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:

Paṭiccasamuppāda and idappaccayatā, as presented in the Sutta Pitaka

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

[ What follows is a merged topic on the general themes of Paṭiccasamuppāda, idappaccayatā and their representations in the Sutta Pitaka ]
mikenz66 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:48 pm 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.
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 (now in another topic) can be justified by recourse to the suttas - though I welcome anyone to try.
mikenz66 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:48 pm 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.
Here I agree, and it's precisely in seeing the inconsistencies, that caused people such as Nanavira to dig deeper into the matter.
mikenz66 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:54 pm I'd say Nananda's interpretation is a mixture. Very different from Nanavira.
I'm not disagreeing that they're different, but if you had an example of how you think Nanananda's approach is not structural, that would be of interest and of benefit in explaining your meaning.

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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ceisiwr,
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:48 pm
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.
Why do you think the 3 lives interpretation goes against the analytical knowledge of dependent origination?
Can you clarify what this means?

What "analytical knowledge of dependent origination" are you talking about?

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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:58 pm Greetings Ceisiwr,
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:48 pm
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.
Why do you think the 3 lives interpretation goes against the analytical knowledge of dependent origination?
Can you clarify what this means?

What "analytical knowledge of dependent origination" are you talking about?

Metta,
Paul. :)
Dependent origination itself is analytical a priori knowledge. When someone fully understands the concepts and has had the appropriate experiential trigger they come to understand paṭiccasamuppāda. Such an understanding is true knowledge as it's justification does not depend upon experience. So, I find it odd if you see a disjunction between paṭiccasamuppāda and 3 lives? Further still, how does your model overcome the issue of repetition? For example, intention?
“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.”
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by Bundokji »

As for the practicality of including rebirth in paticcasamuppada, i can't think of any. One could ask what is it that dies without addressing rebirth.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ceisiwr,
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:09 pm Dependent origination itself is analytical a priori knowledge. When someone fully understands the concepts and has had the appropriate experiential trigger they come to understand paṭiccasamuppāda. Such an understanding is true knowledge as it's justification does not depend upon experience.
Paṭiccasamuppāda details what happens, but what happens is inherently dependent upon avijja, ignorance. So what is happening, is the experience of a fabricated delusion. Therefore, "dependent origination itself" is not really "analytical a priori knowledge" but rather, a mass of ignorant fabrications and sufferings. It's in understanding the delusion, that one understands paṭiccasamuppāda, and understands structurally how it can cease - theoretically at first, experientially over time.
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:09 pm So, I find it odd if you see a disjunction between paṭiccasamuppāda and 3 lives?
I might set this question aside, for now, because I'm not sure the "so" holds up, and what I wrote above might well change the question you'd ask.
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:09 pm Further still, how does your model overcome the issue of repetition? For example, intention?
I don't see how "repetition", if it existed, would necessarily be a problem. For example, every element of paticcasamuppada is a sankhata-dhamma - thus, each and every one is a sankhara. Really, they're not even separate things, they're just an evolution and continuation of the delusion. That is simply how it is and "how it is" doesn't need to conform to our expectations of how it ought to be or our preferences in classification schemes.

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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:42 pm
Paṭiccasamuppāda details what happens, but what happens is inherently dependent upon avijja, ignorance. So what is happening, is the experience of a fabricated delusion. Therefore, "dependent origination itself" is not really "analytical a priori knowledge" but a mass of ignorant fabrications and sufferings. It's in understanding the delusion, that one understands paṭiccasamuppāda, and understands, structurally how it can cease - theoretically at first, experientially over time.
Paṭiccasamuppāda is knowledge. The question then is, how is it knowledge? Does it relate to experience or is it known prior to/independently of it? Considering how the Buddha seems to be at least partially aware of the pitfalls of induction and abstract reasoning and further still seeing as how paṭiccasamuppāda itself is not a causal model but one of conditional dependency, it stands that paṭiccasamuppāda is analytical a priori knowledge, which is the only true knowledge possible. Given then that A) We are not dealing with a causal model and B) Paṭiccasamuppāda relates to a priori knowledge, I struggle to see how this is incompatible with 3 lives? Given the right trigger and assuming I understand the concepts, and I reason correctly, then I can arrive at understanding paṭiccasamuppāda. Analytically I would know that to die is to have been born, to have been born is to have existed and so on. Going back to conception it would analytically follow that prior there was intention. This puts the 1st two links in the previous life.
I don't see how "repetition", if it existed, would necessarily be a problem. Firstly, every element of paticcasamuppada is a sankhata-dhamma - thus, each and every one is a sankhara. That is simply how it is and "how it is" doesn't need to conform to our expectations of how it ought to be.
Well simply put without 2 or 3 lives you have intention cropping up in the 2nd link and within nāmarūpa. Granted, contact appears twice but this can be explained by the contact of nāmarūpa being there to account for the formless attainments. I struggle to see how 2 intentions can be accounted for? Naturally having the 2nd link prior to conception would remove this problem, with the intention of nāmarūpa accounting for the fresh kamma making in this life. So, to ask again, how do you address the problem of repetition?
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ceisiwr,

I find your mode of explanation hard to relate to and feel that I have already addressed virtually all of what you say and ask here in my earlier post to you - you've either just not understood or not accepted what was said. Whichever the case, that's fine, as I don't particularly wish to litigate it. Thus, I refer you back to my earlier post, whether you found satisfaction in it or not.

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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:10 pm Greetings Ceisiwr,

I find your mode of explanation hard to relate to and feel that I have already addressed virtually all of what you say and ask here in my earlier post to you - you've either just not understood or not accepted what was said. Whichever the case, that's fine, as I don't particularly wish to litigate it. Thus, I refer you back to my earlier post, whether you found satisfaction in it or not.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Ok well could you address the problem of having intention in both the 2nd link and within nāmarūpa, until I find a way to express myself more clearly.
“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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:10 pm Greetings Ceisiwr,

I find your mode of explanation hard to relate to and feel that I have already addressed virtually all of what you say and ask here in my earlier post to you - you've either just not understood or not accepted what was said. Whichever the case, that's fine, as I don't particularly wish to litigate it. Thus, I refer you back to my earlier post, whether you found satisfaction in it or not.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Would you agree that insight into dependent origination occurs in the reverse order, that one looks at the concept of death and arrives at the knowledge that birth is it's necessary condition? Bear with me, I am going somewhere with these questions.
“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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:11 pm Ok well could you address the problem of having intention in both the 2nd link and within nāmarūpa, until I find a way to express myself more clearly.
If the Buddha meant the same thing, he likely would have said the same thing. Instead, he said sankhara and cetana. He didn't ask you to conflate fabrication and intention. Having done so, however, I'm not sure what you expect me or the Buddha to do about?

:shrug:
Would you agree that insight into dependent origination occurs in the reverse order, that one looks at the concept of death and arrives at the knowledge that birth is it's necessary condition? Bear with me, I am going somewhere with these questions.
Insight into it comes through seeing the idappaccayatā principle therein. Since the idappaccayatā principle applies across all the nidana, I don't see any inherent need for it to be in any prescribed order.

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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:25 pm
If the Buddha meant the same thing, he likely would have said the same thing. Instead, he said sankhara and cetana. He didn't ask you to conflate fabrication and intention. Having done so, however, I'm not sure what you expect me or the Buddha to do about?
Ah I see. You do not view the 2nd link as containing intentions. Would that be a fair summary of your position?
Insight into it comes through seeing the idappaccayatā principle therein. Since the idappaccayatā principle applies across all the nidana, I don't see any inherent need for it to be in any prescribed order.
Idappaccayatā refers to the logical principle, yes. Insight is understanding that logical principle in terms of the links two concepts at a time, for example birth and death. Very often, perhaps every time (its been a while since I checked), the understanding arises after reflecting on the reverse order. In other words, understanding that in order to have died one logically must have first been born. This is then applied to all of the concepts in a stepwise manner. Since this is an understanding in terms of logical necessity it can be understood in terms of all of the links even when all the links are not present or currently being experienced. This is why I do not see a contradiction between the 3 lives model and dependent origination. Someone does no have to die to understand the link between birth and death in terms of idappaccayatā. On such a basis the links can be separated by quite some distance in time, yet there can still be knowledge of dependent origination. The logic which binds them is not dependent upon spatiotemporal coordinates.
“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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ceisiwr,
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:44 pm Ah I see. You do not view the 2nd link as containing intentions. Would that be a fair summary of your position?
Ignorance (avijja) gives rise to all manner of fabrications (sankhara), including but not restricted to cetana (intentions) that relate to fabrications.

More broadly, there will be the whirlpool of nama-rupa and vinnana until you become an arahant, so I would not be concerned about repetition in the explanation of the nidanas, other than endeavouring to bring an end to it, in practice.
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:44 pm Idappaccayatā refers to the logical principle, yes. Insight is understanding that logical principle in terms of the links two concepts at a time, for example birth and death.
Yes.
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:44 pmVery often, perhaps every time (its been a while since I checked), the understanding arises after reflecting on the reverse order. In other words, understanding that logically in order to have died one must have first been born. This is then applied to all of the concepts in a stepwise manner. Since this is an understanding in terms of logical necessity it can be understood in terms of all links even when all links are not present or currently being experienced.
That step-wise manner is fine, so long as the terms are understood correctly, and there are no mis-steps. Otherwise, someone overlapping falsely understood concepts over their actual experiences will not help, and will only be an exercise in papanca.

As you know, that step-wise manner was applied by the Buddha and it went back to the nama-rupa/vinnana vortex. There isn't anything preceding that other than the precondition of dependence (sankhara) and its precondition of not-understanding (avijja)... but it's in that whirlpool where fabricated things are initially constructed, before being kicked down the nidanas.
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:44 pmThis is why I do not see a contradiction between the 3 lives model and dependent origination.
I'd say it's not for that reason that there is an issue with the 3-lives-model. The issues are other than that, and some have been articulated in the conversation to date.
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:44 pmSomeone does no have to die to understand the link between birth and death in terms of idappaccayatā.
However, one does need to understand that jati and marana are fabrications, dependent upon avijja (rather than being objectively extant) in order to understand the link in terms of idappaccayatā. Otherwise one is only understanding mundane linear causality.

Maybe spend a few minutes mulling over that paragraph.

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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:00 pm However, one does need to understand that jati and marana are fabrications, dependent upon avijja (rather than being objectively extant) in order to understand the link in terms of idappaccayatā. Otherwise one is only understanding mundane linear causality.
I’ll have to reply to the rest tomorrow. Until then could you expand on what you mean by “objectively extant” and why birth is not that just so things are absolutely clear? Also this:

“Otherwise one is only understanding mundane linear causality.”

Looks like a false dichotomy so far.
“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
Eko Care
Posts: 1107
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:13 am

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

Post by Eko Care »

Selected points from Ajahn Brahmali's points on the relationship of rebirth and paticca samuppada.
Ajahn Brahmali:

the case that dependent origination in the suttas refers to rebirth is very strong. Here is a list of some of the evidence:

• Dependent origination is all about showing the causal origination of suffering. This suffering is throughout the suttas equated with saṃsāric existence and hence rebirth.

• 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 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 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.

• 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.

• 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 interprets dependent origination as spanning across lives.

....

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

Re: Buddhadasa (paticcasamuppada) His comments on the Commentaries

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ceisiwr,
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:17 pm I’ll have to reply to the rest tomorrow.
All good. No rush.
retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:00 pm However, one does need to understand that jati and marana are fabrications, dependent upon avijja (rather than being objectively extant) in order to understand the link in terms of idappaccayatā. Otherwise one is only understanding mundane linear causality.
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:17 pmUntil then could you expand on what you mean by “objectively extant” and why birth is not that just so things are absolutely clear?
Jati is not that, because it is a fabrication, resulting from ignorance. With the cessation of ignorance, sankharas end, and an arahant may rightly say that "jati has ended", and they will know amata (deathless), marananirodha (the cessation of death).

Anything which is “objectively extant” like a rock, planet or a physical body would not be made to cease by virtue of the cessation of ignorance. It could not be nirodha-ed.
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:17 pm “Otherwise one is only understanding mundane linear causality.”

Looks like a false dichotomy so far.
Not really. Even a child can understand than one who is born will die. As my Dad said recently, the probably of that occurring is 1.

That, however, is not understanding idappaccayatā.

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."
Post Reply