On a similar subject, I'd just like to share the perspective that paticcasamuppada need not necessarily be a case of exclusivity of one or the other, in regard to one life model vs. three life model. I think it was either Ven. Bodhi or Ven. Thanissaro who wrote a good essay that it can be both (sometimes) meant as one-life model and (sometimes) meant as three-life model. I agree with that perspective.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:18 am Greetings,
I'd just like to share the perspective that it's not necessarily a case of exclusively one or the other.
To propose that paticcasamuppada isn't about rebirth, is not to deny rebirth.
After all, if I say that paticcasamuppada isn't about tacos, I'm not denying tacos.
Mmm... tacos.
Metta,
Paul.
Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17191
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17191
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries
That sounds pretty conclusive to me. Is there even one other prominent bhikkhu in ancient or modern times who downplayed or denied rebirth, besides Buddhadasa?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:11 pm The one thing which confuses me is the silence on rebirth if it was a later doctrine of questionable validity. We know there were Buddhists back then who took on the idea of a “person” which caused much controversy, yet there is not one record of an ancient early school taking the position of no-rebirth, as in the Buddha never taught it. If it were the case that rebirth is a latter addition I would expect at least 1 early tradition to have picked up in this and argued against it. Instead we have silence and uniformity in terms of accepting that the Buddha did in fact teach it. This isn’t conclusive evidence of course, but at least a pause for thought.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries
Greetings David,
1. In a doctrinal/teaching sense, whereby sometimes the Buddha taught one and sometimes Buddha taught the other (or alternatively, that when he taught, he himself simultaneously meant both)?
Or...
2. In a pragmatic/practice sense that regardless of how it was taught and intended, there's a certain benefit in seeing and understanding in both ways?
Regardless of which it is, the main problem I have with such an approach is that the definition and meaning of key terms varies so much under each model - most notably bhava, jati, nama-rupa, vinnana and sankhara, but also some of the others (particularly between nama-rupa and bhava) would vary too, albeit to a lesser degree. I find it difficult to accept that these terms could concurrently and intentionally mean radically different things in the same taught sequence, in order to create and support two parallel models, when the Buddha gave no indication whatsoever that this is what he was doing when he taught them. To wit, I can appreciate that someone might find some pragmatic benefit in it (#2) as a mode of contemplation, but I struggle to see how a cohesive doctrinal case could be made for it (#1) based upon the Suttas alone. I have certainly never seen one. If anyone does have a Sutta-based rationale for 1 or 2, I'd like to see it.
Perhaps the solution is as I prefaced this response - namely, to see the relationships as structural rather than temporal? Idappaccayatā is, so why not paticcasamuppada? Even then, one would probably have to commit to certain definitions...
Metta,
Paul.
(Setting aside that I prefer to see them as structural vs temporal, rather than one-life vs three life) Do you mean the above:DNS wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:19 pm On a similar subject, I'd just like to share the perspective that paticcasamuppada need not necessarily be a case of exclusivity of one or the other, in regard to one life model vs. three life model. I think it was either Ven. Bodhi or Ven. Thanissaro who wrote a good essay that it can be both (sometimes) meant as one-life model and (sometimes) meant as three-life model. I agree with that perspective.
1. In a doctrinal/teaching sense, whereby sometimes the Buddha taught one and sometimes Buddha taught the other (or alternatively, that when he taught, he himself simultaneously meant both)?
Or...
2. In a pragmatic/practice sense that regardless of how it was taught and intended, there's a certain benefit in seeing and understanding in both ways?
Regardless of which it is, the main problem I have with such an approach is that the definition and meaning of key terms varies so much under each model - most notably bhava, jati, nama-rupa, vinnana and sankhara, but also some of the others (particularly between nama-rupa and bhava) would vary too, albeit to a lesser degree. I find it difficult to accept that these terms could concurrently and intentionally mean radically different things in the same taught sequence, in order to create and support two parallel models, when the Buddha gave no indication whatsoever that this is what he was doing when he taught them. To wit, I can appreciate that someone might find some pragmatic benefit in it (#2) as a mode of contemplation, but I struggle to see how a cohesive doctrinal case could be made for it (#1) based upon the Suttas alone. I have certainly never seen one. If anyone does have a Sutta-based rationale for 1 or 2, I'd like to see it.
Perhaps the solution is as I prefaced this response - namely, to see the relationships as structural rather than temporal? Idappaccayatā is, so why not paticcasamuppada? Even then, one would probably have to commit to certain definitions...
Metta,
Paul.
"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."
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries
My observation is that Nananda speaks a lot about how to end rebirth, and how understanding DO does that. And I don't see his interpretation as particularly "structural". It's very different from Nanavira. I also note that he is quite classical in many ways. He makes use of concepts such as progress of insight, and describes stream entry as a cessation experience. His main point of difference is in the interpretation of the "initial" DO links.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:07 am Greetings Mike,
Agreed. He has spoken at length about paticcasamuppada in both The Nibbana Sermons (aka The Mind Stilled) and The Law Of Dependent Arising. These are available to download for free from https://seeingthroughthenet.net/
And as for Nanavira Thera, yes, anyone familiar with the "logic" behind his suicide will also know that he was not opposed to the Buddha's teaching on rebirth either.
By claiming that paticcasamuppada is structural, rather than (multi-lifetime) temporal, neither bhikkhu was denying rebirth... simply being clear that paticcasamuppada is not about rebirth.
Metta,
Paul.
Mike
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries
Greetings Mike,
As such, I see both Nanananda and Nanavira's approach as structural... and frankly, I don't think the three lifetime model does a good job at all of embodying the above idappaccayatā principle. This is especially so of any heavily commentarial version that starts unnecessarily introducing novel notions of past/present/future and kamma/vipaka into it, per circular diagrams I'm sure you've seen along the way.
Metta,
Paul.
By structural, I mean in the same sense that idappaccayatā is structural.
Nothing in the above definitions makes reference to timeframes, and that's true regardless of what one thinks about the relevance of akāliko to this discussion.When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
As such, I see both Nanananda and Nanavira's approach as structural... and frankly, I don't think the three lifetime model does a good job at all of embodying the above idappaccayatā principle. This is especially so of any heavily commentarial version that starts unnecessarily introducing novel notions of past/present/future and kamma/vipaka into it, per circular diagrams I'm sure you've seen along the way.
Metta,
Paul.
"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."
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries
Why do you think the 3 lives interpretation goes against the analytical knowledge of dependent origination?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:46 pm As such, I see both Nanananda and Nanavira's approach as structural... and frankly, I don't think the three lifetime model does a good job at all of embodying the above idappaccayatā principle. This is especially so of any heavily commentarial version that starts unnecessarily introducing notions of past/present and kamma/vipaka into it, per circular diagrams I'm sure you've seen along the way.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries
Perhaps the solution is that understanding comes from knowledge from experience, not from committing to definitions. Those definitions are obviously helpful in walking the path, but they are clearly not the goal. When something seems inconsistent with current understanding there are a number of approaches, including rejecting that which seems inconsistent, working harder on resolving the apparent inconsistency, or putting the inconsistency aside for a time. Which approach is appropriate in particular cases will vary, of course.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:15 pm Perhaps the solution is as I prefaced this response - namely, to see the relationships as structural rather than temporal? Idappaccayatā is, so why not paticcasamuppada? Even then, one would probably have to commit to certain definitions...
Mike
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries
I'd say Nananda's interpretation is a mixture. Very different from Nanavira.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:46 pm As such, I see both Nanananda and Nanavira's approach as structural...
Mike
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries
I'm sorry, I'm going to speak frankly. I disagree. Furthermore, your incessant second-guessing of how well others understand the Dhamma is rather tiresome.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:55 pm Moreover, if one does not know what a word means and how it's being used, and instead applies some sort of amorphous and ambiguous approach to the definition of that word, one can remain muddle-headed and plaster over the inconsistencies and grey spots in their understanding. As above, I don't believe approach #1 (above) can be justified by recourse to the suttas - though I welcome anyone to try.
Now, can be go back to a robust discussion about our views, without the innuendo?
Mike
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries
Greetings Mike,
There's no innuendo there Mike, and you fabricated offense at what you claim to want.
Given you falsely and disruptively read innuendo into it where there was none, it's hard to work out even what you're disagreeing with.
Feel free to try again - or not, your call.
Metta,
Paul.
mikenz66 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:19 pmI'm sorry, I'm going to speak frankly. I disagree. Furthermore, your incessant second-guessing of how well others understand the Dhamma is rather tiresome.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:55 pm Moreover, if one does not know what a word means and how it's being used, and instead applies some sort of amorphous and ambiguous approach to the definition of that word, one can remain muddle-headed and plaster over the inconsistencies and grey spots in their understanding. As above, I don't believe approach #1 (above) can be justified by recourse to the suttas - though I welcome anyone to try.
Now, can be go back to a robust discussion about our views, without the innuendo?
Mike
There's no innuendo there Mike, and you fabricated offense at what you claim to want.
Given you falsely and disruptively read innuendo into it where there was none, it's hard to work out even what you're disagreeing with.
Feel free to try again - or not, your call.
Metta,
Paul.
"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."
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries
Discussion about Paticcasamuppada and rebirth unrelated to Buddhadasa moved to here:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=39927
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=39927
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries
So you agree that my approach is not muddle headed, and I am not plastering over inconsistencies?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:28 pm Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:19 pmI'm sorry, I'm going to speak frankly. I disagree. Furthermore, your incessant second-guessing of how well others understand the Dhamma is rather tiresome.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:55 pm Moreover, if one does not know what a word means and how it's being used, and instead applies some sort of amorphous and ambiguous approach to the definition of that word, one can remain muddle-headed and plaster over the inconsistencies and grey spots in their understanding. As above, I don't believe approach #1 (above) can be justified by recourse to the suttas - though I welcome anyone to try.
Now, can be go back to a robust discussion about our views, without the innuendo?
Mike
There's no innuendo there Mike, and you fabricated offense at what you claim to want.
Given you falsely and disruptively read innuendo into it where there was none, it's hard to work out even what you're disagreeing with.
Feel free to try again - or not, your call.
Metta,
Paul.
That's great to know. Thanks.
Mike
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries
Greetings,
Metta,
Paul.
Who knows, I wasn't even thinking about you.
Metta,
Paul.
"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."
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries
In Ven Ajahn Sumedho's book "Direct Realisation" there are five chapters about Dependent Origination. In "Dependent Origination 2: Momentary Arising", he says:
In Ajahn Buddhadāsa’s book on dependent origination, he emphasizes that his approach has been on paṭiccasamuppāda as working in the moment, rather than in terms of past, present and future lives. When you contemplate, when you practise, you realize that that is the only way it could ever be. This is because we are working with the mind itself. Even when we are considering the birth of a human body, we are not commenting on the birth of our own bodies, but recognizing mentally that these bodies were born. Then we note in reflection that mental consciousness arises and ceases. So that whole sequence of Dependent Origination arises and ceases in a moment. The arising and the cessation from avijjā are momentary, it is not a kind of permanent avijjā. It would be a mistaken view to assume that everything began with avijjā and will all cease some time in the future.
In this sense avijjā means not understanding the Four Noble Truths. When there is understanding of suffering, origin, cessation and path, things are no longer affected by avijjā. We see the perceptions with vijjā perceptions are conventional reality, no longer ‘me’ and ‘mine’. For example, when there is vijjā I can say ‘I am Ajahn Sumedho’ – that is a conventional reality, still a perception but it is no longer viewed from avijjā, it’s merely a convention we use. There’s nothing more to it than that. It is as it is.
https://cdn.amaravati.org/wp-content/up ... zation.pdf
Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries
Hi C. I doubt anyone is denying the Buddha taught something commonly translated as "rebirth". The above comment appears non-sequitur. All that is disputed is what "rebirth" actually is. When Buddhadasa said there is no "rebirth", he appeared to say there is no concept of "re-jati" found in the suttas. Buddhadasa discussed "jati" rather than discussed "upapatti". He said due to D.O., a "same thing" cannot be "reborn" or "born again" due to conditionality, impermanence, not-self, etc. The mainstream translators all translate "jati" as "birth" and "upapatti" as "rebirth, reappearance, etc".Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:11 pm The one thing which confuses me is the silence on rebirth if it was a later doctrine of questionable validity. We know there were Buddhists back then who took on the idea of a “person” which caused much controversy, yet there is not one record of an ancient early school taking the position of no-rebirth, as in the Buddha never taught it. If it were the case that rebirth is a latter addition I would expect at least 1 early tradition to have picked up in this and argued against it. Instead we have silence and uniformity in terms of accepting that the Buddha did in fact teach it. This isn’t conclusive evidence of course, but at least a pause for thought.
It appears primarily (non-mainstream) Sujato has suggested when asked the word "paccājāyati" literally means "re-birth" or "re-jati" but my examination of the texts finds Ven. Sujato's view to be questionable. While the dictionary includes "re" as a meaning of the prefix "paccā" ("pati"), this appears questionable. "Paccā" or "pati" generally means "opposite" and is found in the word "patipuggala", which means "rival or comparative person". I think a contextual analysis of "paccājāyati" in the suttas might find ""paccājāyati" means "comparative birth" (such as "human" vs "hungry ghost") rather than "re-birth". "Rival" and "comparative" accord with the meaning of "pati" to mean "opposite to". Possibly you can run my theory past Ven. Sujato next time you take birth on Sutta Central D&D.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati