Dhamma Wheel

btw a more literal translation would be This existing, this exists; this arising, this arises; this not existing, this does not exist; this ceasing, this ceases’. This is just a bad translation, and also a :redherring: It doesn't make sense because the suttas describe one nidana arising in dependen...

In fact I think that "impermanence" (anicca) IMO is a consequence of Dependent Arising, i.e. whatever dependently arises have to cease once conditions change. An important point, though I think the relationship between transience and conditionality is chicken-and-egg - or two sides of the same coin...

Can anyone explain simply and clearly what "timeless" means when applied to DO, and give a practical example? In your own words, please. I'm afraid this "timeless" idea makes no sense to me at all, given the centrality of anicca in the teachings, and given that DO is all about arising and ceasing in...

Zom wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:46 pm

On what grounds do you consider a sutta to be a not-fake?

Agreeing with what it says?

arising and ceasing is the nature of existence Well, according to SN 22.38 that nature is not just arising and ceasing. There are 3 'manifestations'. Go take a look. So there is arising, alteration and ceasing of the aggregates, and these can be viewed as aspects of our personal experience. I think...

:thumbsup: Yes, this is my understanding, and - whether true or not! - you have expressed it very well. What I'm less clear about is how these modes apply to the dependent relationship between specific nidanas. I think both modes could be applied in some cases. I don't see why not. Your own "clouds...

DNS wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:26 pm

Will that make it complete? Are there any other options missing before I update it?

Thanks, that is more comprehensive.

My current option is "My brain hurts!"

the simultaneity of it is in the actual text, i don't know how it could be more clear "when this is, this is" "when this isn't, this isn't" this does not become false or invalid in the 2nd & 4th lines, it is the same principle applied to arising/ceasing, coming/going, as opposed to existence/nonexi...

the simultaneity of it is in the actual text, i don't know how it could be more clear "when this is, this is" "when this isn't, this isn't" this does not become false or invalid in the 2nd & 4th lines, it is the same principle applied to arising/ceasing, coming/going, as opposed to existence/nonexi...

If DO is timeless, how can it explain: 1) change? (after all "change" requires time. Sorry for the somewhat trivial question...) 2) that "physical ageing and death" is conditioned by "physical birth"? Good questions. DO seems basically to be about arising and ceasing in dependence upon conditions, ...

your sequential translation is not in the actual pāli nor is there any distinction between two modes in the actual pāli Two modes of conditionality are described. They are differently phrased in both the original Pali, and in English translations. The first mode is contemporaneous ( B is present wh...

anyway the problem is that interpreting it sequentially explicitly contradicts line 3 & 4 as it would be equivalent to saying that one link can & does exist while the other does not, or that it can & does not exist while the other does. if you think that saṅkhārā arises after ignorance & not simult...

dylanj wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:55 am

yes i know the difference. i have the whole quartet memorized in pali & english

So can you explain what you think the difference actually is between these two modes of conditionality?

why would it take time for something to cease when its requisite condition ceases? if "when this is, this is" & "when this isn't, this isn't" is true of the two links then the moment one is, the other is, & the moment one isn't, the other isn't You are still missing the distinction between the two ...

It's actually "when this arises, this arises". "imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati", not "imassuppādā etaṁ uppajjati" there's nothing sequential here, in fact it's the opposite. "when", not "after". where there is one link there is the other. the only reason they go in order is to indicate the closeness of...

Could you elaborate on "simultaneous"? And how does this work with the conditionality mode of "When this arises, that arises", which involves a sequence over time? It's actually "when this arises, this arises". "imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati", not "imassuppādā etaṁ uppajjati" there's nothing sequentia...

dylanj wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:19 am

simultaneous, non-linear

Could you elaborate on "simultaneous"? And how does this work with the conditionality mode of "When this arises, that arises", which involves a sequence over time?

being is defined in suttas by craving, delight Bhava ( existence or becoming in the three realms ) arises in dependence upon upādāna ( clinging ), which in turn arises in dependence upon tanha ( craving ). Cessation of tanha ( craving ) does not necessarily mean the simultaneous cessation of bhava ...

Circle5 wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:58 am

So the idea that Buddha meant momentary arising and death of phenomena instead of physical birth and physical death is pretty ridiculous to any informed buddhist

I wouldn't say "ridiculous", just unsupported by what the suttas actually describe.

By making DO one life model only or moment-to-moment only; an ulterior motive could be to circumvent rebirth teachings (not saying that all who hold that view do that). I think it can be a factor, and the interpretation we personally prefer is not necessarily the one which is best supported by what...