Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by robertk »

I picked up a copy of Paticcasamuppada - Practical
Dependent Origination by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
(of Thailand)after
some prior discussions about it.
https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.c ... nation.pdf
In these discussions it
was suggested that the Buddha did not teach
rebirth and that this was a wrong idea that had come
into the teachings. This book was cited as a source
and guide. I had read the book many years ago and have
now reread it.

I think it has many useful points and I certainly
appreciate any book on this most profound teaching of
Paticcasamuppada. However, I remain convinced that the
Buddha taught rebirth and that it is indeed a
necessary corrollary of anatta and conditionality.

I'd like to begin with these comments from the
venerable Buddhadasa's book. He writes that p6
"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 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 "dependent
origination is on no way concerned with morality which
must depend upon a theory of Eternalism"
. 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 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 "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 lays the blame for all this on Buddhaghosa (ancient
composer of the Visuddhimagga and many important commentaries)
p8."the same person who collected all the commentaries
together so that total blind acceptance..will allow
only one voice to be heard."


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.

He does kindly note that Buddhaghosa p60 "is a man of
great knowledge
." He then says ."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
." And he carries on (p63) to note
that 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
suspect that he was careless and forgetful so that he
cannot be considered to be an Arahat
.""

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.
From the relevant section of the Visuddhimagga Chapter
XV11 Dependent origination
113 "
but how does a man who is confused about these
things perform these three kinds of formations?
Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of
taking death thus 'death in every case is break up of
aggregates(khandas, not-self)' he figures that it is
lasting being's transmigration to another incarnation
and so on".
115 "when he is confused about the round of rebirths,
instead of taking the round of rebirths as pictured
thus: 'an endless chain of aggregates(khandas) of
elements(dhatus) bases(ayatanas) that carries on
unbrokenly is what is called 'the round or rebirths'
he figures that it is a lasting being that goes from
this world to another world, that comes from another
world to this world"endquote
1
17"when he is cofused about independently-arisen
states, instead of taking the occurence of formations
to be due to ignorance etc., he figures that it is a
self that knows or does not know, that acts and causes
action..."
16
1 "a mere state that has got its conditions ushers
in the ensuing existence; While it does not migrate
from the past, with no cause in the past it is not.
So a mere material and immaterial state, arisen when
it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of,
saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is not
a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither
transmigrated from the past nor yet is it manifested
here without cause from that"....... "
273 "Becomings wheel reveals no known beginning; no
maker, no experiencer there; Void with a twelvefold
voidness,""
313 "one who sees this rightly abandons the self view
by understanding the absence of a maker. One who sees
it wrongly clings to the moral -inefficacy of action
view because he does not perceive that the causative
function of ignorance etc us established as a law.."
314 "[and so] let a wise man with mindfulness so
practice that he may begin to find a footing in the
deeps of the dependent origination"
Now another point about the book.
On page 62 Venerable Buddhadasa says that by
explaining Paticcasamuppada as happening over several
lives and suggesting that "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
""

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
arising of fruit (vipaka)
;"
Secondly he doesn't acknowledge that the commentaries
(and tipitaka) say that the results of
kamma can indeed arise in this life,..(or at the time
of death or in future lives). They say it is pretty
much unpredictable (except to the Buddha) when the
results will arise because of the many other
conditions that support or impede kamma. Here is a
quote from the Tipitaka:
" 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 think this is enough for one post. I want to add
some more later about how the Paticcasamupada is a
very practical teaching here and now - as shown by the
Visuddhimagga.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by robertk »

In this post I look at some more points raised by Venerable
Buddhadasa
about Buddhaghosa and the ancient commentaries.
On page 61 , paragraph 268 (chapter heading 'Buddhaghosa' about the
9th
paragraph): "therefore his explanation took on the appearance of
spanning
three births because of the rebirth consciousness from the past coming
into the present birth and from the present going over into the future
birth"


Venerable Buddhadasa is correct; in that if the Visuddhimagga and
Buddhaghosa had said that consciousness comes or goes anywhere we
are at odds with the Dhamma and the fundamental anattaness and impermanence
of all phenomena. It is the radical insight into reality gained by the
Buddha that shows that what we have taken to be the same consciousness can't
lastfor the briefest moment- it certainly can't go somewhere or pass from
life to life. I am in agreement with venerable Buddhadasa-- as I am with
manypoints in his book-- on the importance of getting this right.

I think itis fair, though, to check with the Visuddhimagga as to whether the
ancients really taught this perverted doctrine:
There are several pages about this including Visuddhimagga
xvii
133-175.
It is complex. I will try to put it as simply as possible.
There is a lengthy explanation of how at the actual moment of death,
dueto several conditions, an object is taken by that consciousness
(calledcuti-citta) death-consciousness. This consciousness is not different
fromother types of consciousness that arise and pass away all day long -
butit is given this name to identify it(of course each moment is not
exactly the same as any other and seeing consciousness is different from
hearing consciousness etc; but all have the general characteristic of
experiencing an arammana).

The next consciousness that arises is called
patisandhara(rebirth) and again this is no different from other types of
consciousness. Although we call it conventionally a 'new life' it is, just like now,
simply a stream of arising and passing consciousnesses carrying on.
At this moment this process of arising and passing, birth and death,
(khanika marana) occurs but because of ignorance we don't perceive
it. Buttruly we are utterly different from what we were a second ago - the
reason we look and feel approximately the same is because similar conditions
arise to replace the mentality and materiality that fell away. At
conventional death and new birth the changes are more obvious because
different kamma will produce results.

Here are some pertinent quotes from Visudhimagga:
XVII 164 "The former of these two states of consciousness is called
death(cuti) because of falling and the later is called rebirth because of
linking (patisandhara) across the gap separating the beginning of the
nextbecoming".
Note that there is no suggestion of the consciousness from
the previous life going to the present life. The whole point is to make it
clear that that is exactly NOT what happens.
164. "it should be understood that it has neither come here from the
previous becoming nor has it become manifest without the kamma, the
formations(sankharas), the objective field etc. as cause. An echo ,
or its
like, supplies the figures here; connectedness By continuity denies
Identity and otherness"
302. "with formations as condition consciousness(sankhara paccaya
vinnana)
prevents seeing the transmigration of a self."
280 "consequently, the dependent origination with its twelve factors,
revolving within the linking of cause and effect is established as
having
no beginning"
303 "Ignorance here is 'no theory' and 'wrong theory'
Also consider an earlier post where I noted that Buddhaghosa
also taught "that the structure of conditions is present not only in a
multiple consciousness but also in each single consciousness as well"

(see dispeller of delusion and also note 48 of Visuddhimagga). In the
Visuddhimagga it is noted that the factor of resultant consciousness
doesnot only refer to rebirth consciousness but also xvii 126 "in the
course of an individual existence or continuity" There are several paragraphs
about this.
======

Now I want to look at the matter of other worlds, hells and animals
and so forth. Venerable Buddhadasa refers to this in paragraph 39 page 14 and
suggests that these actually refer to this life. So that "if someone
is astate of agitation and anxiety that means that a state of being in
hell exists... And these are real hells, more frightful than those hells
beneath the ground that eternalists believe in
"

As venerable Buddhadasa
notes sometimes the buddha used conventional speech (vohara-sacca)
and at other times he used speech that refers to actual realities (paramattha
sacca). In conventional speech we are now alive and living on the
human plane. We see other beings living on another plane - the animal
plane. The other planes(hells heavens) mentioned in the texts we do not usually
see, hence some people believe that only the human and animal plane exist.

Actually, according to the Dhamma, in the truest sense there are no
humans, no animals no
"us" even. But there are dhammas - ephemeral, conditioned phenomena -
arising and passing away. At this time, in this world, those streams
of conditioned phenomena known conventionally as Stephen or robert
includemany pleasant moments (intermittently). In some planes pleasant
momentsare much more frequent and in others much less frequent.
In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation)- (which
Ven.
Buddhadasa quotes)
"I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'.
There whatever form one sees with the eye is underdesirable,
never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever
sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile
object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is
undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote


Now, in this world, there are in reality no humans, computers,
trees: these are only the shadows of the ultimate dhammas
appearing. What appears to eyesense is different colours.
Sometimes the moment of seeing is the result of kusala kamma
(good kamma) and in that case the object will be pleasing to
some degree. At other times, in this plane, the moment of seeing
is the result of past akusala kamma- and in that case the object
will be unpleasant to some degree.
The same for the denizens of hell except that the eye conscious
moments are the result of past akusala kamma and hence there is
usually no opportunity for pleasant results.

Venerable Buddhadasa suggests that "If there is stupidity , then the
state of being an animal arises..if there is sensual pleasure of
various kinds and intensities then one of the heavenly states arise...All of
these states are more real than those talked about which will be experienced
after entering the coffin".Endquote


I think it is true that we can infer to a degree the nature of other
existences by understanding those momentary states of mind that arise
in this life and so I don't think it is wrong to emphasise this aspect.

But I believe the Buddha taught the planes of existence with a view
to the real nature of the world. I think accepting this doesn't have to make
one terrified of future lives or hopeful of heavenly pleasures. I think it
acts to force one more onto the present because one knows that life
now -
which is only seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, thinking etc - is no
different from life in the past and it will be just like that in the
future. It means one becomes intent on understanding this moment and
how the factors of the dependent origination work their ways.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

robertk wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:29 pm
He notes that there is no
written evidence before the time of the Visuddhimagga
[written by Buddhaghosa]where Paticcasamupada was
explained wrongly.
There are texts which predate Buddhaghosa which explain dependent origination in terms of 3 lives. The Śālistamba Sūtra comes to mind. I’ll have to check what the Vimuttimagga has to say.
“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.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ven Nāgārjuna and AFAIK also the Vibhāsakas have a "three life model." I don't know if theirs is identical to the Pāli tradition's or not. The Śālistamba might be Mahāsamghaka. Basically it seems like there is a lot of consensus on DO until we get to modern Westerners trying to reinvent it. The Vibhāsakas, like the Theravādins, also have a momentary rebirth reading of DO where the links apply to mind-moments rather than larger life-events.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

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.
“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.”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by DooDoot »

robertk wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:29 pm Paticcasamuppada. However, I remain convinced that the
Buddha taught rebirth and that it is indeed a
necessary corrollary of anatta and conditionality.
The above appears not supported by sutta, unless we adhere to Sujato's translations. "Rebirth" ("upapatti") is never mentioned in Paticcasamuppada. The word "upapatti" etymologically has zero relationship to the word "jati" "("birth"). "Rebirth" appears only mentioned in mundane kamma teachings. Therefore, if we translate "upapatti / upapanna / upapajjati" as "rebirth", the Buddha certainly did teach "rebirth", but it appears not in Paticcasamuppada.

The suttas literally say Paticcasamuppada is about the origin of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair. I struggle to understand how Paticcasamuppada can be regarded as explaining "rebirth". Paticcasamuppada appears to simply say that due to the aging-&-death of a being (satta) the mind is attached to - sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair arise.

It appears Buddhadasa is saying the mundane puthujjana coveted the supramundane Paticcasamuppada and, in doing so, destroyed it. It appears similar to Protestant Christianity, where the sinners took over the religion and deemed themselves to be righteous & saved, merely due to faith but not deeds. Buddhadasa's view was "the masses are the enemy of true religion".
robertk wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:29 pm However, in the next sentence he says that "dependent
origination is on no way concerned with morality which
must depend upon a theory of Eternalism". 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
.
The above view appears unsupported by sutta. The suttas appear to always say "a being", "a person", "a certain man" and "a certain woman" is "reborn" due to their personal kamma. It appears the above view comes from Buddhaghosa and possibly Abhidhamma rather than from sutta. MN 117 is absolutely clear "rebirth" is related to "acquisitions" or "attachment". All "rebirth" is dependent upon a view of "self". It appears if the mind is void of self-view, there can be no "birth", let alone "rebirth". It appears Buddhaghosa's idea of twelve-fold voidness being reborn was an example of "nihilism"; which negated personal responsibility for "rebirth". Many people have asked the question: "if no self is reborn, where is the incentive to do good karma?" :shrug:
robertk wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:29 pmVisuddhimagga Chapter
XV11 Dependent origination 113 "
but how does a man who is confused about these
things perform these three kinds of formations?
Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of
taking death thus 'death in every case is break up of
aggregates(khandas, not-self)'
he figures that it is
lasting being's transmigration to another incarnation
and so on".
The above definition of "death" ("marana") is certainly from Abhidhamma but not from sutta. The suttas say "death" is the death of "a being" ("satta"). Therefore, Buddhaghosa appears to be convoluting the Dhamma above and also below:
114. When he is confused about reappearance, instead of taking rebirth thus, “Birth in every case is manifestation of aggregates,” he figures that it is a lasting being’s manifestation in a new body
Above, Buddhaghosa has misunderstood the term "manifestation of aggregates" and construed it to be different to the idea of "a being" rather than, per sutta, to be a constituent of the "birth of a being".

It is very difficult for me to clearly critique Buddhaghosa here due to his gibberish and convoluting of terminology. It will take me a long time, where i must go over his ideas, word by word, sentence by sentence.
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
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by DooDoot »

Buddhaghosa wrote:113. But how does a man who is confused about these things perform these
three kinds of formations? Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of
taking death thus, “Death in every case is break-up of aggregates,” he figures
that it is a [lasting] being that dies, that it is a [lasting] being’s transmigration to
another incarnation, and so on.
Critique of the above:

1. The suttas do not define "death" as the "break-up of aggregates". The suttas define "death" as "break-up of aggregates of beings in this & that category of beings".

2. Therefore, the suttas do say "he figures that it is a [lasting] being that dies". Buddhoghosa is correct here.

3. However, the Paticcasamupadda does not appear to make any implicit assumption of "transmigration to another incarnation" as Buddhaghosa appears to do.

3a. Worse, Buddhaghosa appears to suggest the occurrence of a type of "jati" ("birth") & "marana" ("death") without the arising or existence of "a being" ("satta"). This is contrary to sutta.

4. It follows Buddhaghosa may have not implicitly said "a self" goes from "transmigration to another incarnation". However, to say rebirth occurs without a self appears contrary to the Buddha's teaching and, as Buddhadasa appeared to say, is contrary to the common sense of an ordinary person.

5. Therefore, as Buddhadasa & others have said, any suggestion of rebirth is assumed by a common person to be the rebirth of a self. That is why i recall scholars have said it was easy for Adi Shankara to defeat the Buddhists in debate and accumulate followers.

6. For example, if i personally believed in reincarnation, i would regard as logical a view similar to Adi Shankara rather than Buddhaghosa. Logical people always ask: "If it is not me that is reborn, what is my incentive to do good karma?"

7. In summary, in cultural Buddhism in Asia, it appears obvious the vast majority of common Buddhists believe they are personally reborn. For example, in Thailand, when every Buddhist man ordains for at least one Rains Retreat to make merit for his mother, it is his mother that is assumed will be reborn. If people giving donations to monks did not make merit for themselves and for their personal future lives, they would not give donations to monks.

8. In short, it appears the above is why Buddhadasa said Buddhaghosa introduced "self" into Paticcasamupadda. It is simply impossible for most people to imagine a rebirth occurring without a self; nor impossible for most people to take an interest in the gibberish of Nagarjuna, Buddhaghosa, etc, who mix the mundane with the supramundane.
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
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by DooDoot »

Buddhaghosa wrote:114. When he is confused about reappearance, instead of taking rebirth thus, “Birth in every case is manifestation of aggregates,” he figures that it is a lasting being’s manifestation in a new body.

115. When he is confused about the round of rebirths, instead of taking the round of rebirths as pictured thus:

The endless chain of aggregates,
Of elements, of bases too,
That carries on unbrokenly
Is what is called “the round of births,”

he figures that it is a lasting being that goes from this world to another world, that comes from another world to this world
The suttas say:
"And what is birth? Whatever birth of the various beings in this or that group of beings; their taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth; their manifestation of aggregates & their acquisition of sense objects that is called birth.

SN 12.2
Buddhaghosa appears to have said:

1. There is jati that is merely manifestation of aggregates.

2. There is jati without the view of a lasting being.

3. There is a "rebirth" of mere aggregates, elements, etc.

The above appears literally contrary to sutta. While the above certainly does not introduce "self" into Dependent Origination, it certainly negates the arising of "self" or "beings" in Dependent Origination. The sutta says "self" is dependently originated, as follows:
SN 22.81 wrote:assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen

SN 22.81
All of the above is very confusing and ultimately subversive and destructive, imo. It asserts rebirth yet does not explain the birth (jati) of the self-view of "beings" ("satta"). Buddhaghosa is saying: "there is no self" yet "there will be rebirth". Surely such a doctrine makes attempts at liberation from self very confusing.
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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

Not to interrupt, but I just wanted to say I'm very pleased this conversation is taking place, and each of you can probably guess why.

Thank you each for your opening statements. This is a battle of ideas that I'm very much looking forward to. May the Dhamma be the winner.

:popcorn:

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."
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by SDC »

retrofuturist wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:03 pm
:popcorn:
Share some of that with me! :D
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by robertk »

It appears Buddhaghosa's idea of twelve-fold voidness being reborn was an example of "nihilism"; which negated personal responsibility for "rebirth". Many people have asked the question: "if no self is reborn, where is the incentive to do good karma?" :shrug:
4. It follows Buddhaghosa may have not implicitly said "a self" goes from "transmigration to another incarnation". However, to say rebirth occurs without a self appears contrary to the Buddha's teaching and, as Buddhadasa appeared to say, is contrary to the common sense of an ordinary person.

5. Therefore, as Buddhadasa & others have said, any suggestion of rebirth is assumed by a common person to be the rebirth of a self. That is why i recall scholars have said it was easy for Adi Shankara to defeat the Buddhists in debate and accumulate followers.

6. For example, if i personally believed in reincarnation, i would regard as logical a view similar to Adi Shankara rather than Buddhaghosa. Logical people always ask: "If it is not me that is reborn, what is my incentive to do good karma?"

7. In summary, in cultural Buddhism in Asia, it appears obvious the vast majority of common Buddhists believe they are personally reborn. For example, in Thailand, when every Buddhist man ordains for at least one Rains Retreat to make merit for his mother, it is his mother that is assumed will be reborn. If people giving donations to monks did not make merit for themselves and for their personal future lives, they would not give donations to monks.

8. In short, it appears the above is why Buddhadasa said Buddhaghosa introduced "self" into Paticcasamupadda. It is simply impossible for most people to imagine a rebirth occurring without a self; nor impossible for most people to take an interest in the gibberish of Nagarjuna, Buddhaghosa, etc, who mix the mundane with the supramundane.
See even now, today, there is no self, there are merely elements arising and ceasing. Death and rebirth is happening very moment .

SN 35.154 wrote:
Cakkhundriye ce, bhikkhu, udayabbayānupassī viharanto
If, bhikkhu, while one dwells contemplating rise and fall in the eye faculty
SN 35.72
Sādhu, bhikkhu, ettha ca te, bhikkhu, cakkhu ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya sudiṭṭhaṃ bhavissati.
Good, bhikkhu! And here, bhikkhu, you should clearly see the eye as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

this is a discussion about impermanence now viewtopic.php?f=18&t=37169&hilit=impermanence

Coming back to the incentive to do good kamma and personal responsibility. Yes some people say - well next life I won't remember this life so what does it matter. Yet, whether there is memory or not kamma will bring its pleasant or bitter fruits.
One reason people act in reckless ways is that they feel the worst that can happen is say imprisonment, or loss of reputation or wealth, or a shorter life: they believe when death overtakes them that is the end. All done - whether they did good or evil.

However, according to the doctrine of kamma and rebirth results are far reaching indeed. Doing bad now might give results next life or in future lives, and so this becomes an incentive not to create akusala kamma. And no self is needed for this - there is simply a flow of impersonal khandhas, aggregates.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by robertk »

DooDoot wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:26 pm
Buddhaghosa appears to have said:

1. There is jati that is merely manifestation of aggregates.

2. There is jati without the view of a lasting being.

3. There is a "rebirth" of mere aggregates, elements, etc.
[..] While the above certainly does not introduce "self" into Dependent Origination, it certainly negates the arising of "self" or "beings" in Dependent Origination.
Here, in contrast with the book by Buddhadasa, you are agreeing that Buddhaghosa in the Visuddhimagga never tried to put a 'self' into dependent origination.
Your objections to Buddhaghosa's way of explaining Dependent Origination are more that they are confusing or wrong in a different way from what Buddhadasa thought.
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by pegembara »

Just curious if there is a more "accurate translation" for this sutta with a clear meaning regarding rebirth.
Not saying that DO specifically applies to a single moment or multiple lifetimes. That is a different topic being discussed.
"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.

"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.

"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
robertk wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:29 pm I think it has many useful points and I certainly
appreciate any book on this most profound teaching of
Paticcasamuppada. However, I remain convinced that the
Buddha taught rebirth and that it is indeed a
necessary corrollary of anatta and conditionality.
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. 8-)

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."
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by robertk »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:18 am Greetings,
robertk wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:29 pm I think it has many useful points and I certainly
appreciate any book on this most profound teaching of
Paticcasamuppada. However, I remain convinced that the
Buddha taught rebirth and that it is indeed a
necessary corrollary of anatta and conditionality.
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. 8-)

Metta,
Paul. :)
Thanks Paul. Recently you clarified that indeed you accept that the Buddha did teach about the travails of samsara:
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:10 am Greetings Robert,
robertk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:23 am As a result of that deed of his for many years, for many hundreds of years, for many thousands of years, for many hundreds of thousands of years, he boiled in the nether regions. And as a result of the remaining part of that deed of his he became a leper in this very Rājagaha, a poor man, a wretched man, a miserable man.
robertk wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:23 am Is this story from the sutta pitaka in line with kamma?
Absolutely. It aligns perfectly with MN 130...
MN 130 wrote:Or how these beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell.'
Rounded off with a little MN 135 on the home stretch...
MN 135 wrote:"There is the case, where a woman or man is ill-tempered & easily upset; even when lightly criticized, he/she grows offended, provoked, malicious, & resentful; shows annoyance, aversion, & bitterness. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is ugly wherever reborn. This is the way leading to ugliness: to be ill-tempered & easily upset; even when lightly criticized, to grow offended, provoked, malicious, & resentful; to show annoyance, aversion, & bitterness.

...

"So, student, the way leading to short life makes people short-lived, the way leading to long life makes people long-lived; the way leading to sickliness makes people sickly, the way leading to health makes people healthy; the way leading to ugliness makes people ugly, the way leading to beauty makes people beautiful; the way leading to lack of influence makes people uninfluential, the way leading to influence makes people influential; the way leading to poverty makes people poor, the way leading to wealth makes people wealthy; the way leading to low birth makes people low-born, the way leading to high birth makes people highborn; the way leading to stupidity makes people stupid, the way leading to discernment makes people discerning.

Beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement...
The suttas are well-aligned and devoid of patchwork, as explained in SN 12.22
SN 12.22 wrote:Bhikkhus, the Dhamma has thus been well expounded by me, elucidated, disclosed, revealed, stripped of patchwork.
:buddha1:

Metta,
Paul. :)
I just wonder if Doodoot accepts that also?
Post Reply