Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

One life model
0
No votes
One life model and moment to moment
6
15%
Two lives model
0
No votes
Three lives model
3
8%
Three lives model and moment to moment
8
20%
Multiple lives model
3
8%
Multiple lives model & moment-to-moment
7
18%
Moment to moment only
2
5%
Timeless/Atemporal/Structural
7
18%
Simultaneous, non-linear
4
10%
 
Total votes: 40

2600htz
Posts: 279
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by 2600htz » Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:17 pm

Hello:

It depends on the individual.

The Buddha first started thinking about dependent origination in a conceptual way, and how it operated over one lifetime. Then close to his awakening he developed the 3 knowledges (tevijja) and was able see DO operate over many many lifetimes (seeing his past lifetimes and the the passing away & reappearance of other beings). Finally he was able to see it "moment to moment" in the most deepest way, and thats when his taints where destroyed.

Sariputta didn´t have the 3 knowledges so he didn´t have a clue on how DO operates over many lifetimes, seeing DO operate "moment to moment" was enough for him to destroy the taints.

Regards.

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 5223
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by binocular » Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:01 pm

Zom wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:11 pm
My opinion is that DO has nothing to do with 1-2-3 lives or moment-to-moment-ness.

It just shows generally how and why suffering exists, without any kind of precise details. Key to such opinion is Upanisa sutta:
That's how I understand it.
I don't know why all the fuss about it.

James Tan
Posts: 527
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by James Tan » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:24 pm

Suffering , is the Theme .

Suffering comes about because of certain conditions . Ignorant is the main cause of suffering .

Ignorant is a Condition of the mind . It does not mean beginning of a lifetime . It is a Condition for sankhara to arise .
So is six sense base , is a Condition for feeling to arise .
So is the Becoming , is a Condition for the arising of birth .
Birth although is a beginning of a lifetime , but , is a Condition for the Aging and Death to occur .

The question is , Ordinary person without practise of the path , Only can see birth , aging and death .

The person whom started to practise , will Start Seeing the sufferings starts from six sense base .
And how the mind develope , processing and causes sufferings .

The person whom are learned and Skilled in the trainings , the mind Attend Wisely can sees that sufferings arises whenever the mind is Unaware , Inattentive , which gives rise to ignorance .


:namaste:
:reading:

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11557
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by DNS » Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:12 pm

binocular wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:01 pm
Zom wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:11 pm
My opinion is that DO has nothing to do with 1-2-3 lives or moment-to-moment-ness.

It just shows generally how and why suffering exists, without any kind of precise details. Key to such opinion is Upanisa sutta:
That's how I understand it.
I don't know why all the fuss about it.
Buddhaghosa (Theravada) and Vasubandhu (Mahayana) both discussed a 3 life model. Either they both came up with the 3 life model on their own or extrapolated it from the teachings, thus the controversy ever since.

And the Abhidhamma discusses momentary mental events in detail, which makes sense from our own analysis of thoughts and their fleeting nature.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1043
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by rightviewftw » Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:19 pm

to me it simply means that dependent on X arises Y, if X is not then Y does not arise and it applies to all of the past, present and future. There has never been and never will be an independent arising.
How to Destroy any addiction
How to Meditate: Satipatthana Mahasi
Медитация Сатипаттхана Випассана
How To Develop Factors of Enlightenment & Perceptions
Ven. Kutukurunde Nanananda's (Developing Metta)
Tyranny of Words - An Introduction to General Semantics
Dhammatalks categorized by topic @ video.sirimangalo.org/
Ledi Sayadaw's Anapana Dipani (Samatha) @ ffmt.fr/articles/maitres/LediS/anapana-dipani.ledi-sayadaw.pdf
Parallel Dhammapada @ myweb.ncku.edu.tw/~lsn46/tipitaka/sutta/khuddaka/dhammapada/dhp-contrast-reading/dhp-contrast-reading-en/

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3511
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:12 pm

Gombrich makes the interesting observation (I'm not sure if it's true) that DO is unique in that there is an account of the Buddha saying that it is deep and extremely hard to understand. (This is to Ananda at the start of the Maha Nidana Sutta). Normally, the Buddha is portrayed as doing his best to make himself clear. This, for Gombrich, points to the fact that those formulating the text were themselves unsure as to whether they had got it exactly right.

Gombrich's proposed solution to the problems involved in various interpretations - he himself notes that a solution to the problem of suffering involves "getting rid of consciousness" - is that the standard 12-link DO is a composite of two separate ideas. The first list goes back as far as 5 links, to Tanha, and is readily understood as an explication of the idea put forward in the Dhammacakkhappavattana Sutta about craving causing suffering. The first four "problematic" links he sees (following the work of Joanna Jurewicz) as a later ironising of Vedic cosmogonic myths about the arising of existence and consciousness in the universe, and proposes that these got spliced onto the front end of DO when it was realised they provided a good fit. This interpretation is, he says, complementary to the "standard" Buddhist view in that it avoids the problems of repeated phenomena within the sequence, and also adds to our understanding of the no-self doctrine. Without an atman to generate subject and object in the universe, DO is an account of how people are driven deeper into ignorance about themselves.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19509
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by retrofuturist » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:50 pm

Greetings,
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:12 pm
Gombrich makes the interesting observation (I'm not sure if it's true) that DO is unique in that there is an account of the Buddha saying that it is deep and extremely hard to understand. (This is to Ananda at the start of the Maha Nidana Sutta).
I'd believe it.

But then, given that it is effectively a single "theory" to account for literally all sankata-dhammas, it's impressive that it's simultaneously as streamlined and comprehensive as it is.

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
cappuccino
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by cappuccino » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:59 pm

people over estimate the importance of DO

remember Buddha saw DO after his enlightenment, not before

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by aflatun » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:03 pm

cappuccino wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:59 pm
people over estimate the importance of DO

remember Buddha saw DO after his enlightenment, not before
:shock:

I believe you're underestimating it. For me, Nibbana is in fact synonymous with the seeing of DO, and apart from this there is no Nibbana to speak of.
Last edited by aflatun on Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3511
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:11 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:50 pm
Greetings,
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:12 pm
Gombrich makes the interesting observation (I'm not sure if it's true) that DO is unique in that there is an account of the Buddha saying that it is deep and extremely hard to understand. (This is to Ananda at the start of the Maha Nidana Sutta).
I'd believe it.

But then, given that it is effectively a single "theory" to account for literally all sankata-dhammas, it's impressive that it's simultaneously as streamlined and comprehensive as it is.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Agreed.
Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising."
(MN 28)

Circle5
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Circle5 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:41 pm

The DO sutta is just one out hundreds of suttas that constitute the "higher dhamma" section of the nikayas. It is pure ridiculousness to read one sutta out of 1500 pages of higher dhamma and expect to understand how living beings technically work based just on that random sutta.

Imagine a bunch of people who have read just 1 page out of an engineering manual that attempts to explain how airplaines work and then debate to death that one page, without reading the whole book. Have you ever done such a stupid act in collage ? Has any one of your collage classmates ever done such a stupid act ?

This is the problem that keeps popping up on buddhist forums. People reading just the first sutta of the higher dhamma section of the nikayas (chapter 2,3 and half of chapter 4 of SN) and trying to figure it all out just by using this single page out of 1500.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by aflatun » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:44 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:41 pm
The DO sutta is just one out hundreds of suttas that constitute the "higher dhamma" section of the nikayas.
If you read past the titles you'll notice that the entire portion of the SN in question is actually about DO.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11557
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by DNS » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:54 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:41 pm
This is the problem that keeps popping up on buddhist forums. People reading just the first sutta of the higher dhamma section of the nikayas (chapter 2,3 and half of chapter 4 of SN) and trying to figure it all out just by using this single page out of 1500.
Who is doing that? I don't see anyone quoting one Sutta or one page and saying they have it all figured out based on one Sutta. Where do you see this?

edit: unless you are referring to Zom's post on the first page? In which case, you should quote his post so it doesn't appear that you are scolding everyone here.

Circle5
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Circle5 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:05 pm

Who is doing that? I don't see anyone quoting one Sutta or one page and saying they have it all figured out based on one Sutta. Where do you see this?
There is so much focus on the DO sutta, when this sutta is just a page out of many of higher dhamma. Because people only read this sutta + the opinions of modern gurus about it, they end up with all kind of strange interpretations of it. For example claiming that "birth" or "aging and death" should be understood in a momentary sense. Just look at the number of people who voted for such a thing in this very topic. This shows they have not even read the second sutta out of the "Book of causation" chapter of SN where each link is explained and even has a string of synonims attached:
“And what, bhikkhus, is aging-and-death? The aging of the various beings in the various orders of beings, their growing old, brokenness of teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of vitality, degeneration of the faculties: this is called aging. The passing away of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass: this is called death.2 Thus this aging and this death are together called aging-and-death.

“And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent [into the womb], production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth.3
Besides this problem of not even reading the sutta following the first one, there is also the problem of this sutta being a super small part of the explanation regarding how a living being works. It's just one page out of 1500. Even if one understands this one, there are still 1499 pages to go.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19509
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by retrofuturist » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:38 pm

Greetings Circle5,
Circle5 wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:05 pm
Besides this problem of not even reading the sutta following the first one, there is also the problem of this sutta being a super small part of the explanation regarding how a living being works. It's just one page out of 1500. Even if one understands this one, there are still 1499 pages to go.
Paticcasamuppada means dependent origination or dependent arising.

What do you think it is that arises?
What do you think it is that the arisen is dependent upon?
Is the function of paticcasamuppada in the Dhamma to be a model for "how a living being works"?

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
pilgrim
Posts: 1489
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by pilgrim » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:57 pm

DNS wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:12 pm

Buddhaghosa (Theravada) and Vasubandhu (Mahayana) both discussed a 3 life model. Either they both came up with the 3 life model on their own or extrapolated it from the teachings, thus the controversy ever since.

And the Abhidhamma discusses momentary mental events in detail, which makes sense from our own analysis of thoughts and their fleeting nature.
I believe the 3 Life Model is drawn from the 2nd authority which is Suttānuloma as inferred by the MahaNidana sutta, then Acariyavada, the opinions of Commentators. :anjali:

Circle5
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Circle5 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:58 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:38 pm
Greetings Circle5,
Circle5 wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:05 pm
Besides this problem of not even reading the sutta following the first one, there is also the problem of this sutta being a super small part of the explanation regarding how a living being works. It's just one page out of 1500. Even if one understands this one, there are still 1499 pages to go.
Paticcasamuppada means dependent origination or dependent arising.

What do you think it is that arises?
What do you think it is that the arisen is dependent upon?
Is the function of paticcasamuppada in the Dhamma to be a model for "how a living being works"?

Metta,
Paul. :)
Partly yes. It's meant to be a summary of how a living being works and how rebirth works. A summary of how this big mass of suffering keeps perpetuating itself. It partially explains how the aggregates work. It's not meant to be a complete explanation of how things work since it's just 1 page out of 1500 of higher dhamma. But many people treat it as such. In order to understand how things work, much more than a single sutta is needed.

As a matter of fact, the whole chapter where this sutta is found called "book of causation" will leave one in a big fog after reading it. It's main purpose is to make the person notice the conditionality between things. Only in the "book of aggregates" will one's head get cleared of fog and one will find a detailed explanation of how beings technically work.

When Buddha explained the highed dhamma to people, he always did it in a specific order. First he explained causation, then aggregates, then sense bases, etc. and only at the end did he explain the difficult teachings about no-self. This is the order in which he explained things to people in the suttas, people who then became stream enterers.

Today, we see people taking this DO sutta, spinning it in a billion ways (sometimes even inventing a new philosopy around it that totally contradicts buddhism), thinking this is the secret to understanding the dhamma, when this sutta is such a small piece of the puzzle that should not be taken out of context of the whole teaching.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4204
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:08 am

DNS wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:11 pm
mikenz66 wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:14 am
But that would mean that Thanissaro and Retro would tick the same box, which really doesn't make sense. Their views are quite distinct.
Okay, I updated the poll; so now we all need to re-vote to since updating the poll reset all numbers back to 0.
Dude! :x

Option 8: Timeless/Atemporal/Structural

David, I take the flagrant rejection of this model as a personal insult. :tongue:

For those unfamiliar with this model, see Ven.'s Nanavira, N. Nanamoli and Ariyavamsa. As I understand it, instead of attempting to explain a sequence - whether it be over the course of one, two or three lives, psychologically through "mind moments", or through some hybrid of the two - this model does not involve sequence at all. It does not explain any sort of process. Instead it describes the structure of suffering: the full arrangement of the different 'layers/factors' of that suffering, and how they, in pairs, depend on one another irrespective of time.
...Just as two sheaves of reeds might stand leaning against each other, so too, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

If, friend, one were to remove one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall, and if one were to remove the other sheaf, the first would fall. So too, with the cessation of name-and-form, the cessation of consciousness; with the cessation of consciousness, the cessation of name-and-form. With the cessation of name-and-form, the cessation of the six sense bases; with the cessation of the six sense bases, cessation of contact…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.” -SN 12.67
With all the classic arguments in support of this timeless model aside, I think the most potent comes from one's own struggles to hold the entirety of experience together as a being a part of a process or sequence. Because no matter how accurate any process/sequential model of DO seems to be, all fail to take into account just how exactly one is supposed to observe sequence at all. If a direction of viewing a sequence is available, then the source of that direction cannot be part of the sequence being observed, i.e. a thing cannot simultaneously be occurring and watching itself occur. That direction will always be towards whatever is there and thus can never itself be observed. Models that involve sequence exclude this direction of view, but not purposefully - they are so utterly familiar with things be there that they never question that direction. This results in condoning the existence of something beyond the sequence (self) by assuming it to be sequential in an unwatchable, and negligible manner. Because no matter what one does when attempting to find a proper intersection of observation and process, it all gets muddled in an infinite regress. Every attempt to fold the whole thing together as part of a broader sequence, results in even that being subject to the same paradox of having that direction coming from outside that which has been designated as "the sequence"; it can literally go on without end, without ever reaching an intersection of observation and process.

The structural interpretation leaves all of this as it is, accepts the arisen, yet flawed logic involved, but rejects the prospect that any further meaning be drawn from the sequence. Since sequential/process models involve intentional motion from thing to thing in front of an observer, and call it time, they thrive on one's tendency to search. I posit that this sequential search is nothing but craving, and only when ventures down those sequential rabbit holes are abandoned, can a structural search emerge. One takes the flawed picture as it is and uses it to find what the flaw implies, not where it leads. Discerning the implication reveals what that picture is based upon, while following it does nothing but embed it further, since adherence to the movement is a major flaw in itself. I should probably shut up now...

That is why I reject all 7 options in David's pole. :computerproblem:

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2021
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Zom » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:14 am

That's how I understand it.
I don't know why all the fuss about it.
Because suttas never go into details, and people do want them -)
Gombrich makes the interesting observation (I'm not sure if it's true) that DO is unique in that there is an account of the Buddha saying that it is deep and extremely hard to understand. (This is to Ananda at the start of the Maha Nidana Sutta).
Actually, it is not hard to understand - and this is why Ananda did say that his phrase. However, Buddha gave a reply, meaning, that his understanding of it is not as profound as arahant's understanding, and indeed, there is a huge difference between stream-enterer and arahant's vision. Arahant is endowed with perfect full-fledged samadhi, seeing things in a mystic, "unthinkable" way (acinteyya). I guess this is what Buddha meant by that his reply to Ananda.
this model does not involve sequence at all. It does not explain any sort of process. Instead it describes the structure of suffering: the full arrangement of the different 'layers/factors' of that suffering, and how they, in pairs, depend on one another irrespective of time.
Ye. When beings cling, they continue to exist. When they exist, they are born again and again. And when they are born again and again, they suffer and die again and again .) And - (following Upanisa sutta), when they suffer and die so much, eventually they start to gain faith in Dhamma... and then they practise... and because of that they gain joy... etc etc etc... and finally enlightenment 8-) No need to apply "n-lives scheme" to explain anything here.
Last edited by Zom on Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

Circle5
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Circle5 » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:17 am

See ? This is what I'm speaking about...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], JohnK and 75 guests