Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

[Saengnapha]

I'm curious as to why you separate mental from physical/biological? Thinking is a measured response in the brain. It has physicality to it. It can trigger hormonal effects and can also affect breathing and heart rate. None of these processes have a 'being' behind them but are nevertheless parts of the whole. The organism can feel 'clinging'. It has a physical counterpart. If it didn't, there would be no registering of suffering, so I cannot see or support the way you are interpreting this.

Sure. But the physical stress referred to above has its origin in the mind's clinging, as follows:

When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built up for oneself in the future; and one’s craving—which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that—increases. One’s bodily and mental troubles increase, one’s bodily and mental torments increase, one’s bodily and mental fevers increase, and one experiences bodily and mental suffering.

https://suttacentral.net/mn149/en/bodhi

However, this is not related to what I was discussing. What I was discussing was how it is possible that dependent origination might be describing how the ignorant mind generates views of "beings" from the "appearance/manifestation of the aggregates obtained via the sense spheres". For example, the ignorant mind sees five aggregates manifesting with long hair, protruding breasts, hour-glass shape, flirtatious mind, compelling smile, ,etc, and generates the view of "a being" called "woman". I imagine for a Buddha there is no "woman" (apart from convention) but only mere aggregates.

Once again, Doo Doot, you do not see that both are the case and insist on only an 'ultimate' view. This, to me, is not in line with the Buddha's teaching and the later views of Nagarjuna which expands on the Buddha's sutta. The relative and the ultimate need to be reconciled otherwise suffering continues. Convention is absolutely the case. It is your reality. To deny it is ridiculous. You are playing with words.

[Saengnapha]

I'm not arguing that clinging is "physical", I am arguing that the clinging is something added to the physical experience. So for example there is aversion to the physical processes of aging and death, based on self-view.

It is all physical, Dinsdale, according to UG, and so is the great awakening. But, let's not go there as this is only about Buddhist view and not the views of other possible adepts outside of your particular tradition.

[SDC]

Do you at least see the liberty you are taking by equating sankhara and sankhata? And I would never criticize you for doing so - we all take risks in our attempts to understand things. Clearly I am doing the same with what I am saying, but at no point am I claiming that I am right and you are wrong. I think it is healthy for a discussion when people can admit this.

I can see the distinction, but IMO it is a technical one because sankhatas are also sankharas - it's like an infinite regression. And if sankharas are anicca, then sankhatas must also be anicca - if B is dependent on A, and A is transient, then B must also be transient.

It is interesting that you are speaking about an infinite regress when you refused to acknowledge it as relevant when I explicitly referenced it earlier. Maybe you can go back and look at it again. So are you saying that you can maintain a view on all these layers of sankhara at once? Or do they just keep moving? Are they moving out of site? Do you lose knowledge of them as they go? Do you maintain knowledge of them as they go? If you maintain knowledge of them "as they go", then are they gone? If all of it is transient, then how do you have any knowledge about anything?

I really do not see how you can imply both just based on those two phrases. You are entitled to believe in that interpretation, but I just don't see the justification. Is there some formal commentary on this or is it how you see it? I am merely curious if there is additional literature on the matter, because either I am forgetting that I have heard it before or I just missed it in my past studies.

I have studied these two modes of conditionality over the years, and I am confident in my analysis. It looks pretty straightforward to me, and I don't understand your resistance - perhaps because it doesn't fit with your "structural" interpretation? It would be helpful if you could say exactly what you disagree with in my analysis.
Generally my approach is to look at what the suttas say, and try to work out what they mean, rather than starting with a preferred interpretation and then trying to make the suttas fit - square pegs and round holes.
However I will look around for some commentary.

From what I can tell your "structural" interpretation roughly represents the contemporaneous/synchronous mode. But that is only half the picture.

Well thanks for that bit of psychoanalysis, Dinsdale. Sorry to say you missed the mark. When did I ever say, Ven. Nanavira is 100% correct and that is all I believe? If you want to know how I contemplate, you could just ask rather than guess and get it wrong.

Exactly what do I disagree with? Why am I "resisting"? First of all, your justification that those two phrases imply two different modes. You are really out on a limb trying to say that it is clearly written in the suttas. It isn't clearly written. As you said, you are working it out in your own analysis. That is cool, but it isn't straightforward anywhere but in your own understanding. Give yourself a bit of credit - you put it together and it is your interpretation. If you do find it formally written about though, I would like to see it. Second of all, in my own contemplations I do not see how it is possible. Arising, ceasing and persisting-while-changing is a description of the aggregates and is probably the most direct description of a play by play of experience. So I don't see how this sequential mode of DO can also be the primary description of experience. Looks redundant. Are you saying both are there together? Agreed then. That is what I think. But if both are there together you are talking about simultaneity, that is layered in immediacy, and with that I am not sure where this sequential mode has a place.

[mikenz66]

...

I'm really struggling to see what this sub-discussion is actually about. How can one talk about "saṅkhatas" when saṅkhata is not a noun? Perhaps I need help from a Pali expert.

In Bhikkhu Bodhi's discussion of Saṅkhārā in his SN translation, viewtopic.php?t=23352#p335218 he notes:

The past participle connected with saṅkhārā is saṅkhata, which I translate “conditioned.” Unfortunately I could not render the two Pāli words into English in a way that preserves the vital connection between them: “formed” is too specific for saṅkhata, and “conditions” too wide for saṅkhārā (and it also encroaches on the domain of paccaya). If “constructions” had been used for saṅkhārā, saṅkhata would have become “constructed,” which preserves the connection, though at the cost of too stilted a translation. Regrettably, owing to the use of different English words for the pair, a critically important dimension of meaning in the suttas is lost to view. In the Pāli we can clearly see the connection: the saṅkhāras, the active constructive forces instigated by volition, create and shape conditioned reality, especially the conditioned factors classified into the five aggregates and the six internal sense bases; and this conditioned reality itself consists of saṅkhāras in the passive sense, called in the commentaries saṅkhata-saṅkhārā.

Further, it is not only this connection that is lost to view, but also the connection with Nibbāna. For Nibbāna is the asaṅkhata, the unconditioned, which is called thus precisely because it is neither made by saṅkhāras nor itself a saṅkhāra in either the active or passive sense. So, when the texts are taken up in the Pāli, we arrive at a clear picture in fine focus: the active saṅkhāras generated by volition perpetually create passive saṅkhāras, the saṅkhata dhammas or conditioned phenomena of the five aggregates (and, indirectly, of the objective world); and then, through the practice of the Buddha’s path, the practitioner arrives at the true knowledge of conditioned phenomena, which disables the generation of active saṅkhāras, putting an end to the constructing of conditioned reality and opening up the door to the Deathless, the asaṅkhata, the unconditioned, which is Nibbāna, final liberation from impermanence and suffering.

See also the definitions;
https://suttacentral.net/define/sa%E1%B9%85khata
https://suttacentral.net/define/sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra


Mike

[SDC]

How can one talk about "saṅkhatas" when saṅkhata is not a noun? Perhaps I need help from a Pali expert.

You're correct. When we first started talking about it in this thread I was using the phrase sankhata dhamma (conditioned thing) and just shortened it as we and I went on. I don't think Dinsdale meant it to be a noun either.

[mikenz66]

Oh, OK, that makes more sense then...


Mike

[Spiny Norman]

How can one talk about "saṅkhatas" when saṅkhata is not a noun? Perhaps I need help from a Pali expert.

You're correct. When we first started talking about it in this thread I was using the phrase sankhata dhamma (conditioned thing) and just shortened it as we and I went on. I don't think Dinsdale meant it to be a noun either.

You're right, sorry if this caused any confusion.

Another perspective on sankhara from Bhikkhu Buddhadasa:

"I would like to take this opportunity to discuss all the meanings of the term "sankhara." This is a very common and important word in the Pali scriptures, but many people have problems with it due to its different uses and meanings. Languages are like that, uncertain and seemingly unreliable. The single word "sankhara" can mean "conditioner," the cause that conditions; it can mean "condition," the result of the action of conditioning; and it can mean "'conditioning," the activity or process of conditioning. We use the same word for the subject of the conditioning, "the concocter," as well as the object, "the concoction." We even use it for the activity, "the concocting," itself. This may be a bit confusing for you, so please remember that "sankhara" has three meanings. The correct meaning depends on the context. This knowledge will be valuable in your further studies."

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Bhik ... TURE%20SIX