Page 3 of 4

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:24 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings,
Bodhisvasti wrote:Is there a reason why we must keep referring to contemporary Western scholars about Dependent Origination? Was there something deficient in the Buddha as a teacher that prompts us to do this?
The deficiencies weren't in what the Buddha actually taught.

In the context of this topic, it's deficiencies in understanding of the prevailing religious context in which dependent origination was taught, and the resultant tendency towards literalist interpretations in some quarters. Studies like this challenge the literalism that many people and traditions might otherwise take for granted.

If that's of no interest to you, the Early Buddhism sub-forum may not be your cup of tea.

:coffee:

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:00 am
by Truth_Seeker1989
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Bodhisvasti wrote:Is there a reason why we must keep referring to contemporary Western scholars about Dependent Origination? Was there something deficient in the Buddha as a teacher that prompts us to do this?
The deficiencies weren't in what the Buddha actually taught.

In the context of this topic, it's deficiencies in understanding of the prevailing religious context in which dependent origination was taught, and the resultant tendency towards literalist interpretations in some quarters. Studies like this challenge the literalism that many people and traditions might otherwise take for granted.

If that's of no interest to you, the Early Buddhism sub-forum may not be your cup of tea.

:coffee:

Metta,
Retro. :)
Sorry Retro. I did not realise I was making an inappropriate remark. I recently joined another Buddhist forum where the administer is always telling us we are posting in the wrong way. Understanding the bureaucracy of Buddhist forums is not easy for me at all, lol. Still, your reply did not really appease my doubts. If so many people are making literalist interpretation the question remains: was Buddha not a literalist teacher (ie: taught esoterically) or is there is a problem in the transmission? Thank you, anyways.

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:17 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings,
Bodhisvasti wrote:If so many people are making literalist interpretation the question remains: was Buddha not a literalist teacher (ie: taught esoterically) or is there is a problem in the transmission?
Literalism and esoteric are not the only two possibilities.

There's simile, there's metaphor, there's words which had pre-existing meanings that the Buddha tweaked (but did the tweaks always survive are his death?), there's pre-existing context, often since lost ... etc.

Perhaps read this if you're interested - http://www.scribd.com/doc/97015372/Burn ... chard-2012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:29 am
by Sylvester
ancientbuddhism wrote: The function of nāmarūpa as ‘thoughts and intentions’ (saṅkappavittakkā) at the 18 dhātus (the range of sense-consciousness and the mind) is given in the Kiṃmūlaka Suttas of the Aṅguttara Nikāya, specifically AN. 9.1.2.4. (9.14) – Samiddhisuttaṃ.

As for the conceiving (maññati) of a self at nāmarūpa by the puthujjana, we find a concise example of this at Sn. 3.12 – Dvayatānupassanāsuttaṃ:
  • Anattani attamāniṃ, passa lokaṃ sadevakaṃ;
    Niviṭṭhaṃ nāmarūpasmiṃ, idaṃ saccanti maññati
    .

    “See this world with its gods, considering self in what is not-self.
    Immersed in this recognition of objects (nāmarūpa), they imagine this as real.
Hi ancientbuddhism

Hope you won't mind my curiosity, but are the linked translations of AN 9.14 and Sn.3.12 yours? They are very beautifully rendered.

Anyway, I could not help noticing that nāmarūpa in both suttas have been treated as a genitive tappurisa, instead of the standard dvanda compound interpretation. But, would you not agree that for "recognition of objects" to work, the tappurisa would originally needed to have been rūpanāma?

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:20 pm
by ancientbuddhism
Sylvester wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote: The function of nāmarūpa as ‘thoughts and intentions’ (saṅkappavittakkā) at the 18 dhātus (the range of sense-consciousness and the mind) is given in the Kiṃmūlaka Suttas of the Aṅguttara Nikāya, specifically AN. 9.1.2.4. (9.14) – Samiddhisuttaṃ.

As for the conceiving (maññati) of a self at nāmarūpa by the puthujjana, we find a concise example of this at Sn. 3.12 – Dvayatānupassanāsuttaṃ:
  • Anattani attamāniṃ, passa lokaṃ sadevakaṃ;
    Niviṭṭhaṃ nāmarūpasmiṃ, idaṃ saccanti maññati
    .

    “See this world with its gods, considering self in what is not-self.
    Immersed in this recognition of objects (nāmarūpa), they imagine this as real.
Hi ancientbuddhism

Hope you won't mind my curiosity, but are the linked translations of AN 9.14 and Sn.3.12 yours? They are very beautifully rendered.

Anyway, I could not help noticing that nāmarūpa in both suttas have been treated as a genitive tappurisa, instead of the standard dvanda compound interpretation. But, would you not agree that for "recognition of objects" to work, the tappurisa would originally needed to have been rūpanāma?
Yes, this is not a strict translation, but rather is intended to unpack the meaning of nāmarūpa where ‘name and form’ leaves many puzzled. For this reason a rendering of ‘recognition of objects’ or even a more radical ‘recognition of embodiment' to represent thought processes and the range of sense-gates and objects (viz. 18 dhātus) for nāmarūpa, is less following the strict grammar than an attempt to give an interpretive meaning for the function of nāmarūpa within the context of experience, and how it is pivotal to a false reification of 'self' in ignorance.

With reference to the Kiṃmūlaka theme suttas, they are helpful with an analysis of sensate processes, and in the case of the Samiddhi Sutta, the place of nāmarūpa in this. Also, the pathway of liberation is given which overall provides a Jacob’s Ladder to the entire theme.

Here is a chart for the Kiṃmūlaka suttas which may be helpful as an overview:

http://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress ... chart1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:57 am
by Sylvester
Much obliged for your explanation, ancientbuddhism.

I would be the last to disagree with your thoughts about maññati of a self, since that features so prominently in DN 15, even if the terminology used there is slightly different (attānaṃ paññapento paññapeti). This attapaññatti, I suspect, should be synonymous with the attamaññati that you allude to, or perhaps they are closely connected via the papañca process in MN 18. MN 18 explains papañca as a potential consequence of paññatti into contact etc. MN 11 makes the express connection between papañca and the views of existence/non-existence, which is what draws maññati and papañca close together as culprits in Clinging.

Alternatively, attamaññati could be a particularly unskilfull type of paññatti, since DN 15's analysis of nāmarūpa as furnishing paññāvacara (a sphere of wisdom) seems to be mediated by adhivacanapatha (a pathway for designation), niruttipatha (a pathway for language) and paññattipatha (a pathway for description/manifestation). Awakening, it seems, cannot dispense with paññatti, no matter how dangerously close it appears to be the precursor of attamaññati.

But, while nāmarūpa has a prominent role in the construction of self-view as a consequence of contact, I still find it hard to ignore the other aspect of nāmarūpa described in DN 15. That seems to be a description of rebecoming and the formation of a new being. The reference to mātukucchi (mother's womb) is a clear indicator of this. The idea that nāmarūpa can samuccissathā (take shape) in the womb, also does not appear to be a reference to the cognitive process or even adhivacanasamphassa, but looks like a throwback to the Upanishadic idea of nāmarūpa as name and appearance/embodiment.

Unless we accept that nāmarūpa as a term actually has 2 distinct meanings, I think we may need to parse the compound in the the same way when describing either process, ie as a dvanda. I'm currently experimenting with a dvanda reading of nāmarūpa that preserves the potential for attamaññati, but it'll be a while before I'm am even half-sure.

:anjali:

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:57 pm
by gavesako
In this new article Ven. Pannobhasa investigates "what the Buddha really originally taught" and in particular he raises doubts about the 12-step formula of Dependent Arising, because he personally prefers the "everything is mutually dependent" interpretation a la Nagarjuna:

http://www.nippapanca.org/articles/What ... yTeach.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:01 pm
by DooDoot
mikenz66 wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:38 amIn the Rig Veda :

1. First there is nothing, not even existence or non-existence. This corresponds to ignorance.
Ignorance in Buddhism is an "element" ("dhatu"; MN 115); an outflow ("asava"; MN 9) and the leader of unskilful qualities (SN 45.1). Therefore, in Buddhism, ignorance is obviously not "nothing". In fact, MN 9 includes within ignorance the asava of existence (bhava) therefore Gombrich is off to a questionable start here.
mikenz66 wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:38 amGombrich continues:
"The later Buddhist tradition did not understand how the Buddha had appropriated this term nama-rupa from the Upanishads. Realising that at this point in the chain there should be a reference to the emergence of the individual person with teh five khandha, the tradition made nama-rupa equivalent to the five khandha by saying that rupa was the first khandha and nama referred to the other four. Since three of these four (vedana, samkhara, and vinnana) appear elsewhere in the chain under their usual names, this can hardly be correct."
For me, the major flaw in ideas of Gombrich here is there appears to be the assumption by Gombrich that the Buddha respected or honored the core Brahmin concept of "nama-rupa". However, I would suggest the opposite occurred; that in the Buddha's redefinition of "nama-rupa" (in SN 12.2) the Buddha utterly trashed the Nibbanically irrelevant Brahmin concept of "nama-rupa" ("naming-forms") and, instead, focused upon how ignorance conditions mentality & physically with defilement.

For example, this is similar to how the Christians redefined the Jewish "god" from a punishing jealous god (asura) to a loving forgiving god (deva). Such redefinitions of core doctrines are the demolition of the former religion into irrelevancy.

:smile:

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 8:21 am
by sentinel
DooDoot wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 10:01 pm
mikenz66 wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:38 amIn the Rig Veda :

1. First there is nothing, not even existence or non-existence. This corresponds to ignorance.
Ignorance in Buddhism is an "element" ("dhatu"; MN 115); an outflow ("asava"; MN 9) and the leader of unskilful qualities (SN 45.1). Therefore, in Buddhism, ignorance is obviously not "nothing". In fact, MN 9 includes within ignorance the asava of existence (bhava) therefore Gombrich is off to a questionable start here.
mikenz66 wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:38 amGombrich continues:
"The later Buddhist tradition did not understand how the Buddha had appropriated this term nama-rupa from the Upanishads. Realising that at this point in the chain there should be a reference to the emergence of the individual person with teh five khandha, the tradition made nama-rupa equivalent to the five khandha by saying that rupa was the first khandha and nama referred to the other four. Since three of these four (vedana, samkhara, and vinnana) appear elsewhere in the chain under their usual names, this can hardly be correct."
For me, the major flaw in ideas of Gombrich here is there appears to be the assumption by Gombrich that the Buddha respected or honored the core Brahmin concept of "nama-rupa". However, I would suggest the opposite occurred; that in the Buddha's redefinition of "nama-rupa" (in SN 12.2) the Buddha utterly trashed the Nibbanically irrelevant Brahmin concept of "nama-rupa" ("naming-forms") and, instead, focused upon how ignorance conditions mentality & physically with defilement.



:smile:
Ignorance as Dhatu is probably better define as Dimension instead of element though .


You're probably right , Buddha's redefined namarupa and ignorance and how it conditions the psychological and physical aspects thus give rise to defilements .
However , you are just one step away from Accurately defining NamaRupa !