That "causal origination" is founded upon idappaccayatā, and there is nothing in the formulation of idappaccayatā that necessitates (or denies) rebirth. The second sentence is spurious logic as it is "begging the question".• Dependent origination is all about showing the causal origination of suffering. This suffering is throughout the suttas equated with saṃsāric existence and hence rebirth.
The entirely of paticcasamuppada is a set of volitionally created fabrications, rooted in ignorance. Thus any contrast between metaphor (i.e. does not exist) and existence is a false "attachment to polarity" attributable to a lack of Right View (see SN 12.15). The only unfabricated phenomena is nibbana so this true of jati, marana, vinnana or any other conditioned phenomena.• There are two suttas that give real life examples of dependent origination, DN 15 and MN 38. Both of these suttas speak of consciousness or a ..... entering the mother’s womb as a condition for the embryo to develop.
• Rebirth (jāti) is always defined as physical birth (e.g. at SN 12.2), and it is never used as a metaphor. The same is true for old age and death.
This is non-sequitur and easily negated by the fact the Buddha, an arahant, achieved vinnana-nirodha but did not fall on the ground in a crumpled heap. Very poor "logic" indeed. By that logic and the 3 lifetime model being pushed, the cessation of ignorance would require an arahant to still go through two more lifetimes until it came to an end. Except that this is not how it works, is it? Clearly, Ajahn Brahmali has failed to understand the full spectrum of uses of viññāṇa, as it appears in the Suttas. Viññāṇa when presented alone, without qualification, invariably applies to conditioned/fabricated consciousness.• The first three links of dependent origination are avijjā (delusion), saṅkhāra (willed activities), and viññāṇa (consciousness). If these three only spanned a single life, then consciousness would cease as soon as ignorance ceases, that is, the arahant would lose consciousness as soon as he reached awakening. We know from the suttas that this is not what happens.
The Buddha used many different schemas in this context, including the five-clinging-aggregates. By this faulty logic, the five-clinging-aggregates "must include rebirth". It doesn't. Thus, the argument is non-sequitur.• The second noble truth says that it is the craving that leads to rebirth which is source of suffering. Sometimes the whole sequence of dependent origination is used instead to illustrate the second noble truth. This means that dependent origination, too, must include rebirth.
Not at all compelling. To say that some suttas talk about rebirth and that others talk about dependent origination, therefore dependent origination must explicitly talk about rebirth is non-sequitur.• A number of the suttas in the Nidāna-saṃyutta (the connected discourses that deal with dependent origination) use vocabulary that refers to rebirth, such as: SN 12.19 (kāyassa bhedā kāyūpago hoti, “when the body breaks up, he goes to a body”); SN 12.38 (tasmiṃ patiṭṭhite viññāṇe virūḷhe āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti, “when that consciousness has become established and come to growth, there is renewed existence in the future”); SN 12.59 (viññāṇassa avakkanti hoti, “consciousness descends”; this is a common way to express rebirth in the Nidāna-saṃyutta and elsewhere); and many others.
False dichotomy of single life vs three lives. Paticcasamuppada, like idappaccayatā, is structural, not temporal.• There is no evidence that any of the early schools of Buddhism understood dependent origination as relating to a single life.
The entire Pali commentarial tradition believes that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma and then went and used that as the grounds for retrofitting Abhidhammic analysis into its understanding of the Suttas, so there's no reason to give this any credence unless one is a sectarian, placing sectarian doctrine over Buddhavacana.• The entire Pali commentarial tradition interprets dependent origination as spanning across lives.
Not that you have shown. Is there anything else, or are we done here?Eko Care wrote:The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.
Metta,
Paul.