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

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4206
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:44 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:56 pm
Therefore, if the theories about "structural, timeless, non-temporal, etc" DO are correct, they should whitstand the scrutiny of critical thinking. If such ideas are correct and in line with how things work in reality, then the truth will have no problems rising to the surface in a debate.
Your questions have been addressed in this thread and countless times before, so either you are purposefully ignoring them or there is some other reason why you don't acknowledge it. Perhaps they haven't been addressed to you liking, or maybe you just disagree, and that is perfectly fine, but please don't pretend that I am not acknowledging what you have said. I have. Repeatedly.

Again, just because you find solace in the embrace of historical consensus does not give you the right to speak from any lofty position of your choosing. If you didn't earn it, then it isn't yours.

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 23, 2018 11:10 pm

SDC wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:44 pm
Your questions have been addressed in this thread and countless times before, so either you are purposefully ignoring them or there is some other reason why you don't acknowledge it. Perhaps they haven't been addressed to you liking, or maybe you just disagree, and that is perfectly fine, but please don't pretend that I am not acknowledging what you have said. I have. Repeatedly.

Again, just because you find solace in the embrace of historical consensus does not give you the right to speak from any lofty position of your choosing. If you didn't earn it, then it isn't yours.
You mean this ?
So I am happy you raised this point because there are often a lot of questions about how it plays into a "timeless" interpretation. Clearly this sutta is incompatible with cessation in terms of cessation of experience, but if it isn't cessation of experience, what is it cessation of? Again, I'm going to posit the idea that 'cessation' in terms of DO/PS must have exclusively to do with "...the cessation of this mass of suffering" and not cessation of arising in general. I hope I am not being too cavalier with this point. Things must continue to arise, but they do not arise with ignorance and therefore do not arise as "this is mine, this I am". Prior to arahantship, when arisen things were "mine", when they were "the five-clinging-aggregates", the pairs of DO/PS were one's suffering. Why? Because one did not decide for things to be mine: they arose as mine. That "I" arose as "me". When that ignorance is removed, those things no longer stand together as suffering. I also posit that they still stand together, but looking at SN 22.88 above, there is a detachment, there is opening where that dependency once meant suffering, but now means nothing. I posted the below in another thread where this came up. Perhaps it is of relevance.
Nothing else except this paragraph has been written as a response to that question

How exactly does this address the problem of consciousness (and the other 4 aggregates too) ceasing at the exact same moment when ignorance ceases in a "structural, timeless, happening in every moment" DO ?

Are you trying to say there are 2 sets of 5 aggregates (one called clinging aggregates one called non-clinging aggregates), with different DO applying to each individual set ?

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4206
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:48 am

Circle5 wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:10 pm
How exactly does this address the problem of consciousness (and the other 4 aggregates too) ceasing at the exact same moment when ignorance ceases in a "structural, timeless, happening in every moment" DO ?
Why are you asking me about moments? When did I ever mention moments? When did ever say "aggregates cease"? I said the pairs no longer stand for suffering. I also said, "things continue to arise".

Thanks for making it very clear that you don't take the time to read anything that anyone writes.

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 24, 2018 12:55 am

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:48 am
Circle5 wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:10 pm
How exactly does this address the problem of consciousness (and the other 4 aggregates too) ceasing at the exact same moment when ignorance ceases in a "structural, timeless, happening in every moment" DO ?
Why are you asking me about moments? When did I ever mention moments? When did ever say "aggregates cease"? I said the pairs no longer stand for suffering. I also said, "things continue to arise".

Thanks for making it very clear that you don't take the time to read anything that anyone writes.
So there is a different DO (the normal interpretation one) that now applies to the 5 aggregates of the arahant ?

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:20 am

Circle5 wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:10 pm
Are you trying to say there are 2 sets of 5 aggregates (one called clinging aggregates one called non-clinging aggregates), with different DO applying to each individual set ?
SN 22.48 and end of MN 28. DO appears not to apply to the non-clinging aggregates. DO is called "the wrong path" (SN 12.3).
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the five aggregates & the five clinging-aggregates. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

SN 22.48
Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising." And these things — the five clinging-aggregates — are dependently co-arisen. Any desire, embracing, grasping, & holding-on to these five clinging-aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five clinging-aggregates is the cessation of stress.' And even to this extent, friends, the monk has accomplished a great deal."

MN 28
Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?

Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to its end.'

Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.

SN 22.85
And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.

He does not assume feeling to be the self...

He does not assume perception to be the self...

He does not assume fabrications to be the self...

He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.

SN 22.1
And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

SN 12.2
Last edited by DooDoot on Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:35 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19519
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 » Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:30 am

Greetings DooDoot,

Well said.

To speak of origination with regards to the arahant is to indicate that one does not understand what arahantship actually entails.

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
SDC
Posts: 4206
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:07 am

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:55 am
SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:48 am
Circle5 wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:10 pm
How exactly does this address the problem of consciousness (and the other 4 aggregates too) ceasing at the exact same moment when ignorance ceases in a "structural, timeless, happening in every moment" DO ?
Why are you asking me about moments? When did I ever mention moments? When did ever say "aggregates cease"? I said the pairs no longer stand for suffering. I also said, "things continue to arise".

Thanks for making it very clear that you don't take the time to read anything that anyone writes.
So there is a different DO (the normal interpretation one) that now applies to the 5 aggregates of the arahant ?
I wrote this to you a year ago. Doodoot just posted the same sutta:
SDC wrote:In terms of significance: the nature of manifestation is the very same for arahat as it is for puthujjana. That is why you have the arahat described as the five aggregates and the puthujjana as the five holding aggregates (see SN 22.48). Holding is in regards to the five aggregates, i.e. those aggregates are held/clung to as mine. With removal of the holding you have the ceasing of that holding, not of the aggregates. The aggregates continue to do what they have always done: arise, cease and change while standing.
As I have said dozens of times, the pairs of DO/PS no longer stand as suffering. In that regard it has ceased. The holding to the dependency that was this mass of suffering is no longer, BUT THE AGGREGATES CONTINUE TO MANIFEST.

Just another instance to add to the record of what you have chosen to ignore.

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 » Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:07 am

Sakkāra Sutta wrote: Phusanti phassā upadhiṃ paṭicca,
Nirūpadhiṃ kena phuseyyum phassā.

Contacts make contact, dependent on acquisition.
Where there is no acquisition, what would contacts contact?
Udāna 2.4
Ven. Nanavira wrote:Phassa, 'contact', is defined (Salāyatana Samy. iv,10 <S.iv,67-9>) as the coming together of the eye, forms, and eye-consciousness (and so with the ear and the rest). But it is probably wrong to suppose that we must therefore understand the word phassa, primarily at least, as contact between these three things.[a] So long as there is avijjā, all things (dhammā) are fundamentally as described in the earlier part of the Mūlapariyāyasutta (Majjhima i,1 <M.i,1>); that is to say, they are inherently in subjection, they are appropriated, they are mine (See ANICCA, MAMA, & A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPĀDA [f]). This is the foundation of the notion that I am and that things are in contact with me. This contact between me and things is phassa. The ditthisampanna sees the deception, but the puthujjana accepts it at its face value and elaborates it into a relationship between himself and the world (attā ca loko ca—which relationship is then capable of further elaboration into a variety of views [Majjhima xi,2 <M.ii,233>]).(b) But though the ditthisampanna is not deceived, yet until he becomes arahat the aroma of subjectivity (asmī ti, '(I) am') hangs about all his experience.

All normal experience is dual (dvayam—see NĀMA, final paragraph): there are present (i) one's conscious six-based body (saviññānaka salāyatanika kāya), and (ii) other phenomena (namely, whatever is not one's body); and reflexion will show that, though both are objective in the experience, the aroma of subjectivity that attaches to the experience will naturally tend to be attributed to the body.[c] In this way, phassa comes to be seen as contact between the conscious eye and forms—but mark that this is because contact is primarily between subject and object, and not between eye, forms, and eye-consciousness. This approach makes it possible to see in what sense, with the entire cessation of all illusion of 'I' and 'mine', there is phassanirodha in the arahat (where, though there are still, so long as he continues to live, both the conscious body and the other phenomena, there is no longer any appropriation).

But when (as commonly) phassa is interpreted as 'contact between sense-organ and sense-object, resulting in consciousness'—and its translation as '(sense-)impression' implies this interpretation—then we are at once cut off from all possibility of understanding phassanirodha in the arahat;[d] for the question whether or not the eye is the subject is not even raised—we are concerned only with the eye as a sense-organ, and it is a sense-organ in puthujjana and arahat alike. Understanding of phassa now consists in accounting for consciousness starting from physiological (or neurological) descriptions of the sense-organs and their functioning. Consciousness, however, is not physiologically observable, and the entire project rests upon unjustifiable assumptions from the start.[e] This epistemological interpretation of phassa misconceives the Dhamma as a kind of natural-science-cum-psychology that provides an explanation of things in terms of cause-and- effect.
Phassa
"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
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 » Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:10 am

Ven. Nanananda wrote:In a certain discourse in the Mucalindavagga of the Udāna, the Buddha has declared in a verse of uplift that the cessation of contact comes about only by doing away with that which brings about contact. The wandering ascetics of other sects grew jealous of the Buddha and his congregation of monks, because of their own loss of gain and honour, and began to hurl abuse on monks in the village and in the forest. A group of monks came and reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha's response to it was only a paean of joy. Udāna actually means a spontaneous utterance of joy, and the verse he uttered was such a one. But it embodied an instruction on Dhamma and a norm of Dhamma as well.

Gāme araññe sukhadukkhaphuṭṭho,
nev'attato no parato dahetha,
phusanti phassā upadhiṃ paṭicca,
Nirūpadhiṃ kena phuseyyum phassā.

In the first two lines we get an instruction:

"Touched by pain in village or in forest,
Think not in terms of oneself or others."

The reason for it is given in the norm of Dhamma which follows:

"Touches can touch one, because of assets,
How can touches touch him, who is asset-less?"

This is all what the Buddha uttered. From this we can glean another aspect of the significance of the terms sabbūpadhipaṭinissagga, relinquishment of all assets, and nirupadhi, the asset-less, used with reference to Nibbāna.
Nibbana Sermon 16, pg 346
"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

Dinsdale
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:21 am

SDC wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:14 am
Perhaps your long-standing apprehension towards the possibility of this interpretation being at all meaningful is hindering your ability to do the same.
I'm afraid I find the way it is presented here to be mostly unintelligible, hence my repeated requests for a clear practical explanation of what "timeless/atemporal" means when applied to DO. A couple of sentences setting out the basic assumptions would be a good start. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.
SDC wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:14 am
Instead of being so broad in your disagreement perhaps you could hone in on something more tangible and particular. Maybe that would help start the discussion.
I just did, in my last post. I observed that "Sabbe sankhara anicca" means all the nidanas of DO are subject to anicca, and therefore subject to change over time, so how DO could be described as "timeless/atemporal"? Could you respond directly to this question?

Also could you explain how the two modes of conditionality in DO ( while and when ) could be described as "timeless/atemporal"?

And what exactly is the difference between the "timeless/atemporal" model and the "moment-to-moment" model?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4206
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:55 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:21 am
I just did, in my last post. I observed that "Sabbe sankhara anicca" means all the nidanas of DO are subject to anicca, and therefore subject to change over time, so how DO could be described as "timeless/atemporal"? Could you respond directly to this question?
When you say "over time" how is that quantified and/or qualified? Is it visually represented in some way that you can access it for contemplation? What I mean is, you seem like you are saying that time is observable and I do not disagree, but what exactly are you accessing in order to observe it? What do you see when you are thinking about "change over time"? An image? How much time can be represented per image? Once you answer, I am going to take what you say and try to describe it from an additional point of view in order to answer your question, so don't be bashful or needlessly skeptical. All I am asking for is your own description of your experience.
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:21 am
Also could you explain how the two modes of conditionality in DO ( while and when ) could be described as "timeless/atemporal"?
We've talked about this many times and you know my answer already. Whether you say "with this, this is" or "with this, that is", "when this is, that is" or any other phrasing, it doesn't necessarily imply a sequence/linear causality. See below.
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:21 am
And what exactly is the difference between the "timeless/atemporal" model and the "moment-to-moment" model?
I don't know much about the "moment to moment" model. Seems more accurate to say it applies to "mind moments" in which the links of DO arise in sequence on some psychological grounds. In short, it involves sequence. It is a process.

As I understand it, a structural model is all of the factors fully arranged, i.e. "this mass of suffering", and the descriptions are done in pairs because that is the nature of dependency (MN 79). So the descriptions found in the suttas are ordered in a particular way to show how exactly those things depend on one another, but that order does not imply a linear process to the structure itself. It merely signifies that it is ordered. Each layer is unique and are described separately. Like a building that is fully built - were you to describe the arrangement of the different floors. Floor 1 and 2 depend on another, 2 and 3, 3 and 4 and so on. But also 3 could be said to depend on 1 also, and that is consistent with "ignorance" being at the root. This is surely a crude comparison but the whole point is to show that there can be a complete structure and in order to describe it, that structure has to be broken down into more particular parts. Not in a sense that you would literally see it rebuilt in order to describe it, but just that the description must have some order that corresponds to the structure.

The point is that all of those things are always there, they are always part of the experience, as experience is always rooted in ignorance and "this mass of suffering" is always the reality for one not free from it.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:24 am

aflatun wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:07 am
Sakkāra Sutta wrote: Phusanti phassā upadhiṃ paṭicca,
Nirūpadhiṃ kena phuseyyum phassā.

Contacts make contact, dependent on acquisition.
Where there is no acquisition, what would contacts contact?
Udāna 2.4
The translation above appears questionable because it contradicts many core suttas (MN 38; MN 148; Iti 44; etc). An alternate and non-contradictory translation is below:
Phusanti phassā upadhiṃ paṭicca,
Nirūpadhiṃ kena phuseyyum phassā

Contacts affect one with cleaving as condition,
How could contacts affect [touch] one without cleaving?

https://suttacentral.net/ud2.4/en/anandajoti
The key term is explained below:
Phasso nu lokasmi kutonidāno,
Pariggahā cāpi kutopahūtā;
Kismiṃ asante na mamattamatthi,
Kismiṃ vibhūte na phusanti phassā”.

Nāmañca rūpañca paṭicca phasso,
Icchānidānāni pariggahāni;
Icchāyasantyā na mamattamatthi,
Rūpe vibhūte na phusanti phassā

From what causes in the world does touch come to be
And whence does possessiveness also arise?
in the absence of what is “mine” making not?
When what exists not are no “touches” touched?

“Touches” depend upon mind, upon form (namarupa),
possessiveness caused by longing repeated,
when longing’s not found, possessiveness’s gone,
When form is no longer, no “touches” are “touched”.

https://suttacentral.net/snp4.11/en/mills
And also here, where 'phusanti' appears to occur at 'birth' (jati) rather than at 'contact' (phassa):
Here, bhikkhus, some person generates afflictive bodily activities, afflictive verbal activities and afflictive mental activities. In consequence, he is reborn in an afflictive world. When he is reborn in an afflictive world, afflictive contacts touch him. Being touched (phusanti) by afflictive (sabyābajjhā) contacts (phassā), he feels afflictive feelings, exclusively painful, as in the case of hell-beings.

https://suttacentral.net/an3.23/en/sujato
:alien:
aflatun wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:07 am
Ven. Nanavira wrote:Phassa, 'contact', is defined (Salāyatana Samy. iv,10 <S.iv,67-9>) as the coming together of the eye, forms, and eye-consciousness (and so with the ear and the rest). But it is probably wrong to suppose that we must therefore understand the word phassa, primarily at least, as contact between these three things.[a] So long as there is avijjā, all things (dhammā) are fundamentally as described in the earlier part of the Mūlapariyāyasutta (Majjhima i,1 <M.i,1>); that is to say, they are inherently in subjection, they are appropriated, they are mine (See ANICCA, MAMA, & A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPĀDA [f]). This is the foundation of the notion that I am and that things are in contact with me. This contact between me and things is phassa.
The above quote appears to not be consistent with the passages below:
On seeing a form with the eye, he isn't infatuated with pleasing forms, and doesn't get upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with body-mindfulness established, with unlimited awareness. He discerns, as it has come to be, the awareness-release & discernment-release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned compliance & opposition, he doesn't relish any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — doesn't welcome it, doesn't remain fastened to it. As he doesn't relish that feeling, doesn't welcome it, & doesn't remain fastened to it, delight doesn't arise. From the cessation of his delight comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

MN 38
Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one does not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, & escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed. That a person — through abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing is possible.

MN 148
Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element

Iti 44
Who, O Lord, consumes[1] the nutriment consciousness?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he consumes.' If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be: 'For what is the nutriment consciousness (the condition)?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The nutriment consciousness[4] is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence; when that has come into being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and conditioned by the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.'"

"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"

SN 12.12
:candle:
aflatun wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:07 am
Ven. Nanavira wrote:Phassa, 'contact'... they are inherently in subjection, they are appropriated, they are mine...
It is possible the "appropriation" (paṭilābho) of sense spheres (āyatanānaṃ) referred to above might possibly occur below at 'jati' ('birth'):
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti? Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/pli/ms
The term 'paṭilābho' is also found in AN 4.171 in relation to the 'acquisition' of 'self' (attabhāva):
There are four acquisitions (paṭilābho) of individuality (attabhāva). What four? (1) There is an acquisition in which one’s own volition (attasañcetanā) operates but not the volition of others (parasañcetanā); (2) There is an acquisition in which the volition of others (parasañcetanā) operates but not one’s own volition (attasañcetanā); etc...

Bhikkhu Bodhi translation

link to Bhikkhu Sujato translation https://suttacentral.net/an4.171/en/sujato where 'attabhāva paṭilābho' is translation as 'reincarnation'.

Dinsdale
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:30 am

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:55 pm
When you say "over time" how is that quantified and/or qualified? Is it visually represented in some way that you can access it for contemplation? What I mean is, you seem like you are saying that time is observable and I do not disagree, but what exactly are you accessing in order to observe it? What do you see when you are thinking about "change over time"? An image? How much time can be represented per image? Once you answer, I am going to take what you say and try to describe it from an additional point of view in order to answer your question, so don't be bashful or needlessly skeptical. All I am asking for is your own description of your experience.
To put it simply, I notice stuff arising and ceasing at the sense bases - sights, sounds, sensations, odours, flavours, and mental objects like thoughts and feelings. I notice continuous change, transience....anicca.
SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:55 pm
We've talked about this many times and you know my answer already. Whether you say "with this, this is" or "with this, that is", "when this is, that is" or any other phrasing, it doesn't necessarily imply a sequence/linear causality. See below.
I've explained the first mode as contemporaneous ( When this is, that is ) and the second as sequential ( When this arises, that arises ). Both modes of conditionality operate within DO, and apply to successive nidanas. What exactly are you disagreeing with here?
SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:55 pm
The point is that all of those things are always there, they are always part of the experience, as experience is always rooted in ignorance and "this mass of suffering" is always the reality for one not free from it.
That seems to be describing the first mode of conditionality in DO, "When this is, that is". ( I prefer "While this is, that is", which I think captures the meaning better ). While ignorance persists, then the other nidanas persist, suffering persists.

One problem I have with DO in cessation mode is that some of the nidanas are also aggregates - how can all the nidanas cease while the aggregates continue? Is this about the distinction between clinging aggregates and non-clinging aggregates, ie are all the nidana aggregates of the clinging type?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:41 am

aflatun wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:07 am
Phassa
I still don't get Nanavira's interpretation of phassa. In the suttas phassa looks functional, ie you need the ability to see, and something to see in order for visual awareness to arise.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

boundless
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

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

Post by boundless » Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:44 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:19 am
boundless wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:42 am
Also if "time" is related to change, then "without alteration/change" also means "atemporal/timeless" (i.e. the "unconditioned dhamma" is timeless - or "dhammas" if there is more than one "unconditioned dhamma" as some schools held...)
I agree, and it appears that Nibbana is the only "timeless" or unchanging dhamma. The nidanas are all sankharas, and therefore subject to anicca.

"Sabbe sankhara anicca".

I would still like to see a clear, practical explanation of what "timeless/atemporal" actually means when applied to DO, and it puzzles me that apparently nobody here is able to provide this.

I assume "timeless/atemporal" doesn't mean contemporaneous, ie present or occurring at the same time. That would be the first mode of conditionality in DO, ie "When this is, that is." Actually I think this mode would be better expressed as "While this is, that is."
Hello Dinsdale,
Yes, “sankhara” in its broadest term IMO includes all conditioned phenomena, i.e. dependently arisen phenomena subject to “arising-alteration-cessation”. Of course, this applies to “sankhara” when it is used in the “twelve links”. Nibbana which is asankhata is not subject to “arising-alteration-cessation”.

Anyway, I think, that structural DO is indeed “timeless” in the sense of “contemporaneous”. Hence “craving” is dependent on ignorance: e.g. when there is ignorance, there is craving - when ignorance arises, craving arises too (“craving” does not arise “later” than ignorance) in this view.

All the best,

:anjali:
SDC wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:40 pm
...
aflatun wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:06 pm
...
Hello SDC, aflatun,

I have re-read Ven. Nanavira’s writings again trying, this time, to make an objective reading, as far as I was able. My reaction was again mixed. On one hand, my doubts that I mentioned last time are not quenched and on the other hand I think that I appreciate more his thought. I shall start from the “positive” side of my reaction.

According to the structural interpretation of DO, once ignorance is eradicated, then all the links cease. Of course, the Arahant still lives, has feelings, is conscious etc but his mind is structurally different. Alongside of ignorance craving and clinging have ceased. The Arahant is even freed from the “I am” conceit. His/her mind is completely different form the “normal”. Certainly, a mode of consciousness is ceased, the one “tainted” by ignorance, “clinging” (or “holding”, “grasping”) and “craving”. To be sure, there are indeed certain passages that hint that consciousness ceases (in some sense) during “Nibbana during life”, e.g. the already mentioned SN 22:48 or SN 12:65:
I followed that path and by doing so I have directly known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation. I have directly known birth … existence … clinging …. craving … feeling … contact … the six sense bases …. name-and-form … consciousness … volitional formations, their origin, their cessation, and the way leading to their cessation.
Here the Buddha says that “cessation of consciousness” (and contact, feeling) was known at Nibbana during life and hence it seems to imply that even Nibbana during life is “cessation of consciousness”. The most interesting aspect of the structural interpretation of DO is the emphasis on the difference in the experience of the Arahant and the “normal” one. This interpretation avoids an “eternal vinnana” by saying that also the “non-tainted” aggregates cease at “Nibbana without residue”. In this interpretation there are two "set" of aggregates: "tainted" aggregates and "untainted" aggregates*. DO applies to the first.

However, as I said before, I have qualms about this interpretation. First of all, apparently the Arahant still suffers and the aggregates for their impermanent nature are a cause of suffering, e.g. SN 22:85 :
“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
Here, the question clearly refers to the “non-tainted” aggregates of the Arahant. And it is implied that, in fact, the impermanent nature of the aggregates are still a reason for suffering. Also SN 22:122 :
"Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?"
"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness.”
So, here the aggregates are still regarded as “as constant, stressful”. Also Itivuttaka 44 :
“What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the bur-den, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbāna-element with residue left.
“Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant … completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.
And at SN 38:14 “pain” and unpleasant feelings are a part of “dukkha”. Hence, the Arahant though having a structur-ally different mind still has some “dukkha”. Hence we have three possibilities **:
1) Liberation is the cause of the total cessation of the aggregates at “Nibbana without residue” and for Arahants some “links” of DO are ceased and others no. (I think this is the standard view). During life the aggregates are not stopped, but they continue in a “untainted” way. The “experi-ence” of “Nibbana during life” causes the future cessation.
2) Indeed, all aggregates cease at “Nibbana during life”. But “Nibbana during life” is not the same of the “everyday” mind of the Arahant. The aggregates “stop” at Nibbana during life as at the “death” of the Arahant. However, during life, after some time the activity of the aggregates re-start without the “taints” of clinging, craving, ignorance etc..
3) The “everyday” mind of the Arahant is “Nibbana during life” and “pain” is not suffering. The aggregates in the normal experience of the Arahant are always “ceased”. “Nibbana without resi-due” instead is when even these “untainted” aggregates stop.

Anyway, the structural DO interpretation has its merits. The mind of the Arahant is structurally dif-ferent from the “usual” one. It is not subject to defilement. It is “always radiant” since cannot be defiled anymore (AN 1:50). But the equation “Nibbana during life=normal experience of the Ara-hant” is problematic. IMO “1” and “2” are more plausible (considering all things discussed). To be sure, “2” even seems to be “the most natural one" but the “re-start” is problematic.

For example, if I am understanding correctly here Ven Ninoslav Nanamoli Infinity of the Mind supports “3”, i.e. Nibbana during life is the “luminous mind”, the mind without any defilement. “1” and “2” instead say that this equation is not valid, for different reasons. “2” says that the “cessation” of all links happens at “Nibbana during life” at the same time, but then some of them “restart”. “1” says that the eradication of ignorance leads, ulti-mately, to the cessation of all conditioned phenomena which happens at the “death” of the Arahant.

At AN 10.6 it is said that:
Then the Venerable Ānanda approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him:

“Bhante, could a bhikkhu obtain such a state of concentration that (1) he would not be percipient of earth in relation to earth; (2) of water in relation to water; (3) of fire in relation to fire; (4) of air in relation to air; (5) of the base of the infinity of space in relation to the base of the infinity of space; (6) of the base of the infinity of consciousness in relation to the base of the infinity of consciousness; (7) of the base of nothingness in relation to the base of nothingness; (8) of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in relation to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; (9) of this world in relation to this world; (10) of the other world in relation to the other world, but he would still be percipient?”

“He could, Ānanda.”

“But how, Bhante, could he obtain such a state of concentration?”

“Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu is percipient thus: ‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, the stilling of all activities, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbāna.’ ..."
So, Nibbana is defined as the "cessation" of all activities. I think that the "everyday" mind of the Arahant is not without "activities".***


If we include also SN 12.2, it is crystal-clear IMO that the “event” death is conditioned by “birth” (even for the Arahant...). This is infact an aspect of “anicca”, i.e. whatever arises dependent on conditions is subject to cessation. A “structural-only” interpretation is IMO unlikely: in fact the Arahant still is subject to some dukkha. Also, the twelve links are described in sequential terms at SN 12.2.

Ven Nagarjuna’s version, for example, as far as I understand appears better. DO here is seen as both “structural” and “se-quential” and can be analysed in terms of two truths: conventionally “physical death” is conditioned by “physical birth”. However, once anatta is realized, “birth” and “death” do not apply anymore. Hence, in a sense, they have “stopped”. How "Structural-only" view of DO can explain "physical events" is beyond my grasp :embarassed:

Considering all, I think that the “structural interpretation” is partially right. But in my opinion DO is also not structural. Therefore, I consider it incomplete.

Regarding this advice from aflatun:
aflatun wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:06 pm
You might decide that a timeless model cannot account for this. But if you want to try, my advice would be a start backwards
I think I have tried to explain every aspect of DO found in the suttas using "structural-only" DO. Unfortunately this attempt has not changed much my understanding and how a "structural-only" DO is able to explain the "definitions" found at SN 12:2 and the fact that the Arahant apparently still has some dukkha and constructing activities is beyond my grasp :embarassed: As I said before, IMO "structural" DO is an aspect of DO, but not the only one. ****



All the best,

:anjali:

Notes:
*I use "tainted aggregates" rather than "clinging-aggregates" because of SN 22:122 (see the text of the post).
**I am now speaing about the suffering of the Arahant and Nibbana because they are linked to DO. I hope that this is not off-topic.
*** SN 45:11 seems to imply that even the Buddha still has "desire" (chanda) which is an activity.
**** I have written this message in a hurry. I hope that there are not errors. If there are errors, I am sorry.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:54 am

boundless wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:44 pm
Yes, “sankhara” in its broadest term IMO includes all conditioned phenomena, i.e. dependently arisen phenomena subject to “arising-alteration-cessation”. Of course, this applies to “sankhara” when it is used in the “twelve links”. Nibbana which is asankhata is not subject to “arising-alteration-cessation”.
It is generally said "sankhara" is the "broadest" term because of its broad range of meanings.
Anyway, I think, that structural DO is indeed “timeless” in the sense of “contemporaneous”.
You might think that but that is not what is meant by "akaliko".
Hence “craving” is dependent on ignorance: e.g. when there is ignorance, there is craving - when ignorance arises, craving arises too (“craving” does not arise “later” than ignorance) in this view.
This idea above sounds questionable because I imagine craving does not always occur (for example, when spaced out) yet ignorance can remain. For example, equanimity can be tainted by ignorance but not by craving.
According to the structural interpretation of DO, once ignorance is eradicated, then all the links cease. Of course, the Arahant still lives, has feelings, is conscious etc but his mind is structurally different. Alongside of ignorance craving and clinging have ceased. The Arahant is even freed from the “I am” conceit. His/her mind is completely different form the “normal”. Certainly, a mode of consciousness is ceased, the one “tainted” by ignorance, “clinging” (or “holding”, “grasping”) and “craving”
.
Sound reasonable.
To be sure, there are indeed certain passages that hint that consciousness ceases (in some sense) during “Nibbana during life”, e.g. the already mentioned SN 22:48 or SN 12:65:
Sounds doubtful. Sounds like you are clinging to the English translation of "cessation".
Here the Buddha says
The Buddha obviously did not speak in the English language therefore the Buddha may not have said what you claim he said.
This interpretation avoids an “eternal vinnana” by saying that also the “non-tainted” aggregates cease at “Nibbana without residue”.
Nibbana without residue is generally regarded as something that occurs after the termination of life.
However, as I said before, I have qualms about this interpretation. First of all, apparently the Arahant still suffers and the aggregates for their impermanent nature are a cause of suffering, e.g. SN 22:85 :
Again, similar to the Buddha, the Venerable Sariputta did not speak in the English language to Yamaka and thus did not say the English translation of "suffering" for "dukkha-lakkhana". It is obviously Arahants do not suffer. If Arahants & Buddhas continued to suffer, what would be the point of Buddhism? :shrug:
Here, the question clearly refers to the “non-tainted” aggregates of the Arahant. And it is implied that, in fact, the impermanent nature of the aggregates are still a reason for suffering. Also SN 22:122 :
Sounds like another questionable translation being clung to.
So, here the aggregates are still regarded as “as constant, stressful”. Also Itivuttaka 44 :
No. There are certainly no aggregates regarded as "constant".
However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbāna-element with residue left.
Vedana (feelings) of pleasantness & unpleasantness are not "suffering".
And at SN 38:14 “pain” and unpleasant feelings are a part of “dukkha”.
"Dukkha" here is not translated as "suffering" by certain Buddhists. Dukkha, in this context, is translated by some as "unsatisfactory" or "unsatisfying".
Hence, the Arahant though having a structur-ally different mind still has some “dukkha”.
Definitely not. But you have all sorts of attachments to questionable translations.
Hence we have three possibilities **:
No.
1) Liberation is the cause of the total cessation of the aggregates at “Nibbana without residue” and for Arahants some “links” of DO are ceased and others no. (I think this is the standard view). During life the aggregates are not stopped, but they continue in a “untainted” way. The “experi-ence” of “Nibbana during life” causes the future cessation.
"Liberation" in the suttas is liberation of citta (mind-heart) experienced while living. Refer to MN 43; MN 29, etc. If the Nibbana in this life was not free from suffering then now could it result in Nibbana after the termination of life? :shrug:
2) Indeed, all aggregates cease at “Nibbana during life”. But “Nibbana during life” is not the same of the “everyday” mind of the Arahant. The aggregates “stop” at Nibbana during life as at the “death” of the Arahant. However, during life, after some time the activity of the aggregates re-start without the “taints” of clinging, craving, ignorance etc..
Arahants do not experience "death". SN 22.85; MN 140; MN 38, etc.
3) The “everyday” mind of the Arahant is “Nibbana during life” and “pain” is not suffering.
Obviously.
The aggregates in the normal experience of the Arahant are always “ceased”.
Ceased to be conditioned by defilements. The fires of defilement are extinguished (nirodha).
“Nibbana without resi-due” instead is when even these “untainted” aggregates stop.
Sounds reasonable.
Anyway, the structural DO interpretation has its merits. The mind of the Arahant is structurally dif-ferent from the “usual” one. It is not subject to defilement. It is “always radiant” since cannot be defiled anymore (AN 1:50).
Sounds reasonable. Why doubt it?
But the equation “Nibbana during life=normal experience of the Ara-hant” is problematic.
For a puthujjana, yes, Nibbana would be problematic.
IMO “1” and “2” are more plausible (considering all things discussed). To be sure, “2” even seems to be “the most natural one" but the “re-start” is problematic.
:popcorn:
For example, if I am understanding correctly here Ven Ninoslav Nanamoli Infinity of the Mind supports “3”, i.e. Nibbana during life is the “luminous mind”, the mind without any defilement.
Sounds reasonable.
“1” and “2” instead say that this equation is not valid, for different reasons. “2” says that the “cessation” of all links happens at “Nibbana during life” at the same time,
Every link appears to be a link of ignorance, i.e. something tainted by ignorance.
but then some of them “restart”.
How? If ignorance ends, how does the 'contact-with-ignorance' mentioned in SN 22.81 restart? :shrug:
“1” says that the eradication of ignorance leads, ulti-mately, to the cessation of all conditioned phenomena which happens at the “death” of the Arahant.
Arahants do not die.
“Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu is percipient thus: ‘This is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, the stilling of all activities, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbāna.’ ..."

So, Nibbana is defined as the "cessation" of all activities. I think that the "everyday" mind of the Arahant is not without "activities".***
No. The sutta says Nibbana is the "stilling (samatho) of all activities". Samatho means "calming". Where as the word "cessation" ("nirodha") is the cessation of suffering and the extinguishing of defilements, as mentioned in the previous phrase, namely, the destruction (kayo) of craving.
If we include also SN 12.2, it is crystal-clear IMO
How can what is posted be "crystal clear" when most of what has been posted, so far, is questionable?
that the “event” death is conditioned by “birth” (even for the Arahant...).
I suggest to read the ending of MN 38 & MN 140. Arahants neither experience birth or death.
This is infact an aspect of “anicca”,
No, it is not because, according to Nanavira, "birth" & "death" are merely ideas or self-views. Refer to SN 22.1, which refers to "change" without "self-ideas", i.e., "change without death".
i.e. whatever arises dependent on conditions is subject to cessation. A “structural-only” interpretation is IMO unlikely: in fact the Arahant still is subject to some dukkha. Also, the twelve links are described in sequential terms at SN 12.2.
No. An arahant has no more dukkha.
Ven Nagarjuna’s version, for example, as far as I understand appears better.
Nagarjuna appeared to make a few serious mistakes.
DO here is seen as both “structural” and “se-quential” and can be analysed in terms of two truths: conventionally “physical death” is conditioned by “physical birth”.
Arahants do not experience birth or death. Refer to MN 140, MN 38.
However, once anatta is realized, “birth” and “death” do not apply anymore. Hence, in a sense, they have “stopped”.
How? Please explain? :popcorn:
How "Structural-only" view of DO can explain "physical events" is beyond my grasp :embarassed:
The sutta says DO describes the origination of sorrow, lamentation, suffering, etc. If DO includes tainted aggregates then it would explain not the physical aggregates but how the physical aggregates are tainted by ignorance.
Considering all, I think that the “structural interpretation” is partially right. But in my opinion DO is also not structural. Therefore, I consider it incomplete.
Possibly, it is your personal understanding that is incomplete.
I think I have tried to explain every aspect of DO found in the suttas using "structural-only" DO.
Sure A lengthy post was made but it possibly did not explain much in a convincing or compelling manner.
the Arahant apparently still has some dukkha
No. Arahants obviously have no dukkha. All that is occurring is attachment to questionable English translations of suttas.

To conclude, please explain why when anatta is realized “birth” and “death” do not apply anymore. Thanks :)

James Tan
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

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

Post by James Tan » Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:08 am

:oops:

Apology for mistyped .
Last edited by James Tan on Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
:reading:

James Tan
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

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

Post by James Tan » Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:08 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:54 am




However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbāna-element with residue left.
Vedana (feelings) of pleasantness & unpleasantness are not "suffering".
And at SN 38:14 “pain” and unpleasant feelings are a part of “dukkha”.
"Dukkha" here is not translated as "suffering" by certain Buddhists. Dukkha, in this context, is translated by some as "unsatisfactory" or "unsatisfying".




To conclude, please explain why when anatta is realized “birth” and “death” do not apply anymore. Thanks :)
If Dukkha is Unsatisfactoriness , then ,
Doesn't that Unsatisfactoriness includes pleasantness and unpleasantness ? Because pleasantness is unsatisfactory and unpleasantness is also unsatisfactory !?
Therefore , any group of the aggregate ,
Whether it is rupa , feeling , perception , intention and consciousness ? They are all unsatisfactory .

Most people practice dhamma would think life is Huge suffering not just because it is simply unsatisfactory .




BTW,
When do you think anatta is considered being Realised if I may ask ?
:reading:

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:24 am

James Tan wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:08 am
If Dukkha is Unsatisfactoriness
I did not post dukkha is always unsatisfactoriness. For example, in the term 'dukkha vedana", dukkha means 'painful' or 'unpleasant' feeling. It does not mean "unsatisfactoriness feelings".
Doesn't that Unsatisfactoriness includes pleasantness and unpleasantness ? Because pleasantness is unsatisfactory and unpleasantness is also unsatisfactory !?
Yes.
Therefore , any group of the aggregate ,
Whether it is rupa , feeling , perception , intention and consciousness ? They are all unsatisfactory .
Yes. As was taught in the 2nd sermon.
Most people practice dhamma would think life is Huge suffering
I think people that actually practise dhamma would think life is Nibbana.
not just because it is simply unsatisfactory .
I did not post dukkha always means unsatisfactoriness. I did not post that dukkha in the term "dukkha vedana" or "dukkha" in the Noble Truths means unsatisfactory. The following translators do not have a problem with translating "dukkha" in different ways. You can either chose to learn or just continue posting your own opinions. Why must "dukkha" be translated in one way only; like believing in One God? :shrug:
Sabbe baṅkhārā dukkhā'ti yadā paññāya passati Atha nibbindati dukkhe esa maggo visuddhiyā.

"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .budd.html
Mendicants, after giving up the underlying tendency to desire for pleasant feeling, after dispelling the underlying tendency to repulsion towards painful feeling, after uprooting ignorance in the case of neutral feeling, after giving up ignorance and giving rise to knowledge, it’s totally possible to make an end of suffering in the present life.

So vata, bhikkhave, sukhāya vedanāya rāgānusayaṃ pahāya dukkhāya vedanāya paṭighānusayaṃ paṭivinodetvā adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya avijjānusayaṃ samūhanitvā avijjaṃ pahāya vijjaṃ uppādetvā diṭṭheva dhamme dukkhassantakaro bhavissatīti—ṭhānametaṃ vijjati.

https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato

James Tan
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

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

Post by James Tan » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:21 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:24 am
James Tan wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:08 am
If Dukkha is Unsatisfactoriness
I did not post dukkha is always unsatisfactoriness. For example, in the term 'dukkha vedana", dukkha means 'painful' or 'unpleasant' feeling. It does not mean "unsatisfactoriness feelings".
Doesn't that Unsatisfactoriness includes pleasantness and unpleasantness ? Because pleasantness is unsatisfactory and unpleasantness is also unsatisfactory !?
Yes.
Therefore , any group of the aggregate ,
Whether it is rupa , feeling , perception , intention and consciousness ? They are all unsatisfactory .
Yes. As was taught in the 2nd sermon.
Most people practice dhamma would think life is Huge suffering
I think people that actually practise dhamma would think life is Nibbana.
not just because it is simply unsatisfactory .
I did not post dukkha always means unsatisfactoriness. I did not post that dukkha in the term "dukkha vedana" or "dukkha" in the Noble Truths means unsatisfactory. The following translators do not have a problem with translating "dukkha" in different ways. You can either chose to learn or just continue posting your own opinions. Why must "dukkha" be translated in one way only; like believing in One God? :shrug:
Sabbe baṅkhārā dukkhā'ti yadā paññāya passati Atha nibbindati dukkhe esa maggo visuddhiyā.

"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .budd.html
Mendicants, after giving up the underlying tendency to desire for pleasant feeling, after dispelling the underlying tendency to repulsion towards painful feeling, after uprooting ignorance in the case of neutral feeling, after giving up ignorance and giving rise to knowledge, it’s totally possible to make an end of suffering in the present life.

So vata, bhikkhave, sukhāya vedanāya rāgānusayaṃ pahāya dukkhāya vedanāya paṭighānusayaṃ paṭivinodetvā adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya avijjānusayaṃ samūhanitvā avijjaṃ pahāya vijjaṃ uppādetvā diṭṭheva dhamme dukkhassantakaro bhavissatīti—ṭhānametaṃ vijjati.

https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato
If dukkha can be translated as several meaning , then one has to point it out first.
So, does painful feeling is dukkha in the first noble truth according to you ?
And what is dukkha per noble truth ?

It is not that I interpreted dukkha meaning . Rather , some one translated it as suffering , some one else translated as unsatisfactory .
When we talk about dukkha we always refer to the noble truth not , No ?

What I am saying is,
what is bodily painful / unpleasant feeling is unsatisfactory therefore is dukkha .
Otherwise , no need to avoid painful feeling , it is something everyone don't want . Even arahant cannot bear bodily painful feeling that they ended their life .

Please elaborate , life is nibbana ?
:reading:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], jrob1989, robertk, Sam Vara and 76 guests