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,
nirodh27 wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:14 pm embellishment to marvel the readers or a simple mistake that was not challenged afterwards: nobody can know.
Since the DN seems to contain a fair amount of the former, I'd be happy to lean in that direction. Although, I do think it's worth noting generally that there were no shortage of sotapannas in the Buddha's time, but that unless they actually ordained, they did not see it through to arahantship. There's a lot from that that I think can be learned, both about the nature of the path, and what we can expect of ourselves.

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
nirodh27
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

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

Post by nirodh27 »

retrofuturist wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:25 pm Greetings,
nirodh27 wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:14 pm embellishment to marvel the readers or a simple mistake that was not challenged afterwards: nobody can know.
Since the DN seems to contain a fair amount of the former, I'd be happy to lean in that direction. Although, I do think it's worth noting generally that there were no shortage of sotapannas in the Buddha's time, but that unless they actually ordained, they did not see it through to arahantship. There's a lot from that, that I think can be learned, both about the nature of the path, and what we can expect of ourselves.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Hi Retro,

I agree on the point, I'm against big total numbers that are almost impossible to believe, but I think, by reading the suttas, that stream-entry is a way more reachable "goal" than the later tradition seems to think. I would expect an high percentage of sotapannas from those that received the teachings.
User avatar
bridif1
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

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

Post by bridif1 »

jankala wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:13 pm But remember: if there is no "essence," than a "star" is just a designation. There is no such thing as "star" beyond a designation of some singled out and conceptually-constructed object.
Hi!

By any chance, are you denying that there's an object referred by the designation star?
Are you denying that there is a natural kind of elements, all sharing some properties and following the same patterns and regularities?
What's the difference between a a word with no referent (like the word 'efkjfn'), a concept with an imaginary referent (like the concept 'mermaid'), and a concept like 'electron'?
Are they all equally "conceptually-constructed"?
If they are all equally conceptual, isn't this a form of idealism?
Are you implying that the Buddha was an idealist?

Kind regards!
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 »

bridif1 wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:55 am
jankala wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:13 pm But remember: if there is no "essence," than a "star" is just a designation. There is no such thing as "star" beyond a designation of some singled out and conceptually-constructed object.
Hi!

By any chance, are you denying that there's an object referred by the designation star?
Are you denying that there is a natural kind of elements, all sharing some properties and following the same patterns and regularities?
What's the difference between a a word with no referent (like the word 'efkjfn'), a concept with an imaginary referent (like the concept 'mermaid'), and a concept like 'electron'?
Are they all equally "conceptually-constructed"?
If they are all equally conceptual, isn't this a form of idealism?
Are you implying that the Buddha was an idealist?

Kind regards!
I can't speak for jankala, and I also won't support anything else he as argued, but I can comment on my own interpretation of this specific element as I am sympathetic to it.

There are no objects referred to by designations at all, at least when object is understood as something reified. We only have access to our experience (six sense spheres) and the All is contained within them. We would do well not to think anything as actually in or beyond our experience. What are referred to as objects and properties are patterns/experiences that arise and cease within consciousness and nothing more. But "consciousness" and "arising appearances" are also objects that are merely designations/appearances within the six spheres of consciousness.

So then, what is the difference between non-sense, fantasy, and reality? Without getting into the details, suffice to say that each type of designation has different conditions that give rise to it and different results based on its use :)

And lastly, I think idealism is probably the best way to read Buddhism, but only if that is understood as only an effective designation and not a reified reality.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

The basic problem is that it requires belief. The opposite of insight.
The secondary problem is that it encourages grasping for an existence beyond death.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
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 »

Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:12 pm The basic problem is that it requires belief. The opposite of insight.
The secondary problem is that it encourages grasping for an existence beyond death.
A lot of things require belief, until someone understands them themselves. Even then they still have faith, for Arahants have perfect faith (since they have perfected the 5 spiritual faculties). I don’t see how the 2nd problem you raised stands. Traditional Buddhists, who are aiming for nibbana, have a view that any life that arises past this one is also impermanent, dukkha and not-self because it’s dependently originated. You have previously raised an objection to the traditional view that all life is suffering. How is someone with that view being encouraged to grasp at existing beyond death?
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“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.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
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 2:41 pm
And lastly, I think idealism is probably the best way to read Buddhism, but only if that is understood as only an effective designation and not a reified reality.
I don’t think the Buddha wanted us to view things in terms of idealism. Rather he wanted us to see things in terms of dependent origination, so as to let go. Anything that arises is constantly changing, becoming other, so there is no safety is adhering to anything not even the view of dependent origination itself.
“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.”
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12840
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

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

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:49 pm there is no safety is adhering to anything not even the view of dependent origination itself.
Nirvana is safety
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: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:49 pm
riceandcashews wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 2:41 pm
And lastly, I think idealism is probably the best way to read Buddhism, but only if that is understood as only an effective designation and not a reified reality.
I don’t think the Buddha wanted us to view things in terms of idealism. Rather he wanted us to see things in terms of dependent origination, so as to let go. Anything that arises is constantly changing, becoming other, so there is no safety is adhering to anything not even the view of dependent origination itself.
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.
Last edited by riceandcashews on Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8149
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 »

Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:12 pm The basic problem is that it requires belief. The opposite of insight.
The secondary problem is that it encourages grasping for an existence beyond death.
Fake news!

This just shows that you yourself have no significant understanding of traditional Theravāda and its exegesis of DO.
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.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:54 pm
Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:12 pm The basic problem is that it requires belief. The opposite of insight.
The secondary problem is that it encourages grasping for an existence beyond death.
Fake news!

This just shows that you yourself have no significant understanding of traditional Theravāda and its exegesis of DO.
Meh. So where exactly am I wrong?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8149
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 »

In saying that Theravāda is faith-based as opposed to experience-based and that it encourages grasping at life.
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.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:12 pm In saying that Theravāda is faith-based as opposed to experience-based and that it encourages grasping at life.
The truth hurts.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8149
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 »

Ooooh, a Theravāda hater. Unfortunately, what you don't know can hurt you. Ignorance isn't bliss.
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.
Cashews
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2022 3:42 am

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

Post by Cashews »

Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:12 pm In saying that Theravāda is faith-based as opposed to experience-based and that it encourages grasping at life.
The Theravāda model is well-known & well-established. However, the Sutta view is experience based.
“Good, bhikkhus. So you say thus, and I also say thus: ‘When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases.’ That is, with the cessation of ignorance comes cessation of formations; with the cessation of formations, cessation of consciousness; with the cessation of consciousness, cessation of mentality-materiality; with the cessation of mentality-materiality, cessation of the sixfold base; with the cessation of the sixfold base, cessation of contact; with the cessation of contact, cessation of feeling; with the cessation of feeling, cessation of craving; with the cessation of craving, cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.

Bhikkhus, knowing and seeing in this way, would you run back to the past thus: ‘Were we in the past? Were we not in the past? What were we in the past? How were we in the past? Having been what, what did we become in the past?’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you run forward to the future thus: ‘Shall we be in the future? Shall we not be in the future? What shall we be in the future? How shall we be in the future? Having been what, what shall we become in the future?’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you now be inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“Bhikkhus, knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: ‘The Teacher is respected by us. We speak as we do out of respect for the Teacher’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: ‘The Recluse says this, and we speak thus at the bidding of the Recluse’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you acknowledge another teacher?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you return to the observances, tumultuous debates, and auspicious signs of ordinary recluses and brahmins, taking them as the core of the holy life?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Do you speak only of what you have known, seen, and understood for yourselves?” —“Yes, venerable sir.”

Good, bhikkhus. So you have been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves. For it was with reference to this that it has been said: ‘Bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves.’

MN 38
Post Reply