Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply

Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

One life model
0
No votes
One life model and moment to moment
6
13%
Two lives model
0
No votes
Three lives model
4
9%
Three lives model and moment to moment
10
22%
Multiple lives model
3
7%
Multiple lives model & moment-to-moment
7
16%
Moment to moment only
1
2%
Timeless/Atemporal/Structural
10
22%
Simultaneous, non-linear
4
9%
 
Total votes: 45

Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

dylanj wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:55 am yes i know the difference. i have the whole quartet memorized in pali & english
So can you explain what you think the difference actually is between these two modes of conditionality?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj »

Dinsdale wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:53 am
dylanj wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:46 am
Dinsdale wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:40 am

But there are two modes of conditionality ( 1 and 2 below ). I think you're talking about No. 1 here. No. 2 involves a sequence of events or states.

1. "'When this is, that is.
2. "'From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
1. "'When this isn't, that isn't.
2. "'From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
no i quoted number 2.
imasmiṁ sati idaṁ hoti
imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati
imasmiṁ asati idaṁ na hoti
imassa nirodhā idaṁ nirujjhati
in each line it is "idaṁ" not "etaṁ" so it's this/this not this/that
& still there is no sequence beyond choosing to interpret it that way.
I disagree, and actually you seem to have quoted both 1 and 2.

Look at these definitions:

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/hoti

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/uppajjati

Can you see the difference?
anyway the problem is that interpreting it sequentially explicitly contradicts line 3 & 4 as it would be equivalent to saying that one link can & does exist while the other does not, or that it can & does not exist while the other does.

if you think that saṅkhārā arises after ignorance & not simultaneously that means there is a moment where there is ignorance but no saṅkhārā. & if you think saṅkhārā ceases after ignorance ceases that means there is a moment where there is no ignorance but there is saṅkhārā

so sequential interpretation is precluded & specifically denied. that's why the buddha said all 4 lines & not just 1 & 3
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj »

Dinsdale wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:57 am
dylanj wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:55 am yes i know the difference. i have the whole quartet memorized in pali & english
So can you explain what you think the difference actually is between these two modes of conditionality?
it's one mode. the 4 lines are collectively referred to as idappaccayatā, "specific conditionality".
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj »

btw a more literal translation would be

This existing, this exists;
this arising, this arises;
this not existing, this does not exist;
this ceasing, this ceases’.
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

dylanj wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:57 am anyway the problem is that interpreting it sequentially explicitly contradicts line 3 & 4 as it would be equivalent to saying that one link can & does exist while the other does not, or that it can & does not exist while the other does.

if you think that saṅkhārā arises after ignorance & not simultaneously that means there is a moment where there is ignorance but no saṅkhārā. & if you think saṅkhārā ceases after ignorance ceases that means there is a moment where there is no ignorance but there is saṅkhārā

so sequential interpretation is precluded & specifically denied. that's why the buddha said all 4 lines & not just 1 & 3
The Buddha said all 4 lines because there are two ( different ) modes of conditionality in DO.

Tanha arising in dependence upon vedana is an example of No. 2.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj »

Dinsdale wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:01 am
dylanj wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:57 am anyway the problem is that interpreting it sequentially explicitly contradicts line 3 & 4 as it would be equivalent to saying that one link can & does exist while the other does not, or that it can & does not exist while the other does.

if you think that saṅkhārā arises after ignorance & not simultaneously that means there is a moment where there is ignorance but no saṅkhārā. & if you think saṅkhārā ceases after ignorance ceases that means there is a moment where there is no ignorance but there is saṅkhārā

so sequential interpretation is precluded & specifically denied. that's why the buddha said all 4 lines & not just 1 & 3
The Buddha said all 4 lines because there are two ( different ) modes of conditionality in DO.

Tanha arising in dependence upon vedana is an example of No. 2.
sutta support plz
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj »

Dinsdale wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:01 am
dylanj wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:57 am anyway the problem is that interpreting it sequentially explicitly contradicts line 3 & 4 as it would be equivalent to saying that one link can & does exist while the other does not, or that it can & does not exist while the other does.

if you think that saṅkhārā arises after ignorance & not simultaneously that means there is a moment where there is ignorance but no saṅkhārā. & if you think saṅkhārā ceases after ignorance ceases that means there is a moment where there is no ignorance but there is saṅkhārā

so sequential interpretation is precluded & specifically denied. that's why the buddha said all 4 lines & not just 1 & 3
The Buddha said all 4 lines because there are two ( different ) modes of conditionality in DO.

Tanha arising in dependence upon vedana is an example of No. 2.
so you think lines 1 & 3 aren't true? that one link can exist independent (not dependent) of the next?
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj »

your sequential translation is not in the actual pāli nor is there any distinction between two modes in the actual pāli
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj »

again for emphasis

if idappaccayatā/paṭiccasamuppāda is taken as sequential/linear (which all of the views in the poll fall under, sadly) & not simply representative of a timeless principle, then one link must exist independet of the next, even if just for a moment.

given the view that "saṅkhārā arises after avijjā"
one must also hold the view that "there is avijjā without saṅkhārā"

because one with this view believes that avijjā arises first, then saṅkhārā

so one with this view does not believe "when this exists, this exists" i.e. "imasmiṁ sati idaṁ hoti"

the same goes for the negative/cessation/nonexistence view

furthermore

given the acceptance of "when this is, this is"
one must also accept that the two links exist dependently, together, not independently or apart. they exist at the same time.

if they existed at different times it would be "after this is, that is"

but the buddha says when there is avijjā, there is saṅkhārā
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj »

the simultaneity of it is in the actual text, i don't know how it could be more clear

"when this is, this is"
"when this isn't, this isn't"

this does not become false or invalid in the 2nd & 4th lines, it is the same principle applied to arising/ceasing, coming/going, as opposed to existence/nonexistence, enduring & remaining
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
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 »

Greetings,
dylanj wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:00 am This existing, this exists;
this arising, this arises;
this not existing, this does not exist;
this ceasing, this ceases’.
:anjali:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 »

dylanj wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:12 am the simultaneity of it is in the actual text, i don't know how it could be more clear

"when this is, this is"
"when this isn't, this isn't"

this does not become false or invalid in the 2nd & 4th lines, it is the same principle applied to arising/ceasing, coming/going, as opposed to existence/nonexistence, enduring & remaining
Can physical aging and death of a person at 80 years of age exist without physical birth happening 80 years before that event ?
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:38 pm
Circle5 wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:48 pm
SDC wrote: Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:21 pm No, it really isn't his position on rebirth, which is what you said above. This passage is about 'birth', not rebirth. You seem to be interchanging these terms at will.
By deffinition, any physical birth happening happening in the context of buddhism is a rebirth. :coffee:
That is a bold simplification. It surely isn't an invalid position to take, but I don't believe the Buddha intended suffering to be grasped with so many lives under consideration at one time...just here and now with this "I" as the primary focus.

Nevertheless, Ven. Nanavira does differentiate between the two terms which is all I was trying to point out.
As Cappucino has shown, there are countless suttas where Buddha emphasises the huge suffering experienced in samsara due to countless lives of suffering. There is even a whole subchapter on this called "without discoverable beggining". Whenever he tried to emphasise how big suffering in samsara is, he did it through emphasising the gigantic mass of suffering exprienced in countless lives.

And you've again avoided to answer the question. As both me and B.Bodhi have shown, Nanavira considers that the proximate cause for biological birth is the puthujjana notions "I was born; I will age and die," or "My self was born; my self ages and dies." This is simply false and not supported by the suttas. Again, to quote B.Bodhi:

"The above definitions, with their strings of synonyms and concrete imagery, clearly indicate that 'birth' refers to biological birth and 'aging-and-death' to biological aging and biological death -- not to the puthujjana's notions "I was born; I will age and die," or "My self was born; my self ages and dies." The textual definitions are perfectly staightforward and unambiguous in meaning, and give no hint that the Buddha had some other idea to convey about the significance of these terms."

I would also add to this the fact that a stream enterer with no such belief also will get reborn 7 times. There is also nothing in the suttas about biological birth happening because of some different reason other than volitional formations for a stream enterer or a non-stream enterer.

How is Nanavira idea that biological birth happens because of puthujjana notions "I was born; I will age and die," or "My self was born; my self ages and dies" compatible with the suttas ? Do you see anything here hinting to that ?:
“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
boundless
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

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

Post by boundless »

Hello all,

I agree with Circle 5 that, according for example SN 12:2, "birth" and " againg and death" refer to physical processes (after all, this is IMO the real "dukkha" that people seek to avoid. Nibbana is the "shelter" above all from these "events"). At least in some cases (maybe not all...) "birth" and "death" clearly refer to physical processes.

If DO is timeless, how can it explain:
1) change? (after all "change" requires time. Sorry for the somewhat trivial question...)
2) that "physical ageing and death" is conditioned by "physical birth"?

Thank you in advance for the answer.

Anyway, I think that it is possible that DO operates at different levels, i.e. that in different contexts different models of DO are valid. I doubt that there is only one "valid" model of DO for all cases. Maybe the "timeless model" of DO is valid in certain cases and not valid in others.

:anjali:

Very interesting discussion, BTW :smile:
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 »

retrofuturist wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:45 am Greetings,
dylanj wrote: Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:00 am This existing, this exists;
this arising, this arises;
this not existing, this does not exist;
this ceasing, this ceases’.
:anjali:

Metta,
Paul. :)
Are you aware in what context that was said ? :anjali:

Ven. ~Naa.naviira implicitly attempts to marshal support for his non-temporal interpretation of PS by quoting as the epigraph to his Note on Pa.ticcasamuppaada the following excerpt from the Cuu.lasakuludaayi Sutta:
"But, Udaayi, let be the past, let be the future, I shall set you forth the Teaching: 'When there is this, that is; with arising of this, that arises; when there is not this, that is not; with cessation of this, that ceases.'"
Here, apparently, the Buddha proposes the abstract principle of conditionality as an alternative to teachings about temporal matters relating to the past and future. Since in other suttas the statement of the abstract principle is immediately followed by the entire twelve-term formula, the conclusion seems to follow that any application of temporal distinctions to PS, particularly the attempt to see it as extending to the past and future, would be a violation of the Buddha's intention.

This conclusion, however, would be premature, and if we turn to the sutta from which the quotation has been extracted we would see that the conclusion is actually unwarranted. In the sutta the non-Buddhist wanderer Sakuludaayi tells the Buddha that recently one famous teacher had been claiming omniscience, but when he approached this teacher -- who turns out to have been the Jain leader Niga.n.tha Naataputta -- and asked him a question about the past, the teacher had tried to evade the question, to turn the discussion aside, and became angry and resentful. He expresses the trust that the Buddha is skilled in such matters. The Buddha then says: "One who can recollect his previous births back for many aeons might engage with me in a fruitful discussion about matters pertaining to the past, while one who has the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings might engage with me in a fruitful discussion about matters pertaining to the future." Then, since Udaayi has neither such knowledge, at this point the Buddha states: "But, Udaayi, let be the past, let be the future," and he cites the abstract principle of conditionality. Thus the purport of the Buddha's statement, read as a whole, is that without such super-knowledges of the past and the future, there is no point discussing specific empirical factual matters concerning the past and the future. The Buddha's dismissal of these issues by no means implies that the twelvefold formula of PS should not be understood as defining the conditional structure of sa.msaara throughout successive lives. It must also be remembered that this discussion takes place with a non-Buddhist ascetic who has not yet gained confidence in the Buddha. It would thus not have been appropriate for the Buddha to reveal to him profound matters that could be penetrated only by one of mature wisdom.


Ven. ~Naa.naviira tries to buttress his non-temporal interpretation of PS with a brief quotation from the Mahaata.nhaasa"nkhaya Sutta. In that sutta, at the end of a long catechism that explores the twelvefold series of PS in both the order of origination and the order of cessation, the Buddha says to the monks:
"I have presented you, monks, with this Dhamma that is visible (sandi.t.thika), immediate (akaalika), inviting one to come and see, accessible, to be personally realized by the wise."
Ven. ~Naa.naviira supposes that "this Dhamma" refers to pa.ticca-samuppaada, and that the description of it as akaalika must mean that the entire formula defines a non-temporal configuration of factors.
If we turn to the sutta from which the quotation comes, we would find that Ven. ~Naa.naviira's supposition is directly contradicted by the sequel to the statement on which he bases his thesis. In that sequel (MN i,265-70), the Buddha proceeds to illustrate the abstract terms of the PS formula, first with an account of the life process of the blind worldling who is swept up in the forward cycle of origination, and then with an account of the noble disciple, who brings the cycle to a stop. Here temporal succession is in evidence throughout the exposition. The life process begins with conception in the womb (elsewhere expressed as "the descent of consciousness" into the womb and the "taking shape of name-and-form" in the womb -- DN 15/ii,63). After the period of gestation comes birth, emergence from the mother's womb, followed in turn by: the gradual maturation of the sense faculties (=the six sense bases), exposure to the five cords of sensual pleasure (=contact), intoxication with pleasant feelings (=feeling), seeking delight in feelings (=craving). Then come clinging, becoming, birth, and aging and death. Here a sequence of two lives is explicitly defined, while the past life is implied by the gandhabba, cited as one of the conditions for conception of the embryo to occur. The gandhabba or "spirit," other texts indicate (see MN ii,157), is the stream of consciousness of a deceased person coming from the preceding life, and this factor is just as essential to conception as the sexual union of the parents, which it must utilize as its vehicle for entering the womb.

In the contrasting passage on the wise disciple, we see how an individual who has taken birth through the same past causes goes forth as a monk inthe Buddha's dispensation, undertakes the training, and breaks the link between feeling and craving. Thereby he puts an end to the future renewal of the cycle of becoming. By extinguishing "delight in feelings," a manifestation of craving, he terminates clinging, becoming, birth, aging, and death, and thereby arrives at the cessation of the entire mass of suffering. Thus here, in the very sutta from which the description of PS as "timeless" is drawn, we see the sequence of PS factors illustrated in a way that indubitably involves temporal succession.
Post Reply