Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by zan »

The contemporary understanding of dependent origination seems to be that it is a tool to utterly discredit and refute literally everything, including itself, until literally nothing whatsoever, including dependent origination, the four noble truths, the dhamma, and nibbana exist, and cease to have any relevance whatsoever, in any and all ways. This point bears repeating: Per the common understanding of dependent origination, even nibbana, which is regularly stated to be independent, and ultimately existing and supramundane, absolutely does not exist in any way whatsoever(see very bottom of this post). This does not fit exactly with the Pali suttas, which, of course, declare nibbana as existent (Ud 8.1, Ud 8.3, Iti 44, etc. see below), the dhamma and four noble truths as existent (AN 3.136 and SN 12.20, SN 56.20) etc.

Where can we find a work that specifically compares the later understanding, as a tool of extreme refutation, with the earlier understanding? Does anyone know of such a thing?
Nibbana is an existing reality, an article by Bhikkhu Bodhi

Regarding the nature of Nibbana, the question is often asked: Does Nibbana signify only extinction of the defilements and liberation from samsara or does it signify some reality existing in itself? Nibbana is not only the destruction of defilements and the end of samsara but a reality transcendent to the entire world of mundane experience, a reality transcendent to all the realms of phenomenal existence.

The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". 'Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things. Dhammas are of two types, conditioned and unconditioned. A conditioned dhamma is an actuality which has come into being through causes or conditions, something which arises through the workings of various conditions. The conditioned dhammas are the five aggregates: material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. The conditioned dhammas, do not remain static. They go through a ceaseless process of becoming. They arise, undergo transformation and fall away due to its conditionality.

However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions. It has the opposite characteristics from the conditioned: it has no arising, no falling away and it undergoes no transformation. Nevertheless, it is an actuality, and the Buddha refers to Nibbana as an unconditioned Dhamma.

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere. It is a sphere where there is nothing at all that correspond to our mundane experience, and therefore it has to be described by way of negations as the negation of all the limited and determinate qualities of conditioned things.

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a, 'Dhatu' an element, the 'deathless element'. He compares the element of Nibbana to an ocean. He says that just as the great ocean remains at the same level no matter how much water pours into it from the rivers, without increase or decrease, so the Nibbana element remains the same, no matter whether many or few people attain Nibbana.

He also speaks of Nibbana as something that can be experienced by the body, an experience that is so vivid, so powerful, that it can be described as "touching the deathless element with one's own body."

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a 'state' ('pada') as 'amatapada' - the deathless state - or accutapada, the imperishable state.

Another word used by the Buddha to refer to Nibbana is 'Sacca', which means 'truth', an existing reality. This refers to Nibbana as the truth, a reality that the Noble ones have known through direct experience.

So all these terms, considered as a whole, clearly establish that Nibbana is an actual reality and not the mere destruction of defilements or the cessation of existence. Nibbana is unconditioned, without any origination and is timeless.

-Bhikkhu Bodhi
One of many examples:
Both samsara and nirvana,
Neither of these two exists;
The thorough understanding of cyclic existence
This is referred to as "nirvana"
-Nagarjuna, Sixty Stanzas, verse 6
Last edited by zan on Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by cappuccino »

zan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:55 pm even nibbana … does not exist in any way whatsoever.
modern Buddhists think in terms of annihilation


the result of thinking of no self



Ananda Sutta
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by Ceisiwr »

zan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:55 pm
does not exist in any way whatsoever
No one says this.
“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
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:04 pm
zan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:55 pm
does not exist in any way whatsoever
No one says this.
Nirvana is a realm, or dimension
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by Coëmgenu »

zan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:55 pmThe contemporary understanding of dependent origination seems to be that it is a tool to utterly discredit and refute literally everything, including itself, until literally nothing whatsoever, including dependent origination, the four noble truths, the dhamma, and nibbana exist, and cease to have any relevance whatsoever, in any and all ways.
This seems to be something that you think, not something thought by people who are "contemporary."
cappuccino wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:06 pmNirvana is a realm, or dimension
:quote: Dimension :quote:
:quote: Realm :quote:

Your notion of Nibbāna is as the Siddhaloka.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by SDC »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:04 pm
zan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:55 pm
does not exist in any way whatsoever
No one says this.
Agreed.
zan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:55 pm The contemporary understanding of dependent origination…
Can you provide a source for your claim that this is a common understanding? I don’t think I’ve seen anyone put it together quite like that.
“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
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by cappuccino »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:21 pm Dimension
Realm :quote:
“There is that sphere where there is no earth, no water, no fire nor wind; no sphere of infinity of space, of infinity of consciousness, of nothingness or even of neither-perception-nor non-perception; there, there is neither this world nor the other world, neither moon nor sun; this sphere I call neither a coming nor a going nor a staying still, neither a dying nor a reappearance; it has no basis, no evolution and no support: this, just this, is the end of dukkha.”
~ Ud 8.1
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by Ontheway »

To OP, there are many modern teachings of DO nowadays... depends on which one you take...

(1) You have the 1-life DO that doesn't involved rebirth, and mix & match with modern "Wisdom". It emphasizes on daily activities like drinking water, how we act in such way.


In this video description, he said he learned the real teachings of DO from Mahānidāna Sutta. And he argued that since everything is dependent arisen, then the universe is dependant arisen too. Dependent on what? The Goddess Shakti. So, according to him, Paṭiccasamuppāda verifies the existence of a mighty creator (in his case, the Goddess Shakti).


(2) And you have this DO by Ven. Vimalaramsi, quite similar to the first guy, also 1-life and involves how a person perceives things.

But different from the above, this DO doesn't involves a Creator.


(3) And this is interesting teaching from LP Dhammavuddho, this is 1-life + rebirth, yet he taught that "Viññāṇa paccaya Namarupa", and that consciousness arises, Namarupa also arises at the same time. But when consciousnesses ceases, the Namarupa also ceases at the same time. So, as consciousness arises and ceases nonstop during our lifetime, so too, the Namarupa arises and ceases nonstop following consciousnesses. And btw, he taught that according to real Early Buddhadhamma, there is indeed a "Soul" and it was supported by Nikayas (on his website and YouTube channel).


Interestingly, in the beginning of the video, LP Dhammavuddho said according to Buddha's teachings, adherence to bhikkhu Vinaya rules (as prescribed in Vinaya Pitaka) can be a form of "Silabbata paramasa". If the monk is too attach to Vinaya rules, then he cannot attain Sotapanna. (🤔 I remember Arahant Upali Thera)

(4) Next, now this guy is different. He said according to early Buddhism, the first three links were never explained clearly and their connection is obscure. He quoted Joana and Richard (Buddhism scholars), that the first three links are invented to satirise Vedic cosmology.



(5) Next, we have Ajahn Brahmali, a champion of EBT. He taught that Paṭiccasamuppāda is indeed dealing with rebirth (not just 1-life, but also next life). One thing is very different between him and the above is, Ajahn Brahmali actually knows the mechanism of "Viññāṇa paccaya Namarupa", and recognised the Viññāṇa here is rebirth consciousness. When the consciousness established in another realm, there it develops life.



But one thing I noticed here that near end of the video (35:23), Ajahn said "...there can be no rebirth, because there is nowhere the consciousness can go..."

That would mean the consciousness of an Arahant still exists after physical body death and lingers around, but did not land on any realm due to "nowhere to go".


(6) And then, we have this YouTuber explains the Paṭiccasamuppāda in concise way.

Basically, according to him, Paṭiccasamuppāda is just a mechanism how our senses perceive the world (but I think biology is more grandeur in explanation).


(7) Then, we also have Suttavada (of course, as the name suggests, Abhidhamma Pitaka and Atthakatha were all rejected). Now this teaching is quite similar to 1-life too. The "Jati" here is treated as literal bodily action. The Bhava is the sense of "I". When comes to the link "Viññāṇa paccaya Namarupa", he just skip it, but then mention consciousnesses at "Jati", how the consciousnesses from "Viññāṇa paccaya Namarupa" link gives rise "Jati". A big jump right there instead of linear explanation like those previous ones. The video also taught that there is no sense of "I", then it is equivalent to "no more craving".


There are more different styles actually, I guess there will be more "latest" interpretation too...but the point is...

Depends on which one you take, the outcome or the definition of "Nibbana" can be very different.

For me, I'm taking orthodox explanation of Theravada given in Pāli Tipitaka canon and Atthakatha, preserved via "Theriya-parampāra". The explanation is very different from all those explanation above. But since this is General Theravada forum, I wouldn't put it here.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by zan »

Ontheway wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:56 pm To OP, there are many modern teachings of DO nowadays... depends on which one you take...

(1) You have the 1-life DO that doesn't involved rebirth, and mix & match with modern "Wisdom". It emphasizes on daily activities like drinking water, how we act in such way.


In this video description, he said he learned the real teachings of DO from Mahānidāna Sutta. And he argued that since everything is dependent arisen, then the universe is dependant arisen too. Dependent on what? The Goddess Shakti. So, according to him, Paṭiccasamuppāda verifies the existence of a mighty creator (in his case, the Goddess Shakti).


(2) And you have this DO by Ven. Vimalaramsi, quite similar to the first guy, also 1-life and involves how a person perceives things.

But different from the above, this DO doesn't involves a Creator.


(3) And this is interesting teaching from LP Dhammavuddho, this is 1-life + rebirth, yet he taught that "Viññāṇa paccaya Namarupa", and that consciousness arises, Namarupa also arises at the same time. But when consciousnesses ceases, the Namarupa also ceases at the same time. So, as consciousness arises and ceases nonstop during our lifetime, so too, the Namarupa arises and ceases nonstop following consciousnesses. And btw, he taught that according to real Early Buddhadhamma, there is indeed a "Soul" and it was supported by Nikayas (on his website and YouTube channel).


Interestingly, in the beginning of the video, LP Dhammavuddho said according to Buddha's teachings, adherence to bhikkhu Vinaya rules (as prescribed in Vinaya Pitaka) can be a form of "Silabbata paramasa". If the monk is too attach to Vinaya rules, then he cannot attain Sotapanna. (🤔 I remember Arahant Upali Thera)

(4) Next, now this guy is different. He said according to early Buddhism, the first three links were never explained clearly and their connection is obscure. He quoted Joana and Richard (Buddhism scholars), that the first three links are invented to satirise Vedic cosmology.



(5) Next, we have Ajahn Brahmali, a champion of EBT. He taught that Paṭiccasamuppāda is indeed dealing with rebirth (not just 1-life, but also next life). One thing is very different between him and the above is, Ajahn Brahmali actually knows the mechanism of "Viññāṇa paccaya Namarupa", and recognised the Viññāṇa here is rebirth consciousness. When the consciousness established in another realm, there it develops life.



But one thing I noticed here that near end of the video (35:23), Ajahn said "...there can be no rebirth, because there is nowhere the consciousness can go..."

That would mean the consciousness of an Arahant still exists after physical body death and lingers around, but did not land on any realm due to "nowhere to go".


(6) And then, we have this YouTuber explains the Paṭiccasamuppāda in concise way.

Basically, according to him, Paṭiccasamuppāda is just a mechanism how our senses perceive the world (but I think biology is more grandeur in explanation).


(7) Then, we also have Suttavada (of course, as the name suggests, Abhidhamma Pitaka and Atthakatha were all rejected). Now this teaching is quite similar to 1-life too. The "Jati" here is treated as literal bodily action. The Bhava is the sense of "I". When comes to the link "Viññāṇa paccaya Namarupa", he just skip it, but then mention consciousnesses at "Jati", how the consciousnesses from "Viññāṇa paccaya Namarupa" link gives rise "Jati". A big jump right there instead of linear explanation like those previous ones. The video also taught that there is no sense of "I", then it is equivalent to "no more craving".


There are more different styles actually, I guess there will be more "latest" interpretation too...but the point is...

Depends on which one you take, the outcome or the definition of "Nibbana" can be very different.

For me, I'm taking orthodox explanation of Theravada given in Pāli Tipitaka canon and Atthakatha, preserved via "Theriya-parampāra". The explanation is very different from all those explanation above. But since this is General Theravada forum, I wouldn't put it here.
Thank you so much!
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by zan »

SDC wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:22 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:04 pm
zan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:55 pm
does not exist in any way whatsoever
No one says this.
Agreed.
zan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:55 pm The contemporary understanding of dependent origination…
Can you provide a source for your claim that this is a common understanding? I don’t think I’ve seen anyone put it together quite like that.
I don't understand this. It is claimed that I'm wrong by stating that what I'm saying is totally unfounded, like no one has ever said it before, and I'm the only one that believes such, while completely ignoring all the evidence I provide, and then evidence is asked for. It is mind boggling. 99% of the time I ignore it, because it necessarily is a circular process that is meaningless, and is a very common tactic, but I'll bite, just this once, and provide further explanation and evidence, which I'm sure will be ignored, or said is not relevant, or not true based on one or two words being slightly different, or some other method, like that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source, despite the articles quoted using well researched books as sources, and despite me providing properly sourced references, including references from works directly attributed to Nagarjuna, that demonstrate my point. All that said, please read below for sources for my claims:

I just posted the quote above where Nagarjuna specifically states that neither samsara, nor nirvana exist, and I reiterated this notion in paraphrase, which was inexplicably replied to with "no one says this." and "agreed", I'll post it again below, with further supporting texts (see note 1). Coupled with the fact that the Buddhist world is majority Mahayana, and takes Nagarjuna as authoritative (see note 2), and he equated dependent origination with emptiness, and made that the basis for him to refute literally everything (see note 1), this means that the most common understanding of dependent origination is that samsara and nibbana do not exist. Since samsara and nibbana are all that exist, then nothing exists.

The Theravada position is that nibbana does exist, again I demonstrated this above too, and I'll do again below. The Theravada position is also that dhammas exist as well, and that mind, mental factors, matter and nibbana are ultimate realities, and have intrinsic nature, which is precisely what Nagarjuna claimed that absolutely nothing has. (see note 3).

There is a great deal of support for Nagarjuna on this forum, so that can be evidence of the Mahayana position even in Theravada. One example, if you want more, keep reading, read other threads, too, do a search.

Mahayana is the most common form of Buddhism in our contemporary times. Mahayana believes in Nagarjuna's teachings. Nagarjuna taught that nibbana doesn't exist, and neither does anything else. Nagarjuna taught that this is explained via dependent origination, which he sees as identical with emptiness.

In the Mulamadhyamakakarika, Nagarjuna goes through, point by point, and says every single thing does not exist, even the elements that make up matter, and consciousness, and ostensibly demonstrates that this is true.

1.)
Both samsara and nirvana,
Neither of these two exists
;
The thorough understanding of cyclic existence
This is referred to as "nirvana"
-Nagarjuna, Sixty Stanzas, verse 6
There is no distinction whatsoever between samsara and nirvana; and there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvana and samsara.
-Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika, chapter 25
Within the Madhyamaka school, svabhava is used to describe the concept of sunyata (emptiness). In this context, svabhava is the "essence" or "inherenent existence" that things are empty of. This concept is central to Madhyamaka reasoning, in which Nagarjuna asserts that anything that arises due to causes and conditions can have no inherent existence (svabhava).
-encyclopedia of Buddhism
In his Madhyamakālaṃkāra (verses 92-93), Śāntarakṣita says:

By relying on the Mind Only (cittamatra), know that external entities do not exist. And by relying on this [madhyamaka] system, know that no self at all exists, even in that [mind]. Therefore, due to holding the reigns of logic as one rides the chariots of the two systems, one attains [the path of] the actual Mahayanist.
-Wikipedia page on Madhyamaka
In his writings, Nagarjuna attempts to show that any theory of intrinsic nature is contradicted by the Buddha's theory of dependent origination, since anything that has an independent existence cannot be dependently originated. The śūnyavāda philosophers were adamant that their denial of svabhāva is not a kind of nihilism (against protestations to the contrary by their opponents).[134]

Using the two truths theory, Madhyamaka claims that while one can speak of things existing in a conventional, relative sense, they do not exist inherently in an ultimate sense. Madhyamaka also argues that emptiness itself is also "empty", it does not have an absolute inherent existence of its own. It is also not to be understood as a transcendental absolute reality. Instead, the emptiness theory is merely a useful concept that should not be clung to. In fact, for Madhyamaka, since everything is empty of true existence, all things are just conceptualizations (prajñapti-matra), including the theory of emptiness, and all concepts must ultimately be abandoned in order to truly understand the nature of things.[135]
-Wikipedia page on Mahayana
2.)
Branch
Percentage
Number of Adherents
Mahayana
56%
185,000,000
Theravada
38%
124,000,000
Vajrayana (Tibetan)
6%
20,000,000
-Buddhanet
Nāgārjuna (c. 150 – c. 250 CE; simplified Chinese: 龙树; traditional Chinese: 龍樹; pinyin: Lóngshù; Tibetan: མགོན་པོ་ཀླུ་སྒྲུབ་, Wylie: mGon po Klu sgrub) was an Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist thinker, scholar-saint and philosopher. He is widely considered one of the most important Buddhist philosophers.[2] Furthermore, according to Jan Westerhoff, he is also "one of the greatest thinkers in the history of Asian philosophy."
-Wikipedia page on Nagarjuna
Madhyamaka ("middle way" or "centrism"; Chinese: 中觀見; pinyin: Zhōngguān Jìan; Tibetan: དབུ་མ་པ ; dbu ma pa) also known as śūnyavāda (the emptiness doctrine) and niḥsvabhāvavāda (the no svabhāva doctrine) refers to a tradition of Buddhist philosophy and practice founded by the Indian philosopher Nāgārjuna (c. 150 – c. 250 CE).[1][2] The foundational text of the mādhyamaka tradition is Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Root Verses on the Middle Way). More broadly, madhyamaka also refers to the ultimate nature of phenomena as well as the non-conceptual realization of ultimate reality that is experienced in meditation.[3]

Madhyamaka thought had a major influence on the subsequent development of the Mahayana Buddhist tradition. It is the dominant interpretation of Buddhist philosophy in Tibetan Buddhism and has also been influential in East Asian Buddhist thought.[4]
-Wikipedia page on Madhyamaka

3.)
Madhyamaka ("middle way" or "centrism"; Chinese: 中觀見; pinyin: Zhōngguān Jìan; Tibetan: དབུ་མ་པ ; dbu ma pa) also known as śūnyavāda (the emptiness doctrine) and niḥsvabhāvavāda (the no svabhāva doctrine)
-Wikipedia on Madhyamaka
It is the dhammas alone that possess ultimate reality: determinate existence “from their own side” (sarupato) independent of the minds conceptual processing of the data. Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha’s disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc.,…

Thus by examining the conventional realities with wisdom, we eventually arrive at the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs. It is these objective actualities – the dhammas, which maintain their intrinsic natures independent of the mind’s constructive functions…

...

...the commentaries consummate the dhamma theory by supplying the formal definition of dhammas as "things which bear their own intrinsic nature" (attano sabhavam dharenti ti dhamma).

...concretely produced matter...possess intrinsic natures and are thus suitable for contemplation and comprehension by insight.

Great seers who are free from craving declare that Nibbana is an
objective state which is deathless, absolutely endless, unconditioned,
and unsurpassed.
Thus as fourfold the Tathagatas reveal the ultimate realities—
consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, Acariya Anuruddha, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pages 3, 15, 26, 235, 260
Nibbana is an existing reality, an article by Bhikkhu Bodhi

Regarding the nature of Nibbana, the question is often asked: Does Nibbana signify only extinction of the defilements and liberation from samsara or does it signify some reality existing in itself? Nibbana is not only the destruction of defilements and the end of samsara but a reality transcendent to the entire world of mundane experience, a reality transcendent to all the realms of phenomenal existence.

The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". 'Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things. Dhammas are of two types, conditioned and unconditioned. A conditioned dhamma is an actuality which has come into being through causes or conditions, something which arises through the workings of various conditions. The conditioned dhammas are the five aggregates: material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. The conditioned dhammas, do not remain static. They go through a ceaseless process of becoming. They arise, undergo transformation and fall away due to its conditionality.

However, the unconditioned dhamma is not produced by causes and conditions. It has the opposite characteristics from the conditioned: it has no arising, no falling away and it undergoes no transformation. Nevertheless, it is an actuality, and the Buddha refers to Nibbana as an unconditioned Dhamma.

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as an 'ayatana'. This means realm, plane or sphere. It is a sphere where there is nothing at all that correspond to our mundane experience, and therefore it has to be described by way of negations as the negation of all the limited and determinate qualities of conditioned things.

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a, 'Dhatu' an element, the 'deathless element'. He compares the element of Nibbana to an ocean. He says that just as the great ocean remains at the same level no matter how much water pours into it from the rivers, without increase or decrease, so the Nibbana element remains the same, no matter whether many or few people attain Nibbana.

He also speaks of Nibbana as something that can be experienced by the body, an experience that is so vivid, so powerful, that it can be described as "touching the deathless element with one's own body."

The Buddha also refers to Nibbana as a 'state' ('pada') as 'amatapada' - the deathless state - or accutapada, the imperishable state.

Another word used by the Buddha to refer to Nibbana is 'Sacca', which means 'truth', an existing reality. This refers to Nibbana as the truth, a reality that the Noble ones have known through direct experience.

So all these terms, considered as a whole, clearly establish that Nibbana is an actual reality and not the mere destruction of defilements or the cessation of existence. Nibbana is unconditioned, without any origination and is timeless.

-Bhikkhu Bodhi
Nibbāna is Real
Since nibbāna means the cessation of mind, matter, and mental formations, suggestions have often been put forward that it signifies nothing and is thus useless. However, nibbāna is absolute reality, the reality of the nullification of the activities of mind, matter, and mental formations to which the knowledge of the Path, Fruition, and reviewing (paccavekkhaṇa) is inclined. It is the mind-object to which this knowledge is directed. Buddhas, Arahants, and Noble Ones vouch for the truth of its reality. For the sake of argument, let us say that there is no nibbāna where all the cycles of defilement, actions, and results cease. Then no one in this Universe can find peace. In the absence of nibbāna, defilement will play havoc with our lives to produce action, which will bring about results, which will create conditions for the arising of a new group of aggregates attended by suffering. It is only the Path and its Fruition that can exterminate defilements, and this extermination will bring the cycle of suffering to an end. This cessation of suffering is real. Buddhas and Arahants actually reach this stage, and after their parinibbāna all sufferings come to an end.
-Mahasi Sayadaw, On the Nature of Nibbana
All that said, I feel like I'm on the end of a joke of some kind. I posted an actual quote of Nagarjuna saying neither samsara nor nirvana exist in the original post for this thread, then paraphrased that statement, and got a reply from a user stating that "no one says this" and then "agreed" from a different user. Considering these replies are obviously, necessarily incorrect, as is easily demonstrated by the post they are responding to, I can only assume someone is having a laugh. No one reads a direct quote of a widely influential authority on a topic, and its paraphrased form, and than says "no one says this." and "agreed" unless they're trying to be funny. Thus, since this seems to be silliness, I'll stop biting at this bait which is just leading me into a joke.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by SDC »

zan wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 9:34 pm
SDC wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:22 pm

Can you provide a source for your claim that this is a common understanding? I don’t think I’ve seen anyone put it together quite like that.
I don't understand this. It is claimed that I'm wrong...
I never said you were wrong that it is an interpretation but presenting it as a "contemporary understanding" on a forum where practically no one has ever claimed it as a view is strange mainly because this audience would never defend it. Plain and simple, it is not something most Theravadins would ever support, so in that respect it isn't common at all. Something I always try to convey to you is that your topics are often critical - and rightfully so - of armchair Buddhist views that we all already think are sort of ridiculous. I think you always present a thorough case and always enjoy your dedication to your topics, but they are often presented as if those views are being thoroughly propagated here and that you're trying to show otherwise. I just don't think that is the case here, nor is it at all prevalent in the broader Theravadin or EBT community. Not that I've seen. That's likely what Ceiswir meant and that is why I agreed. Didn't mean to offend.
“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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by Ceisiwr »

zan wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 9:34 pm
...
To Ven. Nāgārjuna even emptiness is empty, and so ultimately he doesn't have a position at all. Non-existence and emptiness too are concepts. What Ven. Nāgārjuna is doing when he talks of emptiness is to show the absurdity of thinking that anything does or does not exist. Conventionally we can say things exist or do not exist, but to Ven. Nāgārjuna that is all they are. Concepts.

That is far as I understand him at any rate, based on his MMK and some works of Ven. Chandrakirti. Others here are more knowledgeable than me when it comes to Madhyamaka
“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
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by SDC »

zan wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 9:34 pm
SDC wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:22 pm

Can you provide a source for your claim that this is a common understanding? I don’t think I’ve seen anyone put it together quite like that.
I don't understand this. It is claimed that I'm wrong...
I never said you were wrong that it is an interpretation but presenting it as a "contemporary understanding" on a forum where practically no one has ever claimed it as a view is strange mainly because this audience would never defend it. Plain and simple, it is not something most Theravadins would ever support, so in that respect it isn't common at all. Something I always try to convey to you is that your topics are often critical - and rightfully so - of armchair Buddhist views that we all already think are sort of ridiculous. I think you always present a thorough case and always enjoy your dedication to your topics, but they are often presented as if those views are being thoroughly propagated here and that you're trying to show otherwise. I just don't think that is the case here, nor is it at all prevalent in the broader Theravadin or EBT community. Not that I've seen. That's likely what Ceiswir meant and that is why I agreed. Didn't mean to offend.
“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
Rambutan
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:35 pm

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by Rambutan »

zan wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:55 pm The contemporary understanding of dependent origination seems to be that it is a tool to utterly discredit and refute literally everything, including itself, until literally nothing whatsoever, including dependent origination, the four noble truths, the dhamma, and nibbana exist, and cease to have any relevance whatsoever, in any and all ways.
I think this is a mistaken assumption.
The Buddhist theory ofDependent origination merely refutes the impression that the appearances of phenomena do not conditionally arise from aggregates. With regards to nibbana et al, it doesn’t mean there is no nibbana, no Dhamma, and so on. But there is no nibbana-ness. There is no Dhamma that exists in a vacuum; it is a method for the cessation of suffering. In that sense, it is conditional, hence, dependently existent. If there were no guest Noble truth, there would be no reason for the reasoning of the second, no need to suggest the Third, and no cause for recommending the fourth. They are all conditionally, thus dependently, arising.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Where is there a juxtaposition of early dependent origination against its later use as extreme refutation?

Post by zan »

SDC wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 9:54 pm
zan wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 9:34 pm
SDC wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:22 pm

Can you provide a source for your claim that this is a common understanding? I don’t think I’ve seen anyone put it together quite like that.
I don't understand this. It is claimed that I'm wrong...
I never said you were wrong that it is an interpretation but presenting it as a "contemporary understanding" on a forum where practically no one has ever claimed it as a view is strange mainly because this audience would never defend it. Plain and simple, it is not something most Theravadins would ever support, so in that respect it isn't common at all. Something I always try to convey to you is that your topics are often critical - and rightfully so - of armchair Buddhist views that we all already think are sort of ridiculous. I think you always present a thorough case and always enjoy your dedication to your topics, but they are often presented as if those views are being thoroughly propagated here and that you're trying to show otherwise. I just don't think that is the case here, nor is it at all prevalent in the broader Theravadin or EBT community. Not that I've seen. That's likely what Ceiswir meant and that is why I agreed. Didn't mean to offend.
First, I have to apologize for all of my words on this specific issue here. I am usually extremely good at ignoring these things, as one can discern simply by looking at my posts, many responses like the ones that started this issue go completely ignored by me, as I know they are obviously false to anyone paying even a bit of attention. Yet, I let this one get to me this time. I'm sorry for that, and I can say it will be a long time before I engage with these kinds of responses again. I'd like to say I never will, but who knows?

You and the other user expressed clear incredulity toward the idea that anyone holds the position I was articulating, that's pretty much the same as saying that it is wrong that it is an interpretation that anyone (but me supposedly) holds. Again, the juxtaposition is the common understanding (by which I meant, and the word usually denotes, some kind of majority position), which happens to be Mahayana (since they are the majority), against the traditional Theravada view. I never said it was a majority position in Theravada, and didn't even make any claim about it being a position in Theravada at all until after your reply, and that was only in passing, to demonstrate that it has some relevance here, as it has a great deal of (by which I did not mean majority, just a significant amount of) support. Thus, the reactions to me demonstrating the position, as held by an undeniable authority in the most common school, being "no one says that" and "agreed" come off as some kind of joke, since they simply are obviously false.

The repeated response I get to many of my posts is that supposedly no one on this forum holds the views I refute. Yet this is demonstrably false by simply searching this forum. Also, frequently some users in the very thread where this statement was made confirm that they hold the position I am refuting. One example: I refute the "all is mind/external reality does not exist" position from a classical Theravada position. Users claim that no one on this forum holds that position, and that I misunderstand other positions as such. But then a few posts later, it is confirmed that, lo and behold, users do in fact believe that external reality does not exist (or all is mind, or whatever rendition of this idea). I even made a poll and a significant number of users selected that they hold that mind independent reality does not exist, or that the only mind independent reality is nibbana. And, again, search the forum, and you'll find many posts where users promote something akin to "all is mind/unreal/external reality does not exist." Thus, the common technique is to make it sound like I alone present certain positions, and thus only refute straw men. Luckily for me, this is easily demonstrated as completely false.

It seems pretty clear that anything goes Buddhism is something many are uncomfortable equating with the Theravada name, and so when such positions are pointed out, they are denied entirely even as existing at all.

But, I shouldn't be responding to replies that are obviously some kind of joke, or otherwise just a disingenuous statement that ultimately seeks to unfairly discredit a position that is held by many, as something that literally no one holds (but me supposedly).

So, I will close this by apologizing for responding. I should not have let this get to me. You and the rest of the forum deserve better, and people deserve to see things for themselves rather than have me blather on like this and spell it out repeatedly, wasting everyone's time.

I will now go back to rarely using this forum, and, when I do, responding only to replies that will make for productive conversation, rather than something like the above.

Again, I'm sincerely sorry for this verbose blathering, somewhat defensive response.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Post Reply