Great DO interpretation thread.

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
Post Reply
Dinsdale
Posts: 5692
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Great DO interpretation thread.

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:17 am

Is this worth considering? It's a topic that comes up regularly here.

Similar to these:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=22409
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=41
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1409
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Great DO interpretation thread.

Post by rightviewftw » Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:24 pm

The way one could try to think about it is that everything kind of evolves in a cause and effect fashion on a state to state basis and these states gain footing in the Deathless. So if causes for the arising of everything were to be exhausted there would be no cause for arising of anything and the Deathless quality is unafflicted by non arising but rather clear in itself on account of non arising.

Deathless does not gain footing in the Deathless, The Deathless is The Deathless and it is true and possible "reality" :quote: if you wish and manage to keep in mind that we are not talking about reality as conventional or some immaterial existence with or without a body or some element of perception, we are talking about the existence of the system in which impermanent existence gains footing and becomes manifest.

However saying that states gain footing in Nibbana is inappropriate because of the semantic differences of the words The Deathless and the Nibbana.
Clearly in a sense Nibbana = The Deathless but the Nibbana is also so much more than that but the Deathless is a specific "capped or restricted version" of the concept which makes it useful in that particular context for the teaching formulae by communicating a particular quality of Nibbana which can be understood by reason, in that one can be expected to be able to wrap one's head around it and not misunderstand the meaning of what is being said.

These are all particular concepts with specific application and useful in a specific context for specific purposes.
This stuff is definitely not essential for everybody to understand but important for some people who focus on making understanding their vehicle as i understand it.

If it makes sense and if you find it to be in line with Sutta Pitaka then you can entertain these ideas, if not then i encourage people to reject it.
I wouldn't give such commentary but i've been saying it more or less already and these topics come up a lot so fwiw.
How to Destroy any addiction
How to Meditate: Satipatthana Mahasi
Медитация Сатипаттхана Випассана
How To Develop Factors of Enlightenment & Perceptions
Complete Manual of Insight by Mahasi Sayadaw
Tyranny of Words - An Introduction to General Semantics
Ledi Sayadaw's Anapana Dipani (Samatha) @ ffmt.fr/articles/maitres/LediS/anapana-dipani.ledi-sayadaw.pdf
Dhammapada @ myweb.ncku.edu.tw/~lsn46/tipitaka/sutta/khuddaka/dhammapada/dhp-contrast-reading/dhp-contrast-reading-en/
don't feed the trolls

James Tan
Posts: 654
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Great DO interpretation thread.

Post by James Tan » Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:33 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:24 pm
The way one could try to think about it is that everything kind of evolves in a cause and effect fashion on a state to state basis and these states gain footing in the Deathless. So if causes for the arising of everything were to be exhausted there would be no cause for arising of anything and the Deathless quality is unafflicted by non arising but rather clear in itself on account of non arising.

Deathless does not gain footing in the Deathless, The Deathless is The Deathless and it is true and possible "reality" :quote: if you wish and manage to keep in mind that we are not talking about reality as conventional or some immaterial existence with or without a body or some element of perception, we are talking about the existence of the system in which impermanent existence gains footing and becomes manifest.

However saying that states gain footing in Nibbana is inappropriate because of the semantic differences of the words The Deathless and the Nibbana.
Clearly in a sense Nibbana = The Deathless but the Nibbana is also so much more than that but the Deathless is a specific "capped or restricted version" of the concept which makes it useful in that particular context for the teaching formulae by communicating a particular quality of Nibbana which can be understood by reason, in that one can be expected to be able to wrap one's head around it and not misunderstand the meaning of what is being said.

These are all particular concepts with specific application and useful in a specific context for specific purposes.
This stuff is definitely not essential for everybody to understand but important for some people who focus on making understanding their vehicle as i understand it.

If it makes sense and if you find it to be in line with Sutta Pitaka then you can entertain these ideas, if not then i encourage people to reject it.
I wouldn't give such commentary but i've been saying it more or less already and these topics come up a lot so fwiw.
Hi , definitely I'm not doodoot or some other guy and I only got one account . Not to worry .

User avatar
Dhammarakkhito
Posts: 1115
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Great DO interpretation thread.

Post by Dhammarakkhito » Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:48 am

dn 15
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19922
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Great DO interpretation thread.

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:26 am

Greetings Dinsdale,
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:17 am
Is this worth considering?
A lot of the "Great" topics aren't really so "Great"... they tend to exist as consolidated topics because either:

- The subject in question has a tendency to worm itself into other topics, in which it is not particularly relevant (... in that context the "great" topic serves as a "containment area")
- The conversations on that topic nearly always pan out exactly the same way (this is especially so with discussions on Rebirth and Vegetarianism)

In contrast, dependent origination is arguably the most important and profound teaching there is, and frankly I think each and every unique topic spawned by an interested member is a great opportunity for all of us to explore and potentially refine our understanding of the topic. I would hate to do anything that would diminish anyone's interest in the topic.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Great DO interpretation thread.

Post by DooDoot » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:53 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:17 am
Is this worth considering?
OK. I will start with the following sutta excepts:
On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, being comes to be; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes 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.

MN 38
Bhikkhus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it, and remains holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one. When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and laments, weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand as it actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance lies within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of suffering without abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, without abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, without extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, without abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge—this is impossible.

Bhikkhus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, if one does not delight in it, welcome it, and remain holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust does not lie within one. When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one does not sorrow, grieve and lament, does not weep beating one’s breast and become distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion does not lie within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one understands as it actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance does not lie within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of suffering by abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, by abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, by extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge—this is possible.

MN 148
Notice how the phenomena highlighted in red color are exactly the same; yet the outcomes highlighted in blue & green are exactly opposite or different. I propose that what is highlighted in red is not really 'dependent origination' but just a neutral cause & effect (even though some suttas say these phenomena are dependently arisen). This might possibly explain why in some suttas:

* Consciousness arises dependent upon sense bases (MN 38; MN 148; MN 18)

* Consciousness arises dependent upon (paccaya) & caused (hetu) by nama-rupa (SN 22.82; SN 22.56).

* Consciousness & nama-rupa are mutually dependent (SN 12.67).

What do we think?

:reading:

Dinsdale
Posts: 5692
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Great DO interpretation thread.

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:37 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:26 am
Greetings Dinsdale,
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:17 am
Is this worth considering?
A lot of the "Great" topics aren't really so "Great"... they tend to exist as consolidated topics because either:

- The subject in question has a tendency to worm itself into other topics, in which it is not particularly relevant (... in that context the "great" topic serves as a "containment area")
- The conversations on that topic nearly always pan out exactly the same way (this is especially so with discussions on Rebirth and Vegetarianism)

In contrast, dependent origination is arguably the most important and profound teaching there is, and frankly I think each and every unique topic spawned by an interested member is a great opportunity for all of us to explore and potentially refine our understanding of the topic. I would hate to do anything that would diminish anyone's interest in the topic.

Metta,
Paul. :)
I don't really follow your reasoning. Discussions on DO often "worm" their way into other topics, and they also often follow a similar pattern - like discussions on rebirth, and the nature of Nibbana ( the two existing great threads ).

It sounds like you are keen for DO to be discussed, but not keen for rebirth or the nature of Nibbana to be discussed? :shrug:

Also we have some members here who seem keen to share their interpretation of DO at every opportunity - a great thread would be an appropriate place for such contributions.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4369
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Great DO interpretation thread.

Post by SDC » Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:47 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:37 am
retrofuturist wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:26 am
Greetings Dinsdale,
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:17 am
Is this worth considering?
A lot of the "Great" topics aren't really so "Great"... they tend to exist as consolidated topics because either:

- The subject in question has a tendency to worm itself into other topics, in which it is not particularly relevant (... in that context the "great" topic serves as a "containment area")
- The conversations on that topic nearly always pan out exactly the same way (this is especially so with discussions on Rebirth and Vegetarianism)

In contrast, dependent origination is arguably the most important and profound teaching there is, and frankly I think each and every unique topic spawned by an interested member is a great opportunity for all of us to explore and potentially refine our understanding of the topic. I would hate to do anything that would diminish anyone's interest in the topic.

Metta,
Paul. :)
I don't really follow your reasoning. Discussions on DO often "worm" their way into other topics, and they also often follow a similar pattern - like discussions on rebirth, and the nature of Nibbana ( the two existing great threads ).

It sounds like you are keen for DO to be discussed, but not keen for rebirth or the nature of Nibbana to be discussed? :shrug:

Also we have some members here who seem keen to share their interpretation of DO at every opportunity - a great thread would be an appropriate place for such contributions.
The thing with nibbana and rebirth discussions is that they tend to be carbon copies of one another with participants saying pretty much the same thing every time (different participants each time for the most part). I agree that DO discussions tend to be more unique and it would be a disservice to treat it in the same manner.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fruitzilla and 14 guests