'sila-samadhi-panna' is enough (this Vijja is enough) because 'Tanha' is the cause of Dukkha.

What do you think?

thang wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:39 am On 'Present Moment Paticca Samuppada' explained by several teachers:

1. Some say this interpretation is the correct one and the traditional one is false.
2. Some say the traditional one is correct and this one is false.
3. Some say both can be considered as correct and both are needed.
4. Some say no matter whatever it is.

Then on Meditation:

1. Some say whatever the interpretation, we just have to eradicate 'Avijja' or 'Tanha' or 'Sankhara' ..etc by 'Samatha' and 'Vipassana' meditation.
5. Some say without eradicating 'Avijja' by knowing everything about 'Paticca Samuppada', one cannot eradicate Sankhara or Tanha or ..etc because they are the results of 'Avijja'.
6. Some say eradicating 'Tanha' by 'sila-samadhi-panna' is enough (this Vijja is enough) because 'Tanha' is the cause of Dukkha.

What do you think?

I think there are three interpretations.
-One moment model
- Many life model

I think we need the many life model to understand Kamma and rebirth.
In my opinion one moment model is the one you need to realise Nibbana.

What do you think?

It's more a matter of seeing than thinking.

"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

"The intellect is aflame. Ideas are aflame. Consciousness at the intellect is aflame. Contact at the intellect is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I say, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.

"Seeing thus...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

In his theory about present moment paticcasamuppada, Ven, Nanaviro said about 'birth' & 'death':

The puthujjana knows that people are born and die; and since he thinks 'my self exists' so he also thinks 'my self was born' and 'my self will die'.

Therefore, it seems the present moment paticcasamuppada will affect the path by including in the path the abandoning of the thoughts: 'my self exists'; 'my self was born' and 'my self will die'.

Where as the traditional Visuddhimagga interpretation appears it might generate the thoughts: "I will be born again, after I die; I will die again, after i am born again".

pegembara wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:29 am It's more a matter of seeing than thinking.

Thank you!

There is a reason sakkāya-ditthi is listed as the first samyojana. When shakled by sakkāya-ditthi one is unable traverse the full breadth of the dhamma. As the following sutta attests sakkāya-ditthi is the origin of all erroneous views. When sakkāya-ditthi is eradicated all doubts about the dhamma will vanish. Paticca-samuppada will be clearly seen.

These views come to be when identity view exists. When identity view does not exist they do not come to be.”
imā kho, gahapati, diṭṭhiyo sakkāyadiṭṭhiyā sati honti, sakkāyadiṭṭhiyā asati na hontī’”ti.

“But sir, how does identity view come about?”

“It’s when an uneducated ordinary person has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons.

They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.
rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ;

They don’t regard feeling …
na vedanaṃ …

perception …
na saññaṃ …

choices …
na saṅkhāre …


consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness.
viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati, viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā viññāṇaṃ, viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ.

That’s how identity view comes about.”
Evaṃ kho, gahapati, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti.

https://suttacentral.net/sn41.3/en/sujato

“What is the cause, Master Gotama, what is the reason why these various misconceptions arise in the world? …”
“ko nu kho, bho gotama, hetu, ko paccayo, yānimāni anekavihitāni diṭṭhigatāni loke uppajjanti—

“Vaccha, it is because of not seeing form …

feeling …

perception …

choices …

consciousness, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation …”


https://suttacentral.net/sn33.6-10/en/sujato

DooDoot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:53 am Where as the traditional Visuddhimagga interpretation appears it might generate the thoughts: "I will be born again, after I die; I will die again, after i am born again".

Agreed. I think it is very important to be practical when dealing with something that has been subject to multiple interpretations.

Just taking saṅkhāra for instance - the structural interpretation defines it as 'determinations'. Ven. Nanavira describe it quite simply as "a thing upon which another thing depends" or in others words "a thing that determines another". What is critically important here is that it is understood that determinations do not appear directly, only the thing does. Imagine someone is standing behind you and they are going to throw several balls over your head that will land in front of you. Based upon the trajectory of the ball as it comes into your field of view – a trajectory that becomes clearer through the practice of mindfulness - will allow you to know which direction the ball came from. The position of the person behind you is the determination, where the ball lands is the determined thing, i.e. you can know the position without having to look. And you can’t look. If you turn around, the person, just like determinations, will always remain behind you no matter which way you turn to look at it. The point is that the more you observe the nature of that which has arisen, the more clearly you know, not see, but know what determined it as it is.

There is nothing wrong with seeing your present life and inferring that it is based on a past life and same for a future life based on the present life. That is all well and good, but that does nothing to free you from suffering. DO is supposed to be a deep and profound description of “this mass of suffering”, yet with the 3-lives model, the practitioner is limited to taking it as just a mere description of three lives with no revelation about how suffering arises. I just don’t buy it.

Not only do we find ‘determinations’ when saṅkhāra is discussed, but we also find 'volition' and ‘intention’. Intention is another thing that does not appear directly. It is that which directs action. It is on the level of thought, but it is so potent and significant that the Buddha went as far as to say “action is intention”. If one takes the time to incline the mind in the direction of something, that repeated inclining is a mental act that will more and more determine how one will take verbal or physical action.

The point is that if learn to look at you experience in this way, things will appear with a significance that will allow you to know it differently than if you just took it at face value. You want to know why you believe certain things and not others, i.e. what is this understanding based upon. Why do I see a self? That is literally the entire point of the path. Holding to a 3 lives model does not rob you of this opportunity, but it does inhibit using the arrangement described in DO to your advantage. I mean, I only described one aspect, and there are twelve others.

One last thing: this isn't present moment DO. This is about a foundation that precedes temporal significance. Not saying it is the foundation of time, but DO is about suffering, a suffering that is rooted in something that is there regardless of time - whether it be one of the billions that commentaries say are passing or if it is 3-lives or 3000. It is the structure of suffering dependent upon avijjā (ignorance). Ignorance is not at the start of each moment or life, it is there no matter what.