Credulity

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Upeksha »

SDC wrote: Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:46 pm
Upeksha wrote: Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:52 pm Annica and anatta do not offer a coherent way of grounding out any plausible theory of capital B Being.
Exactly and since the dependency described in PS culminates in "this whole mass of suffering" it makes good sense that the links described therein are rooted in the ignorance upon which the whole thing stands in order to show how it arises. That "existence" in turn would also be rooted in ignorance and is surely a mistake. That the whole thing is impermanent and "in constant motion" as you say would be more a description of "things as they are" and not "the arising of this whole mass of suffering". But like I said, there are many different interpretations of PS and several work with existence in the sense of Being. So it is hardly "no one". This is a big discussion to have, and I will gladly do it elsewhere if you are interested.
I'm not sure I have the time to get into a big discussion, but have to admit that I'm interested - if only because it's so contrary to the way I understand it. This could mean that there is a kind of blindness on my side that needs to be dispelled....Could you offer a quick characterisation of how PS might be interpreted to grant existence?
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by chownah »

SDC wrote: Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:46 pm
Exactly and since the dependency described in PS culminates in "this whole mass of suffering" it makes good sense that the links described therein are rooted in the ignorance upon which the whole thing stands in order to show how it arises.
INdeed. My view is that ALL of the teachings are rooted in the ignorance upon which the world stands.....that is why all views are to be abandoned even right view because even right view is rooted in the ignorance upon which the whole world stands.....that is why when the raft has served its purpose and we have crossed over the flood it is to be abandoned because the entire raft is rooted in the ignorance upon which the whole world stands.

Think about it.....can someone awash in ignorance appreciate some kind of "truth" which is completely detached from the ignorance they are awash in?....I don't think so because their entire ability to discern has been trained through ignorance.....and this assumes that it is even possible to explicate some kind of "truth" without the explication being grounded in the ignorance conditioned fabrications inherent in language and conceptualization.
chownah

SDC,
You posted, "That "existence" in turn would also be rooted in ignorance and is surely a mistake. "
Your meaning is not clear. Do you mean that it is a mistake to view "existence" being rooted in ignorance or do you mean that "existence" as used in PS would be rooted in ignorance and so our understanding of it would be a mistake?....or something else?
chownah
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by SDC »

Upeksha wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:59 am I'm not sure I have the time to get into a big discussion, but have to admit that I'm interested - if only because it's so contrary to the way I understand it. This could mean that there is a kind of blindness on my side that needs to be dispelled....Could you offer a quick characterisation of how PS might be interpreted to grant existence?
So you have the traditional "three-lives" model, which comes from the commentarial tradition. This interpretation explains PS as a model spread over three lives which sort of tells the story of samsara. Here "becoming", as you well know, emphasizes that future life. Obviously this is the lead interpretation.

There is a so-called "moment to moment" model in the Abhidhamma that I am not at all familiar with.

You have some psychological "process" models which explain PS as a mental process of misunderstanding whereby upādāna(holding/grasping/clinging) "gives rise to" existence (bhava). With clinging, existence. Or: with holding, Being. Basically, because experience is clung to, it is mine, it is my existence. And the point is that this is taking place repeatedly on a psychological level. I feel like there are a lot of people pushing this who don't claim to be, but that's a story for another time. See Ven. Punnaji for more about this one.

Then you have the timeless/structural models which whereby PS describes different layers of generals and particulars of experience. This one is a bit of a challenge because there is such a tendency to see PS as an ordered process that can be viewed "as it happens". But from what position is it being viewed and how could there be a position outside of the structure of experience? In this model existence stands upon, has meaning because of, that holding/grasping. With that existence, birth stands, with birth, death stands. Each layer can "be there" because of the other and this dependency works in both directions. It is timeless/structural in the sense that it is always available and always the case for one not free from this "mass of suffering". See Ven. Nanavira for this...along with Ven. N Nanamoli, Ven. Ariyavamsa. This model has been famously critiqued by Bhikkhu Bodhi and his critique has been countered by Ven. Mettiko, and the band plays on...

I know Ven. Nanananda builds off of Ven. Nanavira's work as well, but I am not familiar with the direction he goes with it, and don't wish to misrepresent him.

Like I said, it is a big topic...
“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
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Credulity

Post by aflatun »

:goodpost:

Excellent summary
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by SDC »

chownah wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:34 am SDC,
You posted, "That "existence" in turn would also be rooted in ignorance and is surely a mistake. "
Your meaning is not clear. Do you mean that it is a mistake to view "existence" being rooted in ignorance or do you mean that "existence" as used in PS would be rooted in ignorance and so our understanding of it would be a mistake?....or something else?
chownah
I was just trying to emphasize that this particular interpretation isn't trying to validate existence as being fundamental, i.e. "things as they are", but it nevertheless describes how such a mistake arises. It is correct that the view it as rooted in ignorance, and yes, because of ignorance that is why it can arise at all.
“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
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Saengnapha »

SDC wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:27 pm
chownah wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:34 am SDC,
You posted, "That "existence" in turn would also be rooted in ignorance and is surely a mistake. "
Your meaning is not clear. Do you mean that it is a mistake to view "existence" being rooted in ignorance or do you mean that "existence" as used in PS would be rooted in ignorance and so our understanding of it would be a mistake?....or something else?
chownah
I was just trying to emphasize that this particular interpretation isn't trying to validate existence as being fundamental, i.e. "things as they are", but it nevertheless describes how such a mistake arises. It is correct that the view it as rooted in ignorance, and yes, because of ignorance that is why it can arise at all.
I think we all know by now that the Theravada view is that Ignorance is the culprit, lynchpin, or however one wishes to call it. It is easy to single out a 'cause' and then to proceed to structure a model addressing it. I think what is not clear but touched upon on occasion is the 'the viewer' and what that means and can it ever impact on the results of ignorance? As my J. Krishnamurti quote states, it is through negation of all views and viewer(which is merely a fabricated structure of perception, memory, and cognition), that one begins to touch on this conditioned existence. Anything short of that, leaves something behind that will be re=ified into an observer, viewer, knower, etc., and continue the illusion of personal existence. The meditation on self, personalization, seems to be a key here, because without seeing clearly that there is no findability of an inherent existence, we continue seeking within time and space and continue with only repeating what we've read.
Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Upeksha »

SDC wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:18 pm
Upeksha wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:59 am I'm not sure I have the time to get into a big discussion, but have to admit that I'm interested - if only because it's so contrary to the way I understand it. This could mean that there is a kind of blindness on my side that needs to be dispelled....Could you offer a quick characterisation of how PS might be interpreted to grant existence?
So you have the traditional "three-lives" model, which comes from the commentarial tradition. This interpretation explains PS as a model spread over three lives which sort of tells the story of samsara. Here "becoming", as you well know, emphasizes that future life. Obviously this is the lead interpretation.

There is a so-called "moment to moment" model in the Abhidhamma that I am not at all familiar with.

You have some psychological "process" models which explain PS as a mental process of misunderstanding whereby upādāna(holding/grasping/clinging) "gives rise to" existence (bhava). With clinging, existence. Or: with holding, Being. Basically, because experience is clung to, it is mine, it is my existence. And the point is that this is taking place repeatedly on a psychological level. I feel like there are a lot of people pushing this who don't claim to be, but that's a story for another time. See Ven. Punnaji for more about this one.

Then you have the timeless/structural models which whereby PS describes different layers of generals and particulars of experience. This one is a bit of a challenge because there is such a tendency to see PS as an ordered process that can be viewed "as it happens". But from what position is it being viewed and how could there be a position outside of the structure of experience? In this model existence stands upon, has meaning because of, that holding/grasping. With that existence, birth stands, with birth, death stands. Each layer can "be there" because of the other and this dependency works in both directions. It is timeless/structural in the sense that it is always available and always the case for one not free from this "mass of suffering". See Ven. Nanavira for this...along with Ven. N Nanamoli, Ven. Ariyavamsa. This model has been famously critiqued by Bhikkhu Bodhi and his critique has been countered by Ven. Mettiko, and the band plays on...

I know Ven. Nanananda builds off of Ven. Nanavira's work as well, but I am not familiar with the direction he goes with it, and don't wish to misrepresent him.

Like I said, it is a big topic...
Thankyou for the excellent post. I suppose I am most familiar with the Abhidhamma model, although I have never done a proper systematic study of the literature - I wish more Burmese stuff was translated....

It seems to me that in all three cases, existence is basically a synonym for (or more precisely, expression of) ignorance - i.e. it can only occur on the basis of a false imputation/holding/grasping. From which it clearly follows that there is a dichotomy between PS and existence, in the sense that PS correctly discerned or apprehended will result in the cessation of imputing or holding existence. That is, existence is merely a false cognition.

So I think we're on the same page here - I can see why bhava could be translated to existence. The issue is that many other philosophical schools, Indian, ancient and modern all take existence to mean something very different, namely, the real ground or substance of being, upon which, various metaphysical, logical and epistemological systems may be built. So it ought to be used very cautiously or it could be quite misleading. :anjali:
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Saengnapha »

To further clarify what negation actually is, I offer another J.Krishnamurti quote:

Krishnamurti: To deny all this is to deny oneself, and oneself is the conditioned
entity who continually pursues a conditioned good. To most of us negation
appears as a vacuum because we know activity only in the prison of our
conditioning, fear and misery. From that we look at negation and imagine it to be
some terrible state of oblivion or emptiness. To the man who has negated all the
assertions of society, religion, culture and morality, the man who is still in the
prison of social conformity is a man of sorrow. Negation is the state of
enlightenment which functions in all the activities of a man who is free of the past.
It is the past, with its tradition and its authority, that has to be negated. Negation
is freedom, and it is the free man who lives, loves, and knows what it means to
die.


No matter what you subscribe to philosophically, if you are not free of the past and the totality of conditioned existence, you are a man of sorrow. You can only deal with this in a direct way, not through any medium/model/system. Letting go of all these ways of looking at things is the first and perhaps only step that is needed. Why prolong it?
Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Upeksha »

Saengnapha wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:39 am To further clarify what negation actually is, I offer another J.Krishnamurti quote:

Krishnamurti: To deny all this is to deny oneself, and oneself is the conditioned
entity who continually pursues a conditioned good. To most of us negation
appears as a vacuum because we know activity only in the prison of our
conditioning, fear and misery. From that we look at negation and imagine it to be
some terrible state of oblivion or emptiness. To the man who has negated all the
assertions of society, religion, culture and morality, the man who is still in the
prison of social conformity is a man of sorrow. Negation is the state of
enlightenment which functions in all the activities of a man who is free of the past.
It is the past, with its tradition and its authority, that has to be negated. Negation
is freedom, and it is the free man who lives, loves, and knows what it means to
die.


No matter what you subscribe to philosophically, if you are not free of the past and the totality of conditioned existence, you are a man of sorrow. You can only deal with this in a direct way, not through any medium/model/system. Letting go of all these ways of looking at things is the first and perhaps only step that is needed. Why prolong it?
I loosely agree. Negation is tantamount to relinquishing; getting rid of something in the way of reality, rather than superimposing something upon reality.

But maybe there are certain dangers in fixating on negation. It is in the end, merely a cognitive or phenomenological tool that if used correctly can lever open that which was shut. But the act of negation can itself be held. And whenever something is held, openness cannot follow.....
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Saengnapha »

Upeksha wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:52 am
Saengnapha wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:39 am To further clarify what negation actually is, I offer another J.Krishnamurti quote:

Krishnamurti: To deny all this is to deny oneself, and oneself is the conditioned
entity who continually pursues a conditioned good. To most of us negation
appears as a vacuum because we know activity only in the prison of our
conditioning, fear and misery. From that we look at negation and imagine it to be
some terrible state of oblivion or emptiness. To the man who has negated all the
assertions of society, religion, culture and morality, the man who is still in the
prison of social conformity is a man of sorrow. Negation is the state of
enlightenment which functions in all the activities of a man who is free of the past.
It is the past, with its tradition and its authority, that has to be negated. Negation
is freedom, and it is the free man who lives, loves, and knows what it means to
die.


No matter what you subscribe to philosophically, if you are not free of the past and the totality of conditioned existence, you are a man of sorrow. You can only deal with this in a direct way, not through any medium/model/system. Letting go of all these ways of looking at things is the first and perhaps only step that is needed. Why prolong it?
I loosely agree. Negation is tantamount to relinquishing; getting rid of something in the way of reality, rather than superimposing something upon reality.

But maybe there are certain dangers in fixating on negation. It is in the end, merely a cognitive or phenomenological tool that if used correctly can lever open that which was shut. But the act of negation can itself be held. And whenever something is held, openness cannot follow.....
Of course, that is possible, but that would not be taking it far enough. The negator is also included. It seems to me that the first thing to do is to see that what is negated is the idea of self and what it demands. Without this becoming clear to our mind, everything that follows is self-motivated, motivated to continue, to exist. The absence of existence is not non-existence as many believe, it is the absence of the personalization of the processes of body/mind into subject/object and interpreted as 'experience'. As my friend U.G. said, "It took me 14 years to free myself from my own experience". "My autobiography came to an end".
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by SDC »

Upeksha wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:23 am So I think we're on the same page here - I can see why bhava could be translated to existence. The issue is that many other philosophical schools, Indian, ancient and modern all take existence to mean something very different, namely, the real ground or substance of being, upon which, various metaphysical, logical and epistemological systems may be built. So it ought to be used very cautiously or it could be quite misleading. :anjali:
Most definitely. That is where some of the controversy between the three-lives model and the others - there is no doubt that PS shows what is built upon that ignorance and that the result is the "mass of suffering". It is the experience of suffering described from every possible aspect. In the first noble truth it is said, "In short the five-holding-aggregates are suffering." So instead of looking at PS as some overview of samsara over the course of three lives, it can also be viewed a description of that very suffering as it stands. My point is that the links could be seen as a description of what is wrong in one's view. So absolutely this should be used cautiously in the sense that one should not be looking to PS for guidance on how things are in terms of right view, but how they are in terms of wrong view, the view that gives rise to suffering.
“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
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Credulity

Post by Circle5 »

I've been away for a while. @SDC i will check last topic where we spoke

As for the ideas about DO presented around here, it is important to remember that DO is just one sutta out of 600 pages from "Book of Causation" from SN. A person who cares even the slightest about understanding buddhism should read all those 600 pages and not be lazy and read just the first sutta. After reading the whole book of causation, he should also go and read the other parts of the "higher dhamma" section, meaning "book of aggregates" and "book of sense bases".

It is important to bring this up because many people read one sutta out of context and then come up with all kinds of funky ideas and never really get to understand buddhism.

But coming back to the problem in question, there is not even a need to read the whole SN in order to understand what Buddha meant in that DO sutta. In this particular case, Buddha even gave a long string of synonims for every link of DO sutta, so that nobody can understand it wrongly. For example:
“And what, bhikkhus, is aging-and-death? The aging of the
various beings in the various orders of beings, their growing old,
brokenness of teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline
of vitality, degeneration of the faculties: this is called aging. [3]
The passing away of the various beings from the various orders
of beings, their perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality,
death, completion of time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying
down of the carcass: this is called death.2 Thus this aging and
this death are together called aging-and-death.

“And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings
into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent [into
the womb], production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the
obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth.3
534 II. The Book of Causation (Nid›navagga)

“And what, bhikkhus, is existence? There are these three kinds
of existence: sense-sphere existence, form-sphere existence, formless-
sphere existence. This is called existence.
How could the Buddha be even more clearer than this ? What could he possibly have done in order to be more clear than this and prevent misinterpretation ? Who in his right mind could possibly misinterpret this ?

Or, to quote B.Bodhi: The above definitions, with their strings of synonyms and concrete imagery, clearly indicate that 'birth' refers to biological birth and 'aging-and-death' to biological aging and biological death -- not to the puthujjana's notions "I was born; I will age and die," or "My self was born; my self ages and dies." The textual definitions are perfectly staightforward and unambiguous in meaning, and give no hint that the Buddha had some other idea to convey about the significance of these terms.

Some might find it interesting to play philosophical sudoku games about DO or other buddhist concepts, but those that are serious should not lose time with such things and cut straight to the point. And what does that mean ? It means to go and see what the historical Buddha had to say and check weather it was correct or wrong. There is no time to play philosophical sudoku, the issue of understanding how things work should be treated with all the seriosity one can muster, because it's not just any random question, it's the most important question in life.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by chownah »

What is this:
The Book of Causation (Nid›navagga)
chownah
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Credulity

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:01 am I've been away for a while. @SDC i will check last topic where we spoke
I think you and I have said enough to one another for this round. Let's do it all again in six months and you can pretend like it's the first time. :smile:
“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
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Credulity

Post by bodom »

chownah wrote: Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:58 am What is this:
The Book of Causation (Nid›navagga)
chownah
The Nidana Vagga — The Section on Causation the 12th chapter in the Samyutta Nikaya.

:namaste:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
Post Reply