Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 20, 2022 5:24 am
Sorry, but I don't see anything on my page 56 about my question about why a dependent-origination model that may span multiple lives would require two lives to stop. Obviously the people who use that model don't see it that way. I can only conclude that your issue comes from trying to mix your particular "timeless" model with a "timeful" model such as the Classical Theravada model, which may well lead to a contradiction.
Oh, OK, I thought you were talking about something else. Thanks for clarifying.
My point (and Alex's by the look of it) is that idappaccayatā is symmetrical.
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
Therefore "that" which arises, must be "that" which ceases.
The "three lifetime model" takes it upon itself to stretch the following two nidana out across lifetimes.
- From the arising of (past-life) sankharas, comes the arising of (rebirth-linking) consciousness.
- From the arising of (current-life) bhava, comes the arising of (future life) jati.
Thus, if it took "two lives" to get from avijja to jarāmaraṇa... then to be symmetrical, the cessation of avijja would take "two more lives" to trickle through the remaining nidanas to the cessation of jarāmaraṇa.
Except, that's not how it works, is it? No one says it takes "two more lifetimes" to cease... yet, the model when artificially pegged out over multiple lifetimes, takes "two more lifetimes" for it to arise. Thus, it is asymmetrical, and at odds with the symmetry of idappaccayatā.
Instead of recognising and acknowledging this, people try to rationalise the asymmetry of their sectarian presentations, and this leads to all manner of additional contortions taking place in order to juggle parallel and simultaneous "life 1's", "life 2's" and "life 3's" and you're left with something that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Buddha's
actual presentations of paticcasamuppada.
At its most conceptually proliferated, you end up with something like this tangled mess of papañca-sanna-sankha spaghetti...
Me pointing this out initially
obviously offended your proclivities, such that you were overwhelmed by fabricated perceptions of
"noise and bluster". However, it was nothing more than a
straightforward, matter-of-fact observation. It would be good to be able to discuss the Dhamma without people superimposing their feelings and emotional reactions onto the subjects at hand.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."