sense bases disappear ?

[PeterC86]

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.

As 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.

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.

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?

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.

[AlexBrains92]

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.

As 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.

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.

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?

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.

[cappuccino]

Transmigration

Rebirth

what is our body in heaven?

[cappuccino]

What ignorance, and where is this ignorance coming from?

Dependent arising is all about delight

[Sam Vara]

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.

As 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.

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.

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?

Mike's final sentence seems to be a model of liberal sentiment and open-mindedness. Let people follow whatever understanding of the Dhamma makes most sense and is most beneficial. He is content to allow you to follow your understanding of the Dhamma; but you can't let that be, and have to present him with a view that he already is familiar with, claiming that yours is somehow more correct, authentic, or beneficial. My first point is that most of the people I have met who have really impressed me in person have been of the former persuasion. They don't have much of an issue with what other people believe, and don't present their views as being superior. That might go some way towards explaining an approach characterised by an informed faith.

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.

Perhaps they have done exactly that. They have read what you and others have to say, found it to be wanting, and returned to their original view. That might be another reason why one might favour an approach based upon informed faith.

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.

Maybe it's all faith. You have faith that what you experienced is what is described in the Pali Canon as enlightenment and liberation. You cling tenaciously to that faith, and of course there is no apodictic proof in what you say that it is anything more than faith. You might be deluded, stubborn, unwilling to admit error, or actually insane. It's worth noting that you have changed your position several times (the usual evidence provided upon request, but I won't bother people with the details now). The fact that other members here have a faith based upon different causes and conditions might be a third reason why an open-minded informed faith is preferable.

Then I came to understand DO as a mental process, and all my issues with understanding it dissolved.

That's very good indeed, Peter, and congratulations. But here as elsewhere on DW you present this as an intellectual attainment, an account of how you cracked a code and made sense of a mental puzzle. There doesn't seem to be much more to your account than that, and perhaps others here expect a little more, having read more of the suttas and commentaries, witnessed more of the qualities exhibited by very devout and less intellectual practitioners, met with some memorably impressive monastics, and made their own progress in their own way. They've maybe seen the way you behave on here - the change of mind over being an arahant, the repeated "Goodbyes" and then returning, the irritation and mild snittiness when challenged, and the fact that you have unilaterally decided to declare a huge chunk of the Canon as some sort of inauthentic fake for no other reason than its inconsistency with the view you cling to. The same applies to behaviours that you don't display but are quite common here. Perhaps people have made a judgement based on how exponents behave, and the sense that they can make of their explanations, and think that falls short of their current understanding of what enlightenment really is. Maybe they understand your view, and think "If that's what enlightenment is, it's not worth bothering with!". That's another reason why an informed faith might be preferable.

[asahi]

what is our body in heaven?

Five aggregates but finer

[cappuccino]

what is our body in heaven?

Five aggregates but finer

Correct…

[asahi]

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?

Unfortunately , from above it appears that your understanding is at flawed , has limited understanding on DO and misapprehended it seriously , no offense .

[PeterC86]

As 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.

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.

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?

Mike's final sentence seems to be a model of liberal sentiment and open-mindedness. Let people follow whatever understanding of the Dhamma makes most sense and is most beneficial. He is content to allow you to follow your understanding of the Dhamma; but you can't let that be, and have to present him with a view that he already is familiar with, claiming that yours is somehow more correct, authentic, or beneficial. My first point is that most of the people I have met who have really impressed me in person have been of the former persuasion. They don't have much of an issue with what other people believe, and don't present their views as being superior. That might go some way towards explaining an approach characterised by an informed faith.

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.

Perhaps they have done exactly that. They have read what you and others have to say, found it to be wanting, and returned to their original view. That might be another reason why one might favour an approach based upon informed faith.

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.

Maybe it's all faith. You have faith that what you experienced is what is described in the Pali Canon as enlightenment and liberation. You cling tenaciously to that faith, and of course there is no apodictic proof in what you say that it is anything more than faith. You might be deluded, stubborn, unwilling to admit error, or actually insane. It's worth noting that you have changed your position several times (the usual evidence provided upon request, but I won't bother people with the details now). The fact that other members here have a faith based upon different causes and conditions might be a third reason why an open-minded informed faith is preferable.

Then I came to understand DO as a mental process, and all my issues with understanding it dissolved.

That's very good indeed, Peter, and congratulations. But here as elsewhere on DW you present this as an intellectual attainment, an account of how you cracked a code and made sense of a mental puzzle. There doesn't seem to be much more to your account than that, and perhaps others here expect a little more, having read more of the suttas and commentaries, witnessed more of the qualities exhibited by very devout and less intellectual practitioners, met with some memorably impressive monastics, and made their own progress in their own way. They've maybe seen the way you behave on here - the change of mind over being an arahant, the repeated "Goodbyes" and then returning, the irritation and mild snittiness when challenged, and the fact that you have unilaterally decided to declare a huge chunk of the Canon as some sort of inauthentic fake for no other reason than its inconsistency with the view you cling to. The same applies to behaviours that you don't display but are quite common here. Perhaps people have made a judgement based on how exponents behave, and the sense that they can make of their explanations, and think that falls short of their current understanding of what enlightenment really is. Maybe they understand your view, and think "If that's what enlightenment is, it's not worth bothering with!". That's another reason why an informed faith might be preferable.

Hi Samvara,

If you see a blind man walking towards the edge of a cliff, would you tell him that or not?

Your post is irrelevant to me, but maybe it is relevant for others who have 'informed faith'.

P.s. I was not refering to Mikenz66 when refering to "most users", else I would included him by saying "you and most users".

[Coëmgenu]

The sentence...

"‘akuppā me vimutti; ayamantimā jāti; natthi dāni punabbhavo’”ti.

... is compromised by the requirement to communicate via "the common phrases of the world" to puthujjanas, whereas

"khīṇā jāti"

... is not.

Is this supposed to be you and Ceisiwr settling a matter of dispute? It seems to me that it's just you disparaging some Buddhavacana by painting it as compromised and then later as "puthujjana-ized."

[Sam Vara]

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?

Mike's final sentence seems to be a model of liberal sentiment and open-mindedness. Let people follow whatever understanding of the Dhamma makes most sense and is most beneficial. He is content to allow you to follow your understanding of the Dhamma; but you can't let that be, and have to present him with a view that he already is familiar with, claiming that yours is somehow more correct, authentic, or beneficial. My first point is that most of the people I have met who have really impressed me in person have been of the former persuasion. They don't have much of an issue with what other people believe, and don't present their views as being superior. That might go some way towards explaining an approach characterised by an informed faith.

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.

Perhaps they have done exactly that. They have read what you and others have to say, found it to be wanting, and returned to their original view. That might be another reason why one might favour an approach based upon informed faith.

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.

Maybe it's all faith. You have faith that what you experienced is what is described in the Pali Canon as enlightenment and liberation. You cling tenaciously to that faith, and of course there is no apodictic proof in what you say that it is anything more than faith. You might be deluded, stubborn, unwilling to admit error, or actually insane. It's worth noting that you have changed your position several times (the usual evidence provided upon request, but I won't bother people with the details now). The fact that other members here have a faith based upon different causes and conditions might be a third reason why an open-minded informed faith is preferable.

Then I came to understand DO as a mental process, and all my issues with understanding it dissolved.

That's very good indeed, Peter, and congratulations. But here as elsewhere on DW you present this as an intellectual attainment, an account of how you cracked a code and made sense of a mental puzzle. There doesn't seem to be much more to your account than that, and perhaps others here expect a little more, having read more of the suttas and commentaries, witnessed more of the qualities exhibited by very devout and less intellectual practitioners, met with some memorably impressive monastics, and made their own progress in their own way. They've maybe seen the way you behave on here - the change of mind over being an arahant, the repeated "Goodbyes" and then returning, the irritation and mild snittiness when challenged, and the fact that you have unilaterally decided to declare a huge chunk of the Canon as some sort of inauthentic fake for no other reason than its inconsistency with the view you cling to. The same applies to behaviours that you don't display but are quite common here. Perhaps people have made a judgement based on how exponents behave, and the sense that they can make of their explanations, and think that falls short of their current understanding of what enlightenment really is. Maybe they understand your view, and think "If that's what enlightenment is, it's not worth bothering with!". That's another reason why an informed faith might be preferable.

Hi Samvara,

If you see a blind man walking towards the edge of a cliff, would you tell him that or not?

Ah, is SN 56.42 in your list of approved suttas? If the precipice merely consisted of failing to understand Dependent Origination in the way that you approve, I'd let him decide.

[Ceisiwr]

Ah, is SN 56.42 in your list of approved suttas? If the precipice merely consisted of failing to understand Dependent Origination in the way that you approve, I'd let him decide.

A great sutta

That precipice is indeed steep, venerable sir; that precipice is extremely frightful. But is there, venerable sir, any other precipice steeper and more frightful than that one?”

“There is, bhikkhu.”

“But what, venerable sir, is that precipice steeper and more frightful than that one?”

“Those ascetics and brahmins, bhikkhu, who do not understand as it really is: ‘This is suffering’; who do not understand as it really is: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; who do not understand as it really is: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; who do not understand as it really is: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering’—they delight in volitional formations that lead to birth, in volitional formations that lead to aging, in volitional formations that lead to death, in volitional formations that lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. Delighting in such volitional formations, they generate volitional formations that lead to birth, generate volitional formations that lead to aging, generate volitional formations that lead to death, generate volitional formations that lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. Having generated such volitional formations, they tumble down the precipice of birth, tumble down the precipice of aging, tumble down the precipice of death, tumble down the precipice of sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. They are not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from suffering, I say.

[Sam Vara]

Ah, is SN 56.42 in your list of approved suttas? If the precipice merely consisted of failing to understand Dependent Origination in the way that you approve, I'd let him decide.

A great sutta

That precipice is indeed steep, venerable sir; that precipice is extremely frightful. But is there, venerable sir, any other precipice steeper and more frightful than that one?”

“There is, bhikkhu.”

“But what, venerable sir, is that precipice steeper and more frightful than that one?”

“Those ascetics and brahmins, bhikkhu, who do not understand as it really is: ‘This is suffering’; who do not understand as it really is: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; who do not understand as it really is: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; who do not understand as it really is: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering’—they delight in volitional formations that lead to birth, in volitional formations that lead to aging, in volitional formations that lead to death, in volitional formations that lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. Delighting in such volitional formations, they generate volitional formations that lead to birth, generate volitional formations that lead to aging, generate volitional formations that lead to death, generate volitional formations that lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. Having generated such volitional formations, they tumble down the precipice of birth, tumble down the precipice of aging, tumble down the precipice of death, tumble down the precipice of sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. They are not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from suffering, I say.

Here's the Petervadan parallel:

"But is there, venerable sir, any other precipice still steeper and yet more frightful than the one you have just described?"

"There is, bhikkhu."

"But what, venerable sir, is that precipice still steeper and more frightful than birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure and despair?"

"It is, bhikkhu, the precipice of not appreciating the views of PeterC86 in the way he would like..."

[PeterC86]

Hi Samvara,

If you see a blind man walking towards the edge of a cliff, would you tell him that or not?

Ah, is SN 56.42 in your list of approved suttas? If the precipice merely consisted of failing to understand Dependent Origination in the way that you approve, I'd let him decide.

Exactly, so I am saying to you; watch out there is a precipice ahead. Whatever you do with that info is not up to me. In response you can maybe tell me something about 'informed faith', and I would be saying something like "this is irrelevant to me, but maybe it is relevant for others who have 'informed faith'", and I will let you go about your business.

[cappuccino]

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "It's amazing, lord, it's astounding, how deep this dependent co-arising is, and how deep its appearance, and yet to me it seems as clear as clear can be."


The Buddha: "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It's because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.


Maha-nidana Sutta