Sutta where the Buddha declares that everything is dependently originated?

[chownah]

I'm still trying to find sn12.81 where it uses the term "ignorant-contact".

Sorry. Its SN 22.81

Thanks for the correction. I read it and thought about it and it does seem that this sutta is making a clear statement pointing at contact being associated with ignorance....with its (seemingly) explicit association of the two it seems that there must be some other kind of contact i.e. a kind of contact not associated with ignorance.

I think that MN 121 PTS: M iii 104 Cula-suññata Sutta: The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness talks about this:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... html#fnt-1

"He discerns that 'This theme-less concentration of awareness is fabricated & mentally fashioned.' And he discerns that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.' For him — thus knowing, thus seeing — the mind is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed.

This seems to show that after discerning the qualities of the themeless concentration of awareness that nibanna is attained (release...ending of birth...nothing further for this world)....and of special note is it saying that the only thing remaining is "the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition"......this not only agrees with your idea that the arahant's five sensory spheres are not arisen from ignorance but it also indicates the dependence and condition from which it does arise. This seems to be pretty solid support for your assertions vis a vis the arising of an arahant's sense media.

But.....it also says "There is nothing further for this world" which I think is important in our particular discussion in which I said:

Since the six sense fields is dependently originated according to text #1 then it seems to follow that the World (as defined in the Loka suttas) and The All (as defined in The All sutta) are also dependently originated....I guess...don't know for sure....

Since the arahant's sense media arise as "nothing further for this world" then they can not be used as an example of something in the world which arises without dependence on ignorance because they are not in the world......or viewed from a different angle the arahant's sense media is not part of the World nor of the All which is where all "things" (dhammas) arise.....so perhaps my assertion still holds.....I guess....don't know for sure....
chownah

[DooDoot]

nothing further for this world

The above appears to refer to "the task is done". Note: the word "loka" ("world") actually does not exist in the phrase. Refer to here.

They understand: ‘Birth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’

‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ, nāparaṃ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti.

The word Ven. Thanissaro translates as "world" is "itthatta".

[chownah]

I take "there is no return to any state of existence" to mean the same as "nothing further for this world".
chownah

[SteRo]

I'm still trying to find sn12.81 where it uses the term "ignorant-contact".

...
I think that MN 121 PTS: M iii 104 Cula-suññata Sutta: The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness talks about this:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... html#fnt-1

"He discerns that 'This theme-less concentration of awareness is fabricated & mentally fashioned.' And he discerns that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.' For him — thus knowing, thus seeing — the mind is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed.

This seems to show that after discerning the qualities of the themeless concentration of awareness that nibanna is attained (release...ending of birth...nothing further for this world)....and of special note is it saying that the only thing remaining is "the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition"......this not only agrees with your idea that the arahant's five sensory spheres are not arisen from ignorance but it also indicates the dependence and condition from which it does arise. This seems to be pretty solid support for your assertions vis a vis the arising of an arahant's sense media.

But since the arahant has been born as a non-arahant earlier how could the arahant's five sensory spheres NOT have been arisen from ignorance?

[chownah]

But since the arahant has been born as a non-arahant earlier how could the arahant's five sensory spheres NOT have been arisen from ignorance?

There is the idea of momentary arising.....where a sensory media (e.g. vision) arises whenever the internal and external objects (e.g. the eye and the form) are coincident along with the associated consciousness (e.g. eye consciousness).....and then when the mind moves on to other things the seeing fades away and is gone and a new instance of vision arises whenever the internal and external objects and the associated consciousness again become coincident. In other words the idea of momentary arising asserts that any sensory media only lasts as long as it is active and then it is gone and does not hang around in the background waiting to re-emerge....and then when that same media arises again it is a discretely different event in that is is not the previous arising but an entirely new arising. (key idea: a sense media arising lasts for a few instances usually, not for a life time)
chownah

[SteRo]

But since the arahant has been born as a non-arahant earlier how could the arahant's five sensory spheres NOT have been arisen from ignorance?

There is the idea of momentary arising.....where a sensory media (e.g. vision) arises whenever the internal and external objects (e.g. the eye and the form) are coincident along with the associated consciousness (e.g. eye consciousness).....and then when the mind moves on to other things the seeing fades away and is gone and a new instance of vision arises whenever the internal and external objects and the associated consciousness again become coincident. In other words the idea of momentary arising asserts that any sensory media only lasts as long as it is active and then it is gone and does not hang around in the background waiting to re-emerge....and then when that same media arises again it is a discretely different event in that is is not the previous arising but an entirely new arising. (key idea: a sense media arising lasts for a few instances usually, not for a life time)
chownah

Ok but this view permanently causes misunderstandings, like in DO where some take the aggregates to be present from the outset, i.e. as the basis for the first limb 'ignorance', i.e. "hanging around in the background waiting to re-emerge" whereas I see the aggregates as originating according to the sequence in DO because I am referring to experience.
Therefore I'd suggest to differentiate between objective perspective and subjective perspective and what you consider to be "momentary arising" actually refers to subjective experience.
So the arahant's five sensory spheres have arisen from ignorance objectively while his momentary subjective experiencing of these sensory spheres is free from ignorance.

[zan]

I don't know what you mean by "a vague text...

It is a vague text because it is subject to interpretation and particularly your misinterpretation. There are many texts that refute your interpretation.

Dun laugh at me like this. I really cannot tell them apart.

My theory is:

1. The body is "conditoned" ("sankhata") because it is made up of the conditions of earth, wind. fire, water & space.

2. The body is "dependently originated" when it is infected with ignorance and is considered to be "my body", "his body", "her body", etc.

Regards

So, in your understanding, earth, wind, fire, water and space may be phenomena that are not dependently originated, but are still temporary and not self? They would only be called dependently originated when they have been drawn together by ignorance to make a body coupled with consciousness? Then, with the cessation of consciousness and end of DO upon the death of an arahant, the elements remain as the conditioned, but not dependently originated elements, in the form of the corpse of the arahant?

I like this! Do any suttas support this view? This would solve the issue of DO making the dhamma incoherent. I would think there must be suttas, but you know the suttas better than I.

[DooDoot]

Do any suttas support this view?

In already posted MN 28, which says the five aggregates subject to clinging are dependently originated.

SN 22.48 refers to two types of five aggregates: (i) mere aggregates; and (ii) aggregates subject to clinging.

Therefore, it appears MN 28 says only aggregates subject to clinging are dependently originated.

Regards

[chownah]

There is the idea of momentary arising.....where a sensory media (e.g. vision) arises whenever the internal and external objects (e.g. the eye and the form) are coincident along with the associated consciousness (e.g. eye consciousness).....and then when the mind moves on to other things the seeing fades away and is gone and a new instance of vision arises whenever the internal and external objects and the associated consciousness again become coincident. In other words the idea of momentary arising asserts that any sensory media only lasts as long as it is active and then it is gone and does not hang around in the background waiting to re-emerge....and then when that same media arises again it is a discretely different event in that is is not the previous arising but an entirely new arising. (key idea: a sense media arising lasts for a few instances usually, not for a life time)
chownah

Ok but this view permanently causes misunderstandings, like in DO where some take the aggregates to be present from the outset, i.e. as the basis for the first limb 'ignorance', i.e. "hanging around in the background waiting to re-emerge" whereas I see the aggregates as originating according to the sequence in DO because I am referring to experience.
Therefore I'd suggest to differentiate between objective perspective and subjective perspective and what you consider to be "momentary arising" actually refers to subjective experience.
So the arahant's five sensory spheres have arisen from ignorance objectively while his momentary subjective experiencing of these sensory spheres is free from ignorance.

Momentary arising is usually applied not only to the sense media but also to all phenomena....so the idea of momentary arising would preclude the aggregates "hanging around in the background waiting to re-emerge"....it would think of them as arising at the moment they are active and then fading away (not hanging around inactively).
chownah

[chownah]

I don't know what you mean by "a vague text...

It is a vague text because it is subject to interpretation and particularly your misinterpretation. There are many texts that refute your interpretation.

Dun laugh at me like this. I really cannot tell them apart.

My theory is:

1. The body is "conditoned" ("sankhata") because it is made up of the conditions of earth, wind. fire, water & space.

2. The body is "dependently originated" when it is infected with ignorance and is considered to be "my body", "his body", "her body", etc.

Regards

So, in your understanding, earth, wind, fire, water and space may be phenomena that are not dependently originated, but are still temporary and not self? They would only be called dependently originated when they have been drawn together by ignorance to make a body coupled with consciousness? Then, with the cessation of consciousness and end of DO upon the death of an arahant, the elements remain as the conditioned, but not dependently originated elements, in the form of the corpse of the arahant?

I like this! Do any suttas support this view? This would solve the issue of DO making the dhamma incoherent. I would think there must be suttas, but you know the suttas better than I.

Here is a sutta which might help you to understand some of this stuff better....I don't know if it will support your views or not:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... html#fnt-4
MN 28 PTS: M i 184 Maha-hatthipadopama Sutta: The Great Elephant Footprint Simile
...an excerpt:

The Earth Property
"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. Which is the internal earth property? Whatever internal, within oneself, is hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internal, within oneself, is hard, solid, & sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property and the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the mind dispassionate toward the earth property.

All five elements are presented in much the same format....there is further discussion of each of the elements and some discussion of DO and other stuff so the entire sutta might be of interest to you.
chownah

[SteRo]

There is the idea of momentary arising.....where a sensory media (e.g. vision) arises whenever the internal and external objects (e.g. the eye and the form) are coincident along with the associated consciousness (e.g. eye consciousness).....and then when the mind moves on to other things the seeing fades away and is gone and a new instance of vision arises whenever the internal and external objects and the associated consciousness again become coincident. In other words the idea of momentary arising asserts that any sensory media only lasts as long as it is active and then it is gone and does not hang around in the background waiting to re-emerge....and then when that same media arises again it is a discretely different event in that is is not the previous arising but an entirely new arising. (key idea: a sense media arising lasts for a few instances usually, not for a life time)
chownah

Ok but this view permanently causes misunderstandings, like in DO where some take the aggregates to be present from the outset, i.e. as the basis for the first limb 'ignorance', i.e. "hanging around in the background waiting to re-emerge" whereas I see the aggregates as originating according to the sequence in DO because I am referring to experience.
Therefore I'd suggest to differentiate between objective perspective and subjective perspective and what you consider to be "momentary arising" actually refers to subjective experience.
So the arahant's five sensory spheres have arisen from ignorance objectively while his momentary subjective experiencing of these sensory spheres is free from ignorance.

Momentary arising is usually applied not only to the sense media but also to all phenomena....so the idea of momentary arising would preclude the aggregates "hanging around in the background waiting to re-emerge"....it would think of them as arising at the moment they are active and then fading away (not hanging around inactively).
chownah

Ok I have nothing against this view but I have been criticized for saying that the aggregates dependently originate which conforms - from my perspective - with an alleged momentariness.

So see, I have tried to offer a compromise in terms of wording only because for me it makes no difference whether I am saying that the aggregates objectively originate dependent on ignorance or whether I am saying that the aggregates are objectively already there but the corresponding subjective experience originates dependently following the sequence of their mention in the DO sutta.

[chownah]

Ok I have nothing against this view but I have been criticized for saying that the aggregates dependently originate which conforms - from my perspective - with an alleged momentariness.

So see, I have tried to offer a compromise in terms of wording only because for me it makes no difference whether I am saying that the aggregates objectively originate dependent on ignorance or whether I am saying that the aggregates are objectively already there but the corresponding subjective experience originates dependently following the sequence of their mention in the DO sutta.

My posting has been to answer your question:

But since the arahant has been born as a non-arahant earlier how could the arahant's five sensory spheres NOT have been arisen from ignorance?

I have offered an idea which is held by many and which holds a way that the sensory spheres of an arahant might not have arisen from ignorance.

I might add that many people holding the view of momentary arising are also of the view that it is only phenomena which arises and fades away and that any ideas that this can be split into subjective or objective views is just the construeing of the fabricated duality of self/object.
chownah

[SteRo]

Ok I have nothing against this view but I have been criticized for saying that the aggregates dependently originate which conforms - from my perspective - with an alleged momentariness.

So see, I have tried to offer a compromise in terms of wording only because for me it makes no difference whether I am saying that the aggregates objectively originate dependent on ignorance or whether I am saying that the aggregates are objectively already there but the corresponding subjective experience originates dependently following the sequence of their mention in the DO sutta.

My posting has been to answer your question:

But since the arahant has been born as a non-arahant earlier how could the arahant's five sensory spheres NOT have been arisen from ignorance?

I have offered an idea which is held by many and which holds a way that the sensory spheres of an arahant might not have arisen from ignorance.

I might add that many people holding the view of momentary arising are also of the view that it is only phenomena which arises and fades away and that any ideas that this can be split into subjective or objective views is just the construeing of the fabricated duality of self/object.
chownah

I understand how your view of momentary arising may avoid admitting that the arahant's five sensory spheres have arisen from ignorance if one would consider the continuum that has been born as non-arahant but changed to arahant some time later and that the five sensory spheres originated from the ignorance that led to this birth.

What I do not understand is why a merely conceptual differentiation between objective perspective (i.e. taking as objects of speech objects empty of self) and the perspective of subjective experience (taking as objects of speech experience that may or may not be contaminated with self-identity views) should not be an appropriate linguistic tool for conversation purposes. After all you have to consider that your momentariness is merely a conceptual fabrication, too.

Even though I do not hold your view of momentariness I have nothing against it. After all there must be a purpose why you subscribe to that view and I assume that the purpose is to support your approach to dhamma and if your view is efficient in that regard then that is great.

However I have to admit that even if I would subscribe to your view of momentariness, even then the arahant's aggregates or sensory spheres would arise from ignorance. But that of course is my private view and is based on my differentiation between first and second order ignorance (see viewtopic.php?p=537655#p537655). The arahant abandons second order ignorance when still alive but first order ignorance is abandoned only with parinibbana that follows the abandonment of second order ignorance. Therefore the arahant is still subject to first order ignorance as he still experiences past kamma but he does not accumulate any new kamma because there is no second order ignorance anymore.
But again this is my private view and you may outrightly reject it.

[chownah]

In a previous post in another thread:

2. your view is that "themeless concentration" means "object-less" concentration which is also what thanissaro says

Did I ever express my view?....I don't recall doing that....I think that I was always presenting what thanissaro said etc. I would be intersted in seeing where I expressed my view (maybe I did and I just don't remember it).
chownah

Here I was presenting thanissaro's views on the meaning of something he translated.....and you mistakenly attributed the view to me.

Then there is this:

My posting has been to answer your question:

But since the arahant has been born as a non-arahant earlier how could the arahant's five sensory spheres NOT have been arisen from ignorance?

I have offered an idea which is held by many and which holds a way that the sensory spheres of an arahant might not have arisen from ignorance.

I might add that many people holding the view of momentary arising are also of the view that it is only phenomena which arises and fades away and that any ideas that this can be split into subjective or objective views is just the construeing of the fabricated duality of self/object.
chownah

I understand how your view of momentary arising may avoid admitting that the arahant's five sensory spheres have arisen from ignorance if one would consider the continuum that has been born as non-arahant but changed to arahant some time later and that the five sensory spheres originated from the ignorance that led to this birth.

What I do not understand is why a merely conceptual differentiation between objective perspective (i.e. taking as objects of speech objects empty of self) and the perspective of subjective experience (taking as objects of speech experience that may or may not be contaminated with self-identity views) should not be an appropriate linguistic tool for conversation purposes. After all you have to consider that your momentariness is merely a conceptual fabrication, too.

Even though I do not hold your view of momentariness I have nothing against it. After all there must be a purpose why you subscribe to that view and I assume that the purpose is to support your approach to dhamma and if your view is efficient in that regard then that is great.

However I have to admit that even if I would subscribe to your view of momentariness, even then the arahant's aggregates or sensory spheres would arise from ignorance. But that of course is my private view and is based on my differentiation between first and second order ignorance (see viewtopic.php?p=537655#p537655). The arahant abandons second order ignorance when still alive but first order ignorance is abandoned only with parinibbana that follows the abandonment of second order ignorance. Therefore the arahant is still subject to first order ignorance as he still experiences past kamma but he does not accumulate any new kamma because there is no second order ignorance anymore.
But again this is my private view and you may outrightly reject it.

Let me be clear: I generally do not post here to express, to promote, or to defend my views. Generally I do not refer to my views. Generally I post here to learn about what the buddha taught as revealed by the pali suttas.

Posters's ideas are interesting to me mostly if they are a way for me to learn more about what the buddha taught as revealed by the pali suttas.....their own construing of fabricated ideas expressed independently from what the buddha taught as revealed in the pali suttas can sometimes be interesting too but I am always wanting to see if/how those ideas are informed by the suttas.
chownah

[DooDoot]

...in order to refer to a generic view of momentary arising we should have a third party definition (scriptural or commentary) that is commonly or unanimously accepted as "view of momentary arising" proper.

The momentary arising described below?

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

The momentary arising described below?

On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, being comes to be; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

On hearing a sound with the ear… On smelling an odour with the nose… On tasting a flavour with the tongue …On touching a tangible with the body… On cognizing a mind-object with the mind, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing…Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, being comes to be; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi

I posted many scriptures here.