What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:53 pm
Cashews wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:34 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 5:58 am Your "unverified conjecture" is another's "verified fact."
Any contemporary monk that claims to verified the "three lives" has transgressed the Vinaya by disclosing or declaring a superhuman attainment.
Nonsense! Don't just make stuff up, like the nonsense you made up in the other thread about monogamy.
Actually, it sounds pretty logical and coherent to me.

If a monk is claiming direct verified knowledge of past and future lives, what is that based on, if not advanced meditative attainment?

Or is just a remembrance, like some people say they remember past lives?

It sounds like you're calling it "nonsense" out of aversion, rather than out of any sensible logic rooted in either the Suttas or Theravada Buddhism.

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."
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by Ontheway »

I don't see any problem at all. In fact, if the Paticca samuppada is to be understood correctly, it is exactly need to be understood in that way only. The past begets the present; and the present begets the future. Past conditions present, and and future depends on present. As long as Lobha, Dosa and Moha cannot be eradicated, Paticca samuppada will continue its function and suffering will happen again and again nonstop, from one life to another.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ontheway wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 2:05 am I don't see any problem at all. In fact, if the Paticca samuppada is to be understood correctly, it is exactly need to be understood in that way only. The past begets the present; and the present begets the future. Past conditions present, and and future depends on present. As long as Lobha, Dosa and Moha cannot be eradicated, Paticca samuppada will continue its function and suffering will happen again and again nonstop, from one life to another.
The difference lies in what Coemgenu calls "verified fact", what Cashews called "unverified conjecture", and what I might meet somewhere in the middle and call "inference".

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."
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by Coëmgenu »

retrofuturist wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:57 am Greetings,
Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:53 pm
Cashews wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:34 pm
Any contemporary monk that claims to verified the "three lives" has transgressed the Vinaya by disclosing or declaring a superhuman attainment.
Nonsense! Don't just make stuff up, like the nonsense you made up in the other thread about monogamy.
Actually, it sounds pretty logical and coherent to me.

If a monk is claiming direct verified knowledge of past and future lives, what is that based on, if not advanced meditative attainment?
It would be based on the words of the Buddha and his Āryaśrāvakas, and possibly also his own psychic vision. But he need only say it based upon the Dharma of the Teacher of gods and men.
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.
justindesilva
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by justindesilva »

retrofuturist wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 2:09 am Greetings,
Ontheway wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 2:05 am I don't see any problem at all. In fact, if the Paticca samuppada is to be understood correctly, it is exactly need to be understood in that way only. The past begets the present; and the present begets the future. Past conditions present, and and future depends on present. As long as Lobha, Dosa and Moha cannot be eradicated, Paticca samuppada will continue its function and suffering will happen again and again nonstop, from one life to another.
The difference lies in what Coemgenu calls "verified fact", what Cashews called "unverified conjecture", and what I might meet somewhere in the middle and call "inference".

Metta,
Paul. :)
In fact what lord budda described as paticca samuppada is an act which occurs in every split second , and not from one life to another . This period which is the occurence is called a kshana, or a moment. Yet for the sake of explanation it is broken down to steps as cause and effect. The fact that we are a minute particle in large universal reaction is the cause. As I can express this reaction cannot be verified and broken down inb to periods by a lay person like us. The larger cause is the reaction which we are participating as expressed in anattalakkanasutta .
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by Ontheway »

justindesilva wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:38 am
retrofuturist wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 2:09 am Greetings,
Ontheway wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 2:05 am I don't see any problem at all. In fact, if the Paticca samuppada is to be understood correctly, it is exactly need to be understood in that way only. The past begets the present; and the present begets the future. Past conditions present, and and future depends on present. As long as Lobha, Dosa and Moha cannot be eradicated, Paticca samuppada will continue its function and suffering will happen again and again nonstop, from one life to another.
The difference lies in what Coemgenu calls "verified fact", what Cashews called "unverified conjecture", and what I might meet somewhere in the middle and call "inference".

Metta,
Paul. :)
In fact what lord budda described as paticca samuppada is an act which occurs in every split second , and not from one life to another . This period which is the occurence is called a kshana, or a moment. Yet for the sake of explanation it is broken down to steps as cause and effect. The fact that we are a minute particle in large universal reaction is the cause. As I can express this reaction cannot be verified and broken down inb to periods by a lay person like us. The larger cause is the reaction which we are participating as expressed in anattalakkanasutta .
That is wrong. Paticca samuppada is the explanation of how the mass of suffering occurs through samsara. Mind momentariness is another topic that has to do with "stream of consciousness" mentioned by Arahant Sariputta Thera, or also related to cittavithi as showed in Abhidhammattha Sangaha.

In Mahanidana sutta, the Blessed One said:
“It was said: ‘With birth as condition there is aging and death.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere—that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, and reptiles, each into their own state—if there were no birth of beings of any sort into any state, then, in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for aging and death, namely, birth.
The birth of various class of beings here, is an indication of actual rebirth in different realm. Not metaphor for momentarily birth.
Last edited by Ontheway on Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:23 am But he need only say it based upon the Dharma of the Teacher of gods and men.
That doesn't really sound like a sufficient criteria for "verified fact" to me, but thank you for clarifying what you meant.

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."
justindesilva
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by justindesilva »

Ontheway wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:46 am

Metta,
Paul. :)
In fact what lord budda described as paticca samuppada is an act which occurs in every split second , and not from one life to another . This period which is the occurence is called a kshana, or a moment. Yet for the sake of explanation it is broken down to steps as cause and effect. The fact that we are a minute particle in large universal reaction is the cause. As I can express this reaction cannot be verified and broken down inb to periods by a lay person like us. The larger cause is the reaction which we are participating as expressed in anattalakkanasutta .
[/quote]

That is wrong. Paticca samuppada is the explanation of how the mass of suffering occurs through samsara. Mind momentariness is another topic that has to do with "stream of consciousness" mentioned by Arahant Sariputta Thera, or also related to cittavithi as showed in Abhidhammattha Sangaha.

In Mahanidana sutta, the Blessed One said:
“It was said: ‘With birth as condition there is aging and death.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere—that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, and reptiles, each into their own state—if there were no birth of beings of any sort into any state, then, in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for aging and death, namely, birth.
The birth of various class of beings here, is an indication of actual rebirth in different realm. Not metaphor for momentarily birth.
[/quote]

Here what I was referring to is Citta santana or continuum of mind stream. One may find this term in buddhist dictionary by Nanathiloka thera. Continuation of mind is from moment to moment or momentary or kshana. But citta does not flow un interrupted. There is minute gap like flowing electricity in a bulb that is again utpada thithi bhanga , again uthpada thithi bhangan ........
This can be refered to paticcasamuppada too, before furthering in to other realms within kama or msnussa bhava.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by Ontheway »

justindesilva wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:08 pm
Ontheway wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:46 am

Metta,
Paul. :)
In fact what lord budda described as paticca samuppada is an act which occurs in every split second , and not from one life to another . This period which is the occurence is called a kshana, or a moment. Yet for the sake of explanation it is broken down to steps as cause and effect. The fact that we are a minute particle in large universal reaction is the cause. As I can express this reaction cannot be verified and broken down inb to periods by a lay person like us. The larger cause is the reaction which we are participating as expressed in anattalakkanasutta .
That is wrong. Paticca samuppada is the explanation of how the mass of suffering occurs through samsara. Mind momentariness is another topic that has to do with "stream of consciousness" mentioned by Arahant Sariputta Thera, or also related to cittavithi as showed in Abhidhammattha Sangaha.

In Mahanidana sutta, the Blessed One said:
“It was said: ‘With birth as condition there is aging and death.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere—that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, and reptiles, each into their own state—if there were no birth of beings of any sort into any state, then, in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for aging and death, namely, birth.
The birth of various class of beings here, is an indication of actual rebirth in different realm. Not metaphor for momentarily birth.
[/quote]

Here what I was referring to is Citta santana or continuum of mind stream. One may find this term in buddhist dictionary by Nanathiloka thera. Continuation of mind is from moment to moment or momentary or kshana. But citta does not flow un interrupted. There is minute gap like flowing electricity in a bulb that is again utpada thithi bhanga , again uthpada thithi bhangan ........
This can be refered to paticcasamuppada too, before furthering in to other realms within kama or msnussa bhava.
[/quote]

I don't understand why would you equal Paticca samuppada as mind continuum.

Paticca samuppada is the description of how mass of suffering occurred. "Stream of consciousness" played a role in explaining how one consciousness arises, sustains and then ceases; there arises another consciousness via conditional relations. That is part of Paticca samuppada, but not another way around and not the equal of it. The teaching on mind stream is a subtopic under Paticca samuppada teaching. They are not equal.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
justindesilva
Posts: 2600
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by justindesilva »

Ontheway wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 5:22 pm
justindesilva wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:08 pm
Ontheway wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:46 am

Metta,
Paul. :)
In fact what lord budda described as paticca samuppada is an act which occurs in every split second , and not from one life to another . This period which is the occurence is called a kshana, or a moment. Yet for the sake of explanation it is broken down to steps as cause and effect. The fact that we are a minute particle in large universal reaction is the cause. As I can express this reaction cannot be verified and broken down inb to periods by a lay person like us. The larger cause is the reaction which we are participating as expressed in anattalakkanasutta .
That is wrong. Paticca samuppada is the explanation of how the mass of suffering occurs through samsara. Mind momentariness is another topic that has to do with "stream of consciousness" mentioned by Arahant Sariputta Thera, or also related to cittavithi as showed in Abhidhammattha Sangaha.

In Mahanidana sutta, the Blessed One said:
“It was said: ‘With birth as condition there is aging and death.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere—that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, and reptiles, each into their own state—if there were no birth of beings of any sort into any state, then, in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for aging and death, namely, birth.
The birth of various class of beings here, is an indication of actual rebirth in different realm. Not metaphor for momentarily birth.
Here what I was referring to is Citta santana or continuum of mind stream. One may find this term in buddhist dictionary by Nanathiloka thera. Continuation of mind is from moment to moment or momentary or kshana. But citta does not flow un interrupted. There is minute gap like flowing electricity in a bulb that is again utpada thithi bhanga , again uthpada thithi bhangan ........
This can be refered to paticcasamuppada too, before furthering in to other realms within kama or msnussa bhava.
[/quote]

I don't understand why would you equal Paticca samuppada as mind continuum.

Paticca samuppada is the description of how mass of suffering occurred. "Stream of consciousness" played a role in explaining how one consciousness arises, sustains and then ceases; there arises another consciousness via conditional relations. That is part of Paticca samuppada, but not another way around and not the equal of it. The teaching on mind stream is a subtopic under Paticca samuppada teaching. They are not equal.
[/quote]

Yes my good friend, now I can see where we crossed paths. I never mean that paticca samuppada is equal to mind stream. But what I am trying to say is that paticca samuppada gets executed through mind stream .
samsarayoga
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:25 pm

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by samsarayoga »

I'm sorry what's the question again? Why can't we just call dependant origination, kamma?
reality is not shaped by your mind, if this was the case there won't exist right view and wrong view to begin with (doh)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by Ceisiwr »

riceandcashews wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:50 pm
I think idealism (epistemological, phenomenological, not metaphysical or substantialist) is intimately tied to dependent origination and impermanence. What is it that arises and ceases? Appearances, or conscious states. All 5 aggregates are known through the sense-consciousnesses. The All is only known through the sense-consciousnesses. In fact, the Buddha over and over repeats that speculations about what is beyond experience is fruitless and unhelpful and wrong view. Even our very conceptions of things within consciousness, and conceptions of consciousness itself arise within consciousness. It's all absolutely impermanent and dependently originated. And clinging to views (unnecessarily harmful repetitions of thoughts taken as reified things) about consciousness or about dependent origination are of course missing the point that even views about dependent origination and consciousness arise impermanently as conscious state (or 'within consciousness' conventionally, as long as this isn't reified as a substance).

I think physicalism, dualism, substantialist idealism, and nihilism present much greater potential threats to a practitioner in terms of wrong view than phenomenological idealism.

Physicalism: no rebirth
Dualism: Substantialist views about the world
Substantialist Idealism: Substantialist views about self/mind
Nihilism: No progress, no goal, no change, nothing to attain, etc.

I suspect your natural response would be to say that phenomenological idealism is a wrong view because it is a form of view-clinging? But this would be just as true of dependent origination, and as I've argued, the two are intertwined.

Last, I'd like to note that arahants don't cease to be conscious. Instead, they cease to cling, to fabricate, to move beyond the six sense spheres. They retain awareness of everything as just the impermanent arising and passing of states of consciousness. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not intending to reify arahants here. There is no subject of consciousness or agent of action that 'arahant' corresponds to (in fact, there's no subject of consciousness or agent of action that 'run of the mill person' corresponds to either, only the confused arising of views and clinging and actions related to such views), only the continuation of the six sense spheres. Consciousness is the one thing that would seem to persist in arahants (although not reification of consciousness, it's important to note. That's why the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness is NOT itself the state of liberation).

Anywho, that's a start for a defense of my position. I'd be happy to hear your response.
The Buddha was interested in correcting our mistaken view of the world. Dependent origination is presented in different forms in the suttas, but if we take the standard 12-link model it is presented so as to correct the errors in the eternalist and annihilationist worldviews. There is no eternal existence or non-existence after death because entry into those states is preceded by intention. As such, there will be entry into a form of existence for the Annihilationist. For the eternalist, what is entered into will cease. On a deeper level, it means there never was a Self which existed forever or ceased forever to begin with. There was only clinging. This was the original intent. In later times, emptiness was applied to the dhammas themselves because various strands of Buddhism at that time had begun essentialising them. That too was an attempt to correct a mistaken view. On the cognitive process the Buddha taught that in dependence upon the eye, visual forms and conciousness contact occurs. Both the eye, the visual form and conciousness (and contact) are tottering, teetering and becoming other because they are dependently originated. Through ignorance we perceive (sañjānāti) or label the eye, visual forms, conciousness and contact as being permanent, sukha and self. Through wisdom we sañjānāti them all as being impermanent, dukkha and not-self. Wisdom and sañjānāti however too are fabricated and so dependently originated, and so we let go of that too.

My reply then would be to always see things in terms of paṭiccasamuppāda rather than Physicalism, Dualism, Substantialist Idealism, Nihilism or Phenomenological Idealism. Those who hold the view of Physicalism will come into conflict with those who hold the view of Dualism, Idealism and so on. Those who hold the view of Idealism will come into conflict with the others. I have previously gone down that rabbit hole myself. See the danger in those views and look to paṭiccasamuppāda instead. Those who see dependent origination argue with no one, do not enter into conflict with anyone.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
riceandcashews
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 4:57 pm

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by riceandcashews »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 4:41 pm ...Wisdom and sañjānāti however too are fabricated and so dependently originated, and so we let go of that too.
Agreed
My reply then would be to always see things in terms of paṭiccasamuppāda rather than Physicalism, Dualism, Substantialist Idealism, Nihilism or Phenomenological Idealism. Those who hold the view of Physicalism will come into conflict with those who hold the view of Dualism, Idealism and so on. Those who hold the view of Idealism will come into conflict with the others. I have previously gone down that rabbit hole myself. See the danger in those views and look to paṭiccasamuppāda instead. Those who see dependent origination argue with no one, do not enter into conflict with anyone.
I don't see anything here that disagrees with what I wrote, other than you claiming that dependent origination differs from what I wrote.

Dependent origination says: things arise and cease, are impermanent.

What arises and ceases? A permanent soul? Surely not (questions about the existence/non-existence of the permanent self are wrong view). Real externally existent matter? Surely not (questions about the existence/non-existence of the world are wrong view). Nothing at all? Surely not (if nothing existed, then nothing would change or have the ability to be enlightened). Conscious states? Yes (appearances are constantly changing).
Boris
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by Boris »

What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model? 

Let's try to state the same question in different terms, perhaps in this way things become more clear.

What precisely is the problem to "understand" the second noble truth as "three lives" model? 

“And what, friends, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering? It is craving, which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for being,  and craving for non-being. This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering."

Enough?

If not, the second noble truth can be expressed also in the terms of person (sakkaya):

five aggregates of holding and person (sakkaya) or burden are synonyms: “Lady, person, person’ is said. What is called person by the Blessed One?”“Friend Visākha, these five aggregates affected by clinging are called person by the Blessed One (MN 44)

First noble truth: Person (sakkaya) = suffering.
Second noble truth: Person is dependently arisen.
Third noble truth: Cessation of person = nibbana
Forth noble truth: There is the way leading to cessation of person.

Of course we know that these four noble truths are in fact one structure, so if one of these truths is seen - all other truths are seen.

So what precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model, with introducing the past and future or so called momentariness?

And for such question the proper answer is that the state of being (bhava), considering oneself as a person living in the world is a state of dukkha now and here, and it depends on present condition, namely ignorance, and it is only by seeing now and here, what has come to being as such, one can practice and follow the path leading to the cessation of what has come to being, or more precisely to the cessation of person (sakkaya). Without such direct knowledge where immediate dependnce of bhava (being) on ignorance is directly known now and here, one must remain a puthujjana, victim of upadana, imprisoned in the dialectic: to be or not to be*.

So one who says that "apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, I know this, I see this: ‘Nibbāna is the cessation of being.” and then teaches us that dependent arising describes the process of samsara extended to three existences, two existences, one existence, existence from moment to moment, in fact contradicts himself, since as ven Nanamoli says:

Dependent arising  is not a logical proposition, nor is it a temporal cause-result chain. Such an approach makes an understanding of it impossible. (From Thinker's notebook)

But things are somehow more complicated. In certain period of time  - I believe he has stopped to do so long time ago - Ven Ajahan Sumedho used writings of Ven Buddhadasa. While his version sounded much better and had some practical applications, it had no direct relation with dependent arising. And yet in his teaching about abandoning of sakkayaditthi he teaches Dhamma precisely in terms as we could expect from one who has direct knowledge of dependent arising: when this is - ignorance- this is - "I am"; when this is not - ignorance - this is not -"I am".

In terms of Ven Nanamoli, it looks like Ven Ajahn Sumedho sees that:

Being is a member of the paṭicca-samuppāda as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance. The destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being. When ignorance is no more, then consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all; for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no more ignorance then it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in MN 22).

Explanation for this apparent inconsistency lies in fact that strictly and precisely dependent arising is relation between the two things: when this is - this is. Notion of selfhood is associated with perception of permanence, so attavadin doesn't see his own being (bhava) as sankhata dhamma. And this is what precisely knowledge of dependent arising is : when this is (sankhara or determination - this is (sankhata dhamma or thing dependently arisen). In fact whatever exemplification of dependent arising we see in Suttas, it is always timeless relation sine qua non between sankhara and sankhata dhamma. And of course in such chain sankhata dhamma is itself sankhara for the next member.

Nanavira Thera:
In any case, the patticcasamuppāda formulation (as I see it) does not admit of alternative interpretations—there is one and one only. I do not see that anyone offering a number of different interpretations as equally valid can possibly be right in any of them. (It is quite possible that someone actually reaching sotāpatti, and therefore seeing patticcasamuppāda for himself, might still hesitate before deciding on the meaning of the expanded—twelve term—formulation, since what he sees for himself is Imasmim sati idam hoti, etc., and not its expansion in terms—avijjā, sankhārā, and so on—whose meaning he may not know. But one thing is certain: whatever interpretation he gives will be in conformity with his private knowledge, Imasmim sati…, and since he has already grasped the essence of the matter he will not look around for alternative interpretations.)
L 4

“Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of (wrong) view, and when deities and human beings are in their grip, some hang back and some over-reach; it is only those with vision that see. (...)

And how do those with vision see? Here a bhikkhu sees whatever has come to being as come to being. By seeing it thus he has entered upon the way to dispassion for it, to the fading and ceasing of lust for it. That is how one with vision sees.” Iti. 49

* “Bhikkhus, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmins who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmins who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.1707. “Any recluses or brahmins who do not understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these two views are affected by lust, affected by hate, affected by delusion, affected by craving, affected by clinging, without vision, given to favouring and opposing, and they delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are not freed from birth, ageing, and death; from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; they are not freed from suffering, I say.

(...)

“Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging... MN 11

Summarise: immortality can be reached now and here, just by seeing that death is impermanent, determined and dependently arisen on the  present condition, namely ignorance. Introducing temporal relation between the members of dependent arising destroys sine qua non relationship between members, so:
as to those recluses and brahmins who are unskilled in this world and the other world, unskilled in Māra’s realm and what is outside Māra’s realm, unskilled in the realm of Death and what is outside the realm of Death—it will lead to the harm and suffering for a long time of those who think they should listen to them and place faith in them.
MN 34

And that may be the main problem with the so-called "three lives" model.
The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.

Nicolás Gómez Dávila
pegembara
Posts: 3454
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: What precisely is the problem with the so-called "three lives" model?

Post by pegembara »

Boris wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 11:37 pm And yet in his teaching(Ajahn Sumedho) about abandoning of sakkayaditthi he teaches Dhamma precisely in terms as we could expect from one who has direct knowledge of dependent arising: when this is - ignorance- this is - "I am"; when this is not - ignorance - this is not -"I am".
That is the point, right?
When there is not even a one life, how does the 3 lives work?
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

MN 2 Sabbasava Sutta
That is your I-making and mine-making right there.
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta MN72
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Post Reply