Nirvana is everlasting & without stressdicsoncandra wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:29 pmAssumption refers to upādāna. Freedom from appropriation of phenomena as 'I', 'mine' or 'myself'
hence not boring…
Nirvana is everlasting & without stressdicsoncandra wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:29 pmAssumption refers to upādāna. Freedom from appropriation of phenomena as 'I', 'mine' or 'myself'
Again, you're seeing it at the level of jāti, not bhāva.cappuccino wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:33 pmNirvana is everlasting & without stressdicsoncandra wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:29 pmAssumption refers to upādāna. Freedom from appropriation of phenomena as 'I', 'mine' or 'myself'
hence not boring…
The above is using language alien to Buddha-Dhamma, such as "presence" and "appearance".dicsoncandra wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:06 pm what I hinted was that 'presence, which is always positive, validates itself.' and thus appearance is (i.e., unquestionable and unexplainable), after which I proposed the more pertinent question regarding bhava.
K?the Tathagata wrote:'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."
Buddha wrote:'Does not reappear' doesn't apply.
Hello again. The following paragraphs appear possibly contradictory to me:dicsoncandra wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:29 pm Link to article: https://dicsonstable.wordpress.com/2021 ... ng-at-all/
Ajahn's stamp of approval: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
#1 wrote:Firstly, we need to see that ‘something’ (i.e., whether physical/mental/both) exist only with the presence of consciousness of it (phenomena is present). Presence of phenomena is that which can only be ‘found’, in the form of an experience as a whole.
However, the above paragraphs are not contradictory if "birth" & "death" are regarded as "physical or material" and therefore directly not observable.#2 wrote:To give a sense of how paticcasamuppāda works without going into the specifics, the most general and immediate example would be the process of birth and death, which again is independent of us. One might say that even if one never chose to be born, one can choose to die.
SN 12.20 wrote:And what are the dependently originated phenomena?
Katame ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppannā dhammā?
Old age and death are impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, liable to end, vanish, fade away and cease.
Jarāmaraṇaṁ, bhikkhave, aniccaṁ saṅkhataṁ paṭiccasamuppannaṁ khayadhammaṁ vayadhammaṁ virāgadhammaṁ nirodhadhammaṁ.
Birth is are impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, liable to end, vanish, fade away and cease.
Jāti, bhikkhave, aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā.
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.20/en/sujato
The terminologies aren't used in the Buddha Dhamma but they don't have the notion of phassa to me at all. Phassa can only come to be with the presence and meeting of two things (Sabba Sutta). presence, meeting and consciousness are pre-phassaDooDoot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:56 amThe above is using language alien to Buddha-Dhamma, such as "presence" and "appearance".dicsoncandra wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:06 pm what I hinted was that 'presence, which is always positive, validates itself.' and thus appearance is (i.e., unquestionable and unexplainable), after which I proposed the more pertinent question regarding bhava.
Dependent origination is twelve conditions and it is best to use the language found therein. For example, "presence" and "appearance" sound like "sense contact" ("phassa"). "Sense contact" is not in inherently related to the arising of suffering, which is why there are many suttas referring to the arising of suffering with sense-contact and the cessation of suffering with sense contact. Arahants continue to have sense contact. Sense contact is not inherently related to "bhava", which is why the 2nd Noble Truth in SN 56.11 does not refer to sense contact. It only refers to craving & bhava.
Whilst very pedantic, according to the Pali pundits, it appears the Pali does not accommodate the translation: "the five-assumed-aggregates", which would be similar to "the five-clung-to-aggregates". "Assumed" or "clung-to" are past tense but "upadana" is not past tense. According to the pundits, your Nanamolic translation would have to be: the "five-aggregates-of-assumption" or "the five aggregates subject to assumption" or the "five-assumption-aggregates".The Buddha analyses phenomena, which simultaneously determine the ‘self’, as the five-assumed-aggregates: form, feeling, perception, volitional formation, consciousness.
SN 22.48 says there are two types of five aggregates, namely: (i) mere five aggregates (devoid of attachment/assumption) and (ii) the five aggregates subject to attachment/assumption. Can you or Ajahn Nanamoli quote any suttas that say the five mere aggregates are "dependently originated"? ThanksThey are otherwise called ‘five heaps’ and not ‘one heap of five’ as they too are compounded and dependently co-arisen
I don't understand the above. Please kindly clarify? ThanksThus, the five aggregates are inherently inaccessible to us, unownable
The above sounds wrong. The sutta refer to the "five-clinging-aggregates" rather than the mere five aggregates, as follows::Assumption (or clinging) is neither the same nor different from the five aggregates
"Is it the case, lady, that clinging is the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates or is it something separate?"
"Friend Visakha, neither is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it something separate. Whatever desire & passion there is with regard to the five clinging-aggregates, that is the clinging there."
MN 44
I obviously wrote 'birth' and 'death' are occurences in the present and thus observable here and now? At the start I said they are mere manifestations of existence. Also, see my signature. I try my best to articulate things but honestly I am not responsible for another's non-understanding. If you're really interested on how Ajahn Nyanamoli approaches the Dhamma then you can go straight to the source material. Nitpicking the terminologies won't help though, not if you want to see the context of the teaching and understand itDooDoot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:14 amHello again. The following paragraphs appear possibly contradictory to me:dicsoncandra wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:29 pm Link to article: https://dicsonstable.wordpress.com/2021 ... ng-at-all/
Ajahn's stamp of approval: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing#1 wrote:Firstly, we need to see that ‘something’ (i.e., whether physical/mental/both) exist only with the presence of consciousness of it (phenomena is present). Presence of phenomena is that which can only be ‘found’, in the form of an experience as a whole.However, the above paragraphs are not contradictory if "birth" & "death" are regarded as "physical or material" and therefore directly not observable.#2 wrote:To give a sense of how paticcasamuppāda works without going into the specifics, the most general and immediate example would be the process of birth and death, which again is independent of us. One might say that even if one never chose to be born, one can choose to die.
Does Ajahn Nanamoli teach "jati" & "marana" in Dependent Origiantion are "physical" and therefore not observable?
The suttas say:SN 12.20 wrote:And what are the dependently originated phenomena?
Katame ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppannā dhammā?
Old age and death are impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, liable to end, vanish, fade away and cease.
Jarāmaraṇaṁ, bhikkhave, aniccaṁ saṅkhataṁ paṭiccasamuppannaṁ khayadhammaṁ vayadhammaṁ virāgadhammaṁ nirodhadhammaṁ.
Birth is are impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, liable to end, vanish, fade away and cease.
Jāti, bhikkhave, aniccā saṅkhatā paṭiccasamuppannā khayadhammā vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā.
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.20/en/sujato
The Sabba Sutta is an internet fad and probably some argument against Brahminism. It is best to avoid it.dicsoncandra wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:01 am The terminologies aren't used in the Buddha Dhamma but they don't have the notion of phassa to me at all. Phassa can only come to be with the presence and meeting of two things (Sabba Sutta). presence, meeting and consciousness are pre-phassa
The six classes of contact should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the nose and odours, nose-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six classes of contact should be understood. ’ This is the fourth set of six.
MN 148
Thanks. But you wrote:dicsoncandra wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:07 am I obviously wrote 'birth' and 'death' are occurences in the present and thus observable here and now? At the start I said they are mere manifestations of existence. Also, see my signature. I try my best to articulate things but honestly I am not responsible for another's non-understanding.
You later wrote:To give a sense of how paticcasamuppāda works without going into the specifics, the most general and immediate example would be the process of birth and death, which again is independent of us. One might say that even if one never chose to be born, one can choose to die.
The above is not clear. What exactly is the "birth" occurring in the present? How is "birth" a manifestation of "bhava"? ThanksThus, ‘birth’ and ‘death’ is always an occurrence in the present and that the reality (or possibility) of death, regardless of its manifestation at any given point in time, is directly conditioned upon the manifestation of birth: with birth, death applies.
Ajahn Nyanamoli use of the English language generally eludes me.If you're really interested on how Ajahn Nyanamoli approaches the Dhamma then you can go straight to the source material.
Sorry but i am not nitpicking. You are using alien foreign words and making statements such as: "the process of birth and death, which again is independent of us"; which appear to say birth & death are not objects of direct experience. Sorry but the onus is on you to make your words clear. ThanksNitpicking the terminologies won't help though, not if you want to see the context of the teaching and understand it
I'm not very confident in my understanding of paticcasamuppāda in regard to the six sense-bases hence why I avoided writing about it. But from my currently limited understanding, that is incorrect (edit: with regard to equating them one to one the way you did), but I will have to refer back to the source material and I will. I refrain from explaining on this and would refer you direct to the source. Also, the articulations are my own, not the Ajahn's. I picked up some of his terminologies and freely wrote on it based on my understanding without anyone else's guidance or supervisionDooDoot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:14 amThe Sabba Sutta is an internet fad and probably some argument against Brahminism. It is best to avoid it.dicsoncandra wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:01 am The terminologies aren't used in the Buddha Dhamma but they don't have the notion of phassa to me at all. Phassa can only come to be with the presence and meeting of two things (Sabba Sutta). presence, meeting and consciousness are pre-phassa
The Suttas say phassa can only come to be with the presence and meeting of three things, namely, internal sense organ, external sense object and sense consciousness (MN 148), as follows:The six classes of contact should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the nose and odours, nose-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six classes of contact should be understood. ’ This is the fourth set of six.
MN 148
Therefore, either you &/or Nanamoli are saying:
1. presence = external sense object
2. meeting = internal sense organ
3. consciousness = sense consciousness
Is this correct? Thanks Its good if we can clarify the terminology used 1st.
The reason why I wrote 'process' is because this is a generic English word but later on the reader would see that it gives the false impression. I'll revisit DW later, I got work to do as a layman. I'll re-look into the exact wordin whether manifestation of bhava or so on. with bhava, jati is. perhaps 'manifestation' is better applied on the phenomena not on bhava, I'll re-read and reconsider. Try writing one and see how tricky it isDooDoot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:23 amThanks. But you wrote:dicsoncandra wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:07 am I obviously wrote 'birth' and 'death' are occurences in the present and thus observable here and now? At the start I said they are mere manifestations of existence. Also, see my signature. I try my best to articulate things but honestly I am not responsible for another's non-understanding.You later wrote:To give a sense of how paticcasamuppāda works without going into the specifics, the most general and immediate example would be the process of birth and death, which again is independent of us. One might say that even if one never chose to be born, one can choose to die.The above is not clear. What exactly is the "birth" occurring in the present? How is "birth" a manifestation of "bhava"? ThanksThus, ‘birth’ and ‘death’ is always an occurrence in the present and that the reality (or possibility) of death, regardless of its manifestation at any given point in time, is directly conditioned upon the manifestation of birth: with birth, death applies.Ajahn Nyanamoli use of the English language generally eludes me.If you're really interested on how Ajahn Nyanamoli approaches the Dhamma then you can go straight to the source material.Sorry but i am not nitpicking. You are using alien foreign words and making statements such as: "the process of birth and death, which again is independent of us"; which appear to say birth & death are not objects of direct experience. Sorry but the onus is on you to make your words clear. ThanksNitpicking the terminologies won't help though, not if you want to see the context of the teaching and understand it
idk if you're being sarcastic but I can tell you that I do take your inputs and have amended it accordingly where I see fit. I can take criticisms but please be nice, that's all