Paṭiccasamuppāda and idappaccayatā, as presented in the Sutta Pitaka

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ajahn Brahmali via Eko Care,
• Dependent origination is all about showing the causal origination of suffering. This suffering is throughout the suttas equated with saṃsāric existence and hence rebirth.
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".
• 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.
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.
• 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.
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 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.
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.
• 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.
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.
• There is no evidence that any of the early schools of Buddhism understood dependent origination as relating to a single life.
False dichotomy of single life vs three lives. Paticcasamuppada, like idappaccayatā, is structural, not temporal.
• The entire Pali commentarial tradition interprets dependent origination as spanning across lives.
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.
Eko Care wrote:The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.
Not that you have shown. Is there anything else, or are we done here?

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
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.

Post by DooDoot »

Eko Care wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:27 pm Selected points from Ajahn Brahmali's points on the relationship of rebirth and paticca samuppada.
Ajahn Brahmali's ideas appear extremely weak and appear to not even qualify as "scholarship" but, instead, appear to be superficial personal interpretations or imaginings about words. I ask the questions below to hopefully salvage the reputation of this monk. :heart:
Eko Care wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:27 pm
• 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.
Since DN 15 is about nama-rupa meaning "naming-forms", what evidence is there that DN 15 is not about the mother's own consciousness entering her own womb so she names the form of the baby in her womb? :shrug:

Since MN 38 does not literally refer to any consciousness (vinnana) entering any womb, apart from "gandhabba", what evidence is there "gandhabba" mean "consciousness" ("vinnana") in any Pali or Sanskrit? :shrug:
Eko Care wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:27 pm• 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.
The word "jati" is a noun from the verb "jayati". There are many suttas that refer to the "jayati" of mental phenomena, such as rapture born from seclusion or love born from hate.

SN 12.2 refer to the "birth" of "beings in various categories of beings". SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 define "beings" as "views" and "strong attachment".

What evidence is there the word "sattanam" ("beings"; plural) in SN 12.2 does not possess the same meaning as "being" ("satto"; singular) in SN 23.2 and SN 5.10? :shrug:
Eko Care wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:27 pm• 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.
Sankhara is defined as kaya, vaci and citta sankhara in SN 12.2, which are not defined as "willful activities" in suttas such as MN 44 (where they are defined is in & out breathing; thought; and perception & feeling). What evidence is there kaya, vaci and citta sankhara are used in the suttas to refer to "willful activities"? :shrug:

Also, since SN 12.2 refers to "cetana" ("volition") in nama-rupa, why would SN 12.2 not use the word "cetana" at "sankhara" if sankhara was meant to mean "cetana" ("wilfulness")? :shrug:
Eko Care wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:27 pm• 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.
The 2nd noble truth refers to "bhava". "Bhava" generally does not mean "rebirth". What evidence is there in the suttas that "bhava" means "rebirth"? :shrug:

If both "bhava" and "jati" mean "rebirth", then would dependent origination teach "rebirth" is the condition for "rebirth"? :shrug:

What is the sutta, Abhidhamma or Classical Theravada very strong evidence answers to these questions? :shrug: :thanks:

In summary, since Ajahn Brahmali's religious sect translates the following words as "rebirth", what evidence is there for the Buddha to use so many different words to refer to the same phenomena? :shrug:
 jati'
 'ponobbhavikā' and 'punabbhavo'
 'abhinibbatti'
 'opapātikā'
 'paccājāyati'/'paccājāto'
 'upapannā'/'upapajjati'/'upapatti'
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
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.

Post by pegembara »

How can the "rebirth" be physical if the body/form is not-self? You can argue that birth and death happen only once. There has to be a self for a re-birth to take place -unless of course, you are what the Buddha called a run-of-the-mill person.

Perhaps DO only "applies" to the uninstructed who assumes/fabricates a self out of the five aggregates.
"Well then — knowing in what way, seeing in what way, does one without delay put an end to the effluents? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — 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. It is by knowing & seeing in this way that one without delay puts an end to the effluents.

"Or he doesn't assume form to be the self, but he assumes the self as possessing form... form as in the self... self as in form... or feeling to be the self... the self as possessing feeling... feeling as in the self... self as in feeling... or perception to be the self... the self as possessing perception... perception as in the self... self as in perception... or fabrications to be the self... the self as possessing fabrications... fabrications as in the self... self as in fabrications... or consciousness to be the self... the self as possessing consciousness... consciousness as in the self... self as in consciousness.

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
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.

Post by DooDoot »

Eko Care wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:27 pm SN 12.19 (kāyassa bhedā kāyūpago hoti, “when the body breaks up, he goes to a body”)
In their famous jhana book, the Brahmali sect says "kaya" in MN 119 means the "mental body" or "collection of mental dhammas" experienced in jhana. But now they say "kaya" in SN 12.19 means "physical body" rather than "collection of aggregates". What evidence is there for "kaya" being different in these contexts vs Brahmali's personal ideas? :shrug:
Eko Care wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:27 pmSN 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”)
The word "patiṭṭhita" is found in many suttas, such as SN 12.53, refer to consciousness establishing into sense objects. How is "patiṭṭhita" different in these suttas vs Brahmali's personal ideas? :shrug:
Eko Care wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:27 pmSN 12.59 (viññāṇassa avakkanti hoti, “consciousness descends”; this is a common way to express rebirth in the Nidāna-saṃyutta and elsewhere); and many others.
SN 12.39 refers to the "descent" ("avakkanti") of nama-rupa, just as a whole Samyutta is about the "avakkanti" or "entering" into stream-entry. How is "avakkanti" different in these suttas vs Brahmali's personal ideas? :shrug:

:thanks:
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
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.

Post by Eko Care »

Ajahn Brahmali:

What is truly problematic is the outright denial of rebirth, for this is tantamount to saying that the Buddha got it wrong. And if you deny the awakening of the Buddha, I am not sure if it makes much sense to call yourself a Buddhist.

We need to be careful not to impose our own opinions on the suttas. For instance, there are lots of people who don’t believe in rebirth - and of course that’s perfectly fine. But if they argue, as some do, that the Buddha too rejected rebirth then they go too far. To me it is inescapable that in the suttas the term jāti means the coming into existence at the beginning of a life, also in the context of dependent origination.

Ven. Ñāṇananda, Nibbana and Phenomenological Existentialism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Eko Care,
Ajahn Brahmali via Eko Care wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:01 am
Ajahn Brahmali:

What is truly problematic is the outright denial of rebirth, for this is tantamount to saying that the Buddha got it wrong. And if you deny the awakening of the Buddha, I am not sure if it makes much sense to call yourself a Buddhist.

We need to be careful not to impose our own opinions on the suttas. For instance, there are lots of people who don’t believe in rebirth - and of course that’s perfectly fine. But if they argue, as some do, that the Buddha too rejected rebirth then they go too far.

Ven. Ñāṇananda, Nibbana and Phenomenological Existentialism
In the context of this topic, this was already refuted above...

That "causal origination" is founded upon idappaccayatā, and there is nothing in the formulation of idappaccayatā that necessitates (or denies) rebirth.
Ajahn Brahmali via Eko Care wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:01 am To me it is inescapable that in the suttas the term jāti means the coming into existence at the beginning of a life, also in the context of dependent origination.
And this was already refuted above by DooDoot...

The word "jati" is a noun from the verb "jayati". There are many suttas that refer to the "jayati" of mental phenomena, such as rapture born from seclusion or love born from hate.

SN 12.2 refer to the "birth" of "beings in various categories of beings". SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 define "beings" as "views" and "strong attachment".

Eko Care wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:01 am The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.
Not that you or your proxies have shown. If it exists, please bring forth this "very strong" justification without reincarnating and rebirthing the same old debunked arguments.

:thanks:

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
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.

Post by Eko Care »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:23 pm Paticcasamuppada, like idappaccayatā, is structural, not temporal.
How about "parideva"?
retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:23 pm 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.
Haven't you seen any non-sectarian who give credence to Abhidhamma?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Eko Care,
retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:23 pm Paticcasamuppada, like idappaccayatā, is structural, not temporal.
Eko Care wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:33 am How about "parideva"?
What of it? Is this your "case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong"?
retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:23 pm 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.
Eko Care wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:33 am Haven't you seen any non-sectarian who give credence to Abhidhamma?
Only if they've been deceived by sectarians into thinking it is Buddha-Vacana, but that's off-topic because your question is not the "case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong".
Eko Care wrote: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.
Not that you have shown.

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
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.

Post by DooDoot »

Eko Care wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:33 am How about "parideva"?
It appears there is a lack of scholarship allowing the participation in meaningful discussion & debate. It appears there is a disregard of various sutta teachings that define specific words in dependent origination.

MN 38 specifically refers to the child birth from a mother but does not use the word "jati" for this. The word used is "vijāyati" (i.e. using the intensifier prefix "vi').

MN 86 says when Angulimala became a monk, he had "Noble Birth" ("Ariya Jati").

I think Ajahn Brahmali should distinguish and explain these two words & contexts.
Eko Care wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:33 amHaven't you seen any non-sectarian who give credence to Abhidhamma?
The Abhidhamma analysis of Dependent Origination is different to the sutta analysis. I already posted extensively about this but you ignored my questions.

Also, I asked you about the meaning of the Abhidhamma term "pride in/of birth" ("jati mana") but you ignored my question to you.

It appears your posts on this forum are mostly about faith in various worldly academics rather than about studying sutta or Abhidhamma with yonisomanasikara.

:reading:
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
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

Re: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.

Post by Eko Care »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:23 pm there is nothing in the formulation of idappaccayatā that necessitates (or denies) rebirth.
there is nothing in the formulation of anything that one can't argue,
if one interpret the words in a different way.

(new example: If one interpret the word "jati" as "self", he can say "there is no jati", and it is true.)
retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:23 pm The entirely of paticcasamuppada is a set of volitionally created fabrications, rooted in ignorance.
Is this supported by suttas?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Eko Care,
Eko Care wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:39 am there is nothing in the formulation of anything that one can't argue,
if one interpret the words in a different way.
(new example: If one interpret the word "jati" as "self", he can say "there is no jati", and it is true.)
Is this your very strong case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth? :shrug: Sounds rather weak and irrelevant to me.
retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:23 pm The entirely of paticcasamuppada is a set of volitionally created fabrications, rooted in ignorance.
Eko Care wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:39 am Is this supported by suttas?
Yes.
SN 12.15 wrote:The Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
Speaking on sankhara, even Nyanatiloka notes that...
Nyanatiloka wrote:"it occurs further in the sense of anything formed sankhata and conditioned, and includes all things whatever in the world, all phenomena of existence. This meaning applies, e.g. to the well-known passage,;All constructions are impermanent... subject to suffering; sabbe sankhāra aniccā dukkhā In that context, however, s. is subordinate to the still wider and all-embracing term dhamma thing"
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."
Srilankaputra
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamupadda) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by Srilankaputra »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:13 am
When comparing models of paticcasamuppada we most commonly hear and talk about the nidana that involves jati, and what jati may or may not mean, and we see some of that in the discussion above. However, I feel the gravest injustice is to reduce vinnana to rebirth-linking-consciousness, and to reduce nama-rupa to some kind of arisen "mind and body" pseudo-self.

IMO, the most interesting end of paticcasamuppada is the first half, and to artificially cleave it across two lifetimes, and reduce the aforementioned mutual dependence of vinnana and nama-rupa (and associated Sutta similes, such as the whirlpool, or the two sets of reeds) to something as facile as "past karma caused rebirth-linking consciousness to occur, which created this body with materiality and mentality" is to miss the point so egregiously, that we may as well toss the whole thing in the bin at that point, nevermind what could be said about jati down the track.
I think there are somethings you need to be aware of. Dependant origination in Theravada is a vast subject.

Regarding the nidana involving 'viññana', Thirty two types of vipaka-vinnana is recognised. Only some of them can occur at the patisandhi stage, others at the pavatti(continuation) stage.

The teaching on three life times is just one 'naya' (viewpoint) out of number of other 'naya' on the twelve link dependant origination.

All these different 'naya', brings out different aspects of the meta-principle of dependant-origination. Above all they are teaching or expository devices.

Imo

Wish you all success in all your endeavours. Goodbye!
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: The case that dependent origination in the Suttas refers to Rebirth is very strong.

Post by DooDoot »

Eko Care wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:39 am (new example: If one interpret the word "jati" as "self", he can say "there is no jati", and it is true.)
"Jati" does not mean "self". SN 12.2 uses the word "satta" ("a being") rather than "atta" ("self"). "Jati" or "a being" can mean a type of "identity", which Buddhaghosa also taught:
Visuddhimagga wrote:32. Now, this word birth (játi) has many meanings. For in the passage “[He
recollects … ] one birth (játi), two births” (D I 81) it is becoming. In the passage,
“Visákhá, there is a kind (játi) of ascetics called Nigaóþhas (Jains)” (A I 206) it is
a monastic order. In the passage, “Birth (játi) is included in two aggregates”
(Dhátuk 15) it is the characteristic of whatever is formed. In the passage, “His
birth is due to the first consciousness arisen, the first cognition manifested, in
the mother’s womb” (Vin I 93) it is rebirth-linking. [499] In the passage “As
soon as he was born (sampatijáta), Ánanda, the Bodhisatta …” (M III 123) it is
parturition. In the passage “One who is not rejected and despised on account of
birth” (A III 152) it is clan. In the passage “Sister, since I was born with the noble
birth” (M II 103) it is the Noble One’s virtue

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... on2011.pdf
Jāti is a group of clans, tribes, communities, and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each Jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Smarthism or Shaivism) or linguistic groupings may define some Jātis. A person's surname typically reflects a community (Jāti) association: thus Gandhi = perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, etc

Wikipedia
MN 44 also says "bhava" is the condition for "identity" ("sakkaya"). Therefore, it might be possible "jati" is synonymous with "sakkaya". :shrug:
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,
Srilankaputra wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:07 am Regarding the nidana involving 'viññana', Thirty two types of vipaka-vinnana is recognised.

I assume this is not recognised as such in the Suttas? :popcorn:
Srilankaputra wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:07 am Only some of them can occur at the patisandhi stage, others at the pavatti(continuation) stage.
I assume this is not recognised as such in the Suttas? :popcorn:
Srilankaputra wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:07 am The teaching on three life times is just one 'naya' (viewpoint) out of number of other 'naya' on the twelve link dependant origination.
All these different 'naya', brings out different aspects of the meta-principle of dependant-origination. Above all they are teaching or expository devices.
I assume this is Commentarial / Abhidhamma in nature, as opposed to something found in the Suttas?

:thanks:

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."
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by asahi »

I think here are the things one should consider for one timer :

1. How sankhara as 2nd link gives rise to vinnana

2. How namarupa give rise to six sense base

3. How bhava give rise to jati

4. How jati give rise to aging death
No bashing No gossiping
Post Reply