Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dinsdale,

I don't think the 3-lives model is well understood by those who criticise it.

Or alternatively, to quote Nanavira Thera...

This Note will take for granted first, that the reader is acquainted with this traditional interpretation, and secondly, that he is dissatisfied with it. It is not therefore proposed to enter into a detailed discussion of this interpretation, but rather to indicate briefly that dissatisfaction with it is not unjustified, and then to outline what may perhaps be found to be a more satisfactory approach.

Metta,
Paul.

[chownah]

My opinion is that DO has nothing to do with 1-2-3 lives or moment-to-moment-ness.

It just shows generally how and why suffering exists, without any kind of precise details. Key to such opinion is Upanisa sutta:

A good quote from the upanisa sutta too but no need to reproduce it as it is right above in your post.

I would just like to add that I think that this general description of how and why suffering exists is of greatest importance in showing that it is not some "self" which manifests the existence of suffering.......it is (in my view) this mistaken idea that there is a self which suffers which is being countered with DO.....and this message can be had by anyone regardless of which of the interpretations they lean toward.
chownah

[justindesilva]

Obviously, the 3 Lives model is not to be understood in this manner. All 12 links exist in every life, but the genius of the Buddha shows when he separates it out so that we see the entire process from 3 different perspectives - the Mechanical in the 1st life, the psycho-physical process in the 2nd life and the philosophical in the 3rd life.

I don't think the 3-lives model is well understood by those who criticise it.

This posting to me is highly accrptible. DO is a process which continues in worlds called Kama loka that is in existence as 11 realms. DO will continue in samsara from a bhava to the next and to the next. It will only cease with avidya which we can achieve by walking through the path explained as arya ashtanga margaya which guides the human beings through our may be starting from this very moment and walking through with sapta sambodyanga.

[Grigoris]

All of the above. Depending on which side of a completed rubik cube one looks at, they will see a different colour.

[DNS]

But that would mean that Thanissaro and Retro would tick the same box, which really doesn't make sense. Their views are quite distinct.

Okay, I updated the poll; so now we all need to re-vote to since updating the poll reset all numbers back to 0.

[2600htz]

Hello:

It depends on the individual.

The Buddha first started thinking about dependent origination in a conceptual way, and how it operated over one lifetime. Then close to his awakening he developed the 3 knowledges (tevijja) and was able see DO operate over many many lifetimes (seeing his past lifetimes and the the passing away & reappearance of other beings). Finally he was able to see it "moment to moment" in the most deepest way, and thats when his taints where destroyed.

Sariputta didn´t have the 3 knowledges so he didn´t have a clue on how DO operates over many lifetimes, seeing DO operate "moment to moment" was enough for him to destroy the taints.

Regards.

[binocular]

My opinion is that DO has nothing to do with 1-2-3 lives or moment-to-moment-ness.

It just shows generally how and why suffering exists, without any kind of precise details. Key to such opinion is Upanisa sutta:

That's how I understand it.
I don't know why all the fuss about it.

[sentinel]

Suffering , is the Theme .

Suffering comes about because of certain conditions . Ignorant is the main cause of suffering .

Ignorant is a Condition of the mind . It does not mean beginning of a lifetime . It is a Condition for sankhara to arise .
So is six sense base , is a Condition for feeling to arise .
So is the Becoming , is a Condition for the arising of birth .
Birth although is a beginning of a lifetime , but , is a Condition for the Aging and Death to occur .

The question is , Ordinary person without practise of the path , Only can see birth , aging and death .

The person whom started to practise , will Start Seeing the sufferings starts from six sense base .
And how the mind develope , processing and causes sufferings .

The person whom are learned and Skilled in the trainings , the mind Attend Wisely can sees that sufferings arises whenever the mind is Unaware , Inattentive , which gives rise to ignorance .

[DNS]

My opinion is that DO has nothing to do with 1-2-3 lives or moment-to-moment-ness.

It just shows generally how and why suffering exists, without any kind of precise details. Key to such opinion is Upanisa sutta:

That's how I understand it.
I don't know why all the fuss about it.

Buddhaghosa (Theravada) and Vasubandhu (Mahayana) both discussed a 3 life model. Either they both came up with the 3 life model on their own or extrapolated it from the teachings, thus the controversy ever since.

And the Abhidhamma discusses momentary mental events in detail, which makes sense from our own analysis of thoughts and their fleeting nature.

[User1249x]

to me it simply means that dependent on X arises Y, if X is not then Y does not arise and it applies to all of the past, present and future. There has never been and never will be an independent arising.

[Sam Vara]

Gombrich makes the interesting observation (I'm not sure if it's true) that DO is unique in that there is an account of the Buddha saying that it is deep and extremely hard to understand. (This is to Ananda at the start of the Maha Nidana Sutta). Normally, the Buddha is portrayed as doing his best to make himself clear. This, for Gombrich, points to the fact that those formulating the text were themselves unsure as to whether they had got it exactly right.

Gombrich's proposed solution to the problems involved in various interpretations - he himself notes that a solution to the problem of suffering involves "getting rid of consciousness" - is that the standard 12-link DO is a composite of two separate ideas. The first list goes back as far as 5 links, to Tanha, and is readily understood as an explication of the idea put forward in the Dhammacakkhappavattana Sutta about craving causing suffering. The first four "problematic" links he sees (following the work of Joanna Jurewicz) as a later ironising of Vedic cosmogonic myths about the arising of existence and consciousness in the universe, and proposes that these got spliced onto the front end of DO when it was realised they provided a good fit. This interpretation is, he says, complementary to the "standard" Buddhist view in that it avoids the problems of repeated phenomena within the sequence, and also adds to our understanding of the no-self doctrine. Without an atman to generate subject and object in the universe, DO is an account of how people are driven deeper into ignorance about themselves.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Gombrich makes the interesting observation (I'm not sure if it's true) that DO is unique in that there is an account of the Buddha saying that it is deep and extremely hard to understand. (This is to Ananda at the start of the Maha Nidana Sutta).

I'd believe it.

But then, given that it is effectively a single "theory" to account for literally all sankata-dhammas, it's impressive that it's simultaneously as streamlined and comprehensive as it is.

Metta,
Paul.

[cappuccino]

people over estimate the importance of DO

remember Buddha saw DO after his enlightenment, not before

[aflatun]

people over estimate the importance of DO

remember Buddha saw DO after his enlightenment, not before

I believe you're underestimating it. For me, Nibbana is in fact synonymous with the seeing of DO, and apart from this there is no Nibbana to speak of.

[Sam Vara]

Greetings,

Gombrich makes the interesting observation (I'm not sure if it's true) that DO is unique in that there is an account of the Buddha saying that it is deep and extremely hard to understand. (This is to Ananda at the start of the Maha Nidana Sutta).

I'd believe it.

But then, given that it is effectively a single "theory" to account for literally all sankata-dhammas, it's impressive that it's simultaneously as streamlined and comprehensive as it is.

Metta,
Paul.

Agreed.

Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising."

(MN 28)