chownah wrote: ↑
Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:42 am
My point is that this is an entanglement of ideas. From this entanglement one can focus on some things or other things and find pegs and holes of various sizes and shapes. People do this in different ways because they come to the dhamma with different abilities, interests, understandings, discernment, needs, woes, etc.......seems unlikely that you can find any singular peg or hole which all of those people will relate to.....it seems unlikely to me that the buddha would have tried to offer a singular peg or hole as the answer for everyone. If the buddha was trying to describe a singular peg and hole then he was a very bad teacher.
I think you need to explain exactly how the D.O. works in DN 15 before making the above point. For example, nama-rupa in DN 15 is translated thus:
DN 15 Nama-Rupa wrote:Those qualities, traits, signs and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body and the material body.... to this extent that there is a pathway for designation, to this extent that there is a pathway for language, to this extent that there is a pathway for description... to this extent that the round turns for describing this state of being, that is, when there is mentality-materiality together with consciousness
DN 15 continues as follows, referring to 'describing self' in relation to materiality & immateriality:
DN 15 Describing Self wrote:In what ways, Ānanda, does one describing self describe it? Describing self as having material form and as limited, one describes it thus: ‘My self has material form and is limited.’ Or describing self as having material form and as infinite, one describes it thus: ‘My self has material form and is infinite.’ Or describing self as immaterial and limited, one describes it thus: ‘My self is immaterial and limited.’ Or describing self as immaterial and infinite, one describes it thus: ‘My self is immaterial and infinite.’
Therefore, when DN 15 refers to 'consciousness' & 'birth' ('jati'), is DN 15 saying they are merely 'descriptions
'? That is, is DN 15 saying for a description
of a "child
" in a womb or a description
of a "young boy or girl
" to occur, this is dependent on consciousness (awareness; feeling; sensing; cognition) of the child in the womb or dependent on consciousness of the form of the boy or girl? Or for the idea/concept of gods, humans, reptiles, etc, is nama-rupa required to describe
these "beings" or "births"; that this birth is dependent upon description
DN 15 Consciousness wrote:If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would mentality-materiality take shape in the womb?
If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would mentality-materiality be generated into this present state of being?
If the consciousness of a young boy or girl were to be cut off, would mentality-materiality grow up, develop, and reach maturity?
DN 15 Birth wrote:If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere—that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, and reptiles, each into their own state
My question here is sincere rather than rhetorical (given I have meditated upon D.O. for many years, but only on the SN 12.2 version). I have read commentaries by Patrick Kearney, Ajahn Brahm & Bhikkhu Bodhi imputing a reincarnation theory upon their beloved DN 15 but none of these commentaries make any logical sense to me. Therefore, what exactly is DN 15 teaching?
Personally, I don't know. But my impression is DN 15 is not teaching about reincarnation of consciousness but about how description
(nama-rupa) ultimately leads to craving, attachment, becoming, descriptive ideas
about different beings (or 'birth') and thus suffering. But when there is no description or no ideas about 'beings' or 'birth', there is no suffering.