Hi Mike, what if the dhamma as you understand it, is not the Buddhadhamma? What if it doesn't lead to cessation of suffering? What kind of depth would you then be losing?mikenz66 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:56 pmAs do the rest of us, of course. And it's interesting to hear your opinions about what they might mean. However, I do tend to pay more attention to those who have put time into mastering Pali idioms and context. Bhikkhu Bodhi and Bhikkhu Sujato, and many others, have read and/or translated a large proportion of the early Pali texts, so have much more context to draw on than those of us who only read translations and dictionaries.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:59 pm I take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and I follow the standard of the Four Great References, per the Buddha's dying wish... It is not refuge in Pali translators, sectarians, boffins, or fairytale Mahayana Buddhas.
Regarding your theories, I've never been particularly convinced about the argument that everything about DO has to be essentially instantaneous, which appears to be based on particular, "timeless" renderings of sandiṭṭhiko and akāliko . And I am also puzzled by the reduction of DO to a psychological scheme, which to me looses much of the depth of the Dhamma. However, since there were various interpretations even from times, both three-life and single mind-moment, it may be best for practitioners to use the model that makes the most sense in the context of their practice.
It remains interesting to see how many people on this forum are unwilling to temporarily let go of their view, to approach the subject of discussion from the other side, just to understand the other perspective, see what such a perspective entails, and see if and how such a perspective applies to reality. If the other perspective turns out to be not applicable to one's reality, one can always return to one's original view. So there is nothing to loose, and only understanding to be gained! Still, most users here rather defend their views to the point that they rely on mere faith, instead of gaining insight into the other perspective. Which means that most users here have an immature and closed mind, and maybe it is faith that keeps it that way. However, this is not a reproach, but merely the way things turned out to be. So one can keep discussing till the sun comes up, if faith is the foundation of this discussion, this discussion doesn't serve any use.
I didn't arrive at my understanding of DO at once, first I tried to understand DO as being a physical process, due to this being the widespread understanding of it in the West, which I picked up on. The more I tried to understand DO in this way, the more I came to realize what such an understanding entails for my life, life itself, and my practice. The practice would be to try to dissolve oneself from physicality (through the jhanas), as such that the sense bases understood as being the input for our conscious experience are temporarily not perceived. I actually tried this for some time, without questioning this understanding and practice, but I didn't succeed.
At some point I started to question this understanding and practice, through which I came to the realisation that such an understanding would mean that consciousness is already there before contact with the sense bases is made. But then the question arises, where is this consciousness coming from, and what is it conscious of without the sense bases? Then also the question arises, where is the intention coming from that is the cause of this consciousness? Then also the question arises as to where is this ignorance coming from that is the cause of this intention preceding consciousness? Then also the question arises as to how can intention precede contact with the sense bases, and what is it intending without any (prior) contact with the sense bases?
But then some monk says, "it is a multiple life model", although this is not explained anywhere in the suttapitaka. One might ask, if it is necessary information to understand this interpretation of DO in such a way, would the Buddha had not explained it in at least one sutta?
Nevertheless, lets investigate such an interpretation for a minute. How can life be multiple, if consciousness descends into the womb? The womb first had to be there, so before the first womb was created, somehow ignorance and intention were floating around somewhere, and created physical bodies? I could not find a sensible answer to all these questions, and neither are they provided in the suttas. To the contrary, the suttas just plainly state that transmigration has no beginning, and I should just understand, without any way of understanding it, that;
“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. What do you think? Which is more: the flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating for such a very long time—weeping and wailing from being united with the unloved and separated from the loved—or the water in the four oceans?”
“As we understand the Buddha’s teaching, the flow of tears we’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating is more than the water in the four oceans.”
“Good, good, mendicants! It’s good that you understand my teaching like this. The flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating is indeed more than the water in the four oceans.https://suttacentral.net/sn15.3/en/suja ... ript=latin
The problems in understanding DO as being physical, automatically transmits into problems in the practice of such a view. If human life is understood to be based upon ignorance, which is the cause of dukkha, I see my entire life as dukkha. So far, this is the opposite of cessation of suffering. Now, how am I to dissolve ignorance that preceeds consciousness? Well, the teaching says to practice the N8FP. But if we look at the N8FP, it says that we should focus on our intention and practice virtue, but how should I do this if intention precedes consciousness? Besides this unpracticality, if intentions are not-self, the intention is not me or mine, so I cannot be made or make myself responsible for these intentions.
So this practice is unpractial because intention precedes consciousness, and I cannot make myself responsible or be made responsible for the outcome of this unpractical practice, I can only discipline myself in the effects from the cause that does not lie in my reach, in the mere hope that future intentions might change, meanwhile suffering my entire life while doing so.
Besides the unpracticality of doing so, the answer to the question as to how my intentions should be aligned to dissolve ignorance, is to abandon intentions that are not aligned with dissolving ignorance. The question returns as to where is ignorance coming from? From not understanding the 4NT of course. How do I understand the 4NT? Practice the N8FP...
Then I came to understand DO as a mental process, and all my issues with understanding it dissolved. I came to realize that birth, understood as coming out of the womb, is based upon existence, based upon grasping, based upon craving, based upon feeling, based upon contact, based upon the six sense bases, based upon name and form, based upon consciousness, based upon intentions, based upon ignorance. What ignorance, and where is this ignorance coming from? The ignorance of not realizing that what is understood as birth, is based upon ignorance.