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
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: 10157
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 9:00 am 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’.
This is just a bad translation, and also a :redherring: It doesn't make sense because the suttas describe one nidana arising in dependence upon another, different nidana. "This and that" makes sense, "this and this" doesn't.
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: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:21 am Can anyone explain simply and clearly what "timeless" means when applied to DO, and give a practical example?

In your own words, please.

I'm afraid this "timeless" idea makes no sense to me at all, given the centrality of anicca in the teachings, and given that DO is all about arising and ceasing in dependence on conditions - both of these involve change over time, states changing, events occuring.
“Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands—this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/thanissaro

similarly...
dependent origination is the principle of idapaccayatā

dependent origination is not the same as things-dependently-arisen
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
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:05 am Why are you refusing to answer this question ? Ok, ok, he believes in rebirth, but why does it happen in his view ? What explanation does he give for consciousness to descend into the womb ? If someone asks him "what makes you believe that after death, there will be rebirth instead of eternal heaven(as christians say) or nothing (as atheist say) etc ?

My point is that Nanavira does not have an explanation for rebirth. He just says "yes, I believe in it" and that's it. This possition is different than that of the historical Buddha who did have a technical explanation for why rebirth happens.
You keep accusing me of avoiding answering, but again, it seems like you want me to talk about bhavapaccayā jāti, how 'birth' depends on 'being', but you aren't asking correctly. You're under the impression that Ven. Nv thinks that 'being' is the cause for 'birth' and that is simply not correct. You are misunderstanding the writing. In terms of suffering, 'birth' depends on 'being' and 'being' depends on 'birth'. But dependency does not imply causality, but because you insist that is what he thinks, all you see in his writing is that 'birth' comes from the notion 'I am'. It does not "come from" that notion, it depends on it in the arising of the mass of suffering. That is a significant difference that you are not acknowledging.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

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

Post by bodom »

DO as observed in the present moment:
“In the same way, Māgaṇḍiya, if I were to teach you the Dhamma—‘This is that freedom from Disease; this is that unbinding’—and you on your part were to know that freedom from Disease and see that unbinding, then together with the arising of your eyesight you would abandon whatever passion & delight you felt with regard for the five clinging-aggregates. And it would occur to you, ‘My gosh, how long have I been fooled, cheated, & deceived by this mind! For in clinging, it was just form that I was clinging to… it was just feeling… just perception… just fabrications… just consciousness that I was clinging to. With my clinging as a requisite condition, there arises becoming… birth… aging & death… sorrow, lamentation, pains, distresses, & despairs. And thus is the origin of this entire mass of stress.’”

- MN 75
:namaste:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

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

Post by DNS »

bodom wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:02 pm DO as observed in the present moment:
Good find. :thumbsup:

The Buddha said "my gosh"? :tongue:
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: Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:21 pm You keep accusing me of avoiding answering, but again, it seems like you want me to talk about bhavapaccayā jāti, how 'birth' depends on 'being', but you aren't asking correctly. You're under the impression that Ven. Nv thinks that 'being' is the cause for 'birth' and that is simply not correct. You are misunderstanding the writing. In terms of suffering, 'birth' depends on 'being' and 'being' depends on 'birth'. But dependency does not imply causality, but because you insist that is what he thinks, all you see in his writing is that 'birth' comes from the notion 'I am'. It does not "come from" that notion, it depends on it in the arising of the mass of suffering. That is a significant difference that you are not acknowledging.
Ok, so it does not come from that notion, it depends on that notion. Probably by this you want to say that, as a distant, non-proximate cause, the whole rebirth process depends on the 2 fetters of craving and identify view. Sure, great.

But my question was: what is the proximate, technical cause for consciousness descending into the womb in Nanavira view ?

To my knowledge, he has no explanation for this and claims we are simply to take it on trust without any explanation and claims the Buddha had no explanation either. But Buddha repeated countless times why consciousness descends into the womb. Claiming he had no explanation for this is ridiculous to any informed buddhist.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:08 pm But my question was: what is the proximate, technical cause for consciousness descending into the womb in Nanavira view ?

To my knowledge, he has no explanation for this and claims we are simply to take it on trust without any explanation and claims the Buddha had no explanation either. But Buddha repeated countless times why consciousness descends into the womb. Claiming he had no explanation for this is ridiculous to any informed buddhist.
Ven. Nv wrote:...The remainder of Mr. Story's booklet, however, sets out to explain rebirth, either in terms taken from the Suttas ('Dependent Origination,' paticcasamuppāda) or the exegetical literature ('Cognitive Series,' cittavīthi), or else in scientific or pseudo-scientific terms. This part of the booklet is worthless (or worse), and any acceptance of rebirth based on it is built on quicksand; for not only are the explanations bogus, but they should never have been attempted in the first place. The Buddha does not explain how rebirth takes place; he states simply that, unless craving has ceased, rebirth does take place. It may be that a more detailed description of the phenomenon of rebirth than is found in the Suttas could be made, but (a) it would be irrelevant and unnecessary (because it is quite enough just to accept rebirth), and (b) it would not be in terms of 'cause and effect' (i.e. it would be strictly a description and not an explanation)...
- Letter [L.9|15] 5 September 1961
Is he contradicting the Buddha by saying "that unless craving has ceased, rebirth does take place"? Seems pretty clear to me that he is saying that if craving has not ceased there will be rebirth.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
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: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:55 pm
Circle5 wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:08 pm But my question was: what is the proximate, technical cause for consciousness descending into the womb in Nanavira view ?

To my knowledge, he has no explanation for this and claims we are simply to take it on trust without any explanation and claims the Buddha had no explanation either. But Buddha repeated countless times why consciousness descends into the womb. Claiming he had no explanation for this is ridiculous to any informed buddhist.
Ven. Nv wrote:The remainder of Mr. Story's booklet, however, sets out to explain rebirth, either in terms taken from the Suttas ('Dependent Origination,' paticcasamuppāda) or the exegetical literature ('Cognitive Series,' cittavīthi), or else in scientific or pseudo-scientific terms. This part of the booklet is worthless (or worse), and any acceptance of rebirth based on it is built on quicksand; for not only are the explanations bogus, but they should never have been attempted in the first place. The Buddha does not explain how rebirth takes place; he states simply that, unless craving has ceased, rebirth does take place. It may be that a more detailed description of the phenomenon of rebirth than is found in the Suttas could be made, but (a) it would be irrelevant and unnecessary (because it is quite enough just to accept rebirth), and (b) it would not be in terms of 'cause and effect' (i.e. it would be strictly a description and not an explanation). -Letter [L.9|15] 5 September 1961
Is he contradicting the Buddha by saying "that unless craving has ceased, rebirth does take place"? Seems pretty clear to me that he is saying that if craving has not ceased there will be rebirth.
That passage is ridiculous and is exactly what I am talking about. There are countless, countless suttas that explain how rebirth takes place because of volitional formations. Volitional formations lead to consciousness descending into the womb. In the case on an arahant, volitional formations that would lead to rebirth do not exist anymore because craving, the thing that is responsible for volitional formations that lead to consciousness descending into the womb, does not exist anymore.

Nanavira claim that Buddha never explained how rebirth takes place is as ridiculous as it gets to any informed buddhist. Do I even need to provide any quotes here ? Countless have been provided in arguments with secular buddhist.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:08 pm That passage is ridiculous and is exactly what I am talking about. There are countless, countless suttas that explain how rebirth takes place because of volitional formations.

Nanavira claim that Buddha never explained how rebirth takes place is as ridiculous as it gets to any informed buddhist. Do I even need to provide any quote here ? Countless have been provided in arguments with secular buddhist.
Read carefully, he said there are descriptions in suttas, not explanations. Take the time to see his point of view before you jump to conclusions.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
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: Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:13 pm Read carefully, he said there are descriptions in suttas, not explanations. Take the time to see his point of view before you jump to conclusions.
1) There are explanations in the suttas about volitional formations causing the descend of consciousness into the womb (rebirth).
2) This is of course in terms of cause and effect. Volitional formations are the cause, rebirth is the effect.

Do you agree with me that the historical Buddha considered volitional formations to be the cause for consciousness to descend into the womb ? (rebirth)

This is what I spoke about in my first message in this topic. People only read the DO sutta, not the whole SN, not even the whole "book of causation" that sutta is part of. That's why the get ridiculous idea about what that sutta means and fall for crackpot ideas. An informed buddhist who has read more than one sutta know that ideas about "volitional formations are something else and are not the cause for rebirth" are ridiculous since there are countless suttas about that. And it's the same thing for all other ridiculous ideas about DO. It's enough to read more than one sutta to understand what the idea is.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:35 pm
SDC wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:13 pm Read carefully, he said there are descriptions in suttas, not explanations. Take the time to see his point of view before you jump to conclusions.
1) There are explanations in the suttas about volitional formations causing the descend of consciousness into the womb (rebirth).
2) This is of course in terms of cause and effect. Volitional formations are the cause, rebirth is the effect.

Do you agree with me that the historical Buddha considered volitional formations to be the cause for consciousness to descend into the womb ? (rebirth)

This is what I spoke about in my first message in this topic. People only read the DO sutta, not the whole SN, not even the whole "book of causation" that sutta is part of. That's why the get ridiculous idea about what that sutta means and fall for crackpot ideas. An informed buddhist who has read more than one sutta know that ideas about "volitional formations are something else and are not the cause for rebirth" are ridiculous since there are countless suttas about that. And it's the same thing for all other ridiculous ideas about DO. It's enough to read more than one sutta to understand what the idea is.
So go check out SN 22.55. Take a look at the Pali too.

The pairs in DO/PS are saṅkhāra saṅkhata dhamma: volitional formation and that which is produced. Ven. Nv would say a determination and the determined thing. (Use whatever translation you like, it doesn't alter my point whatsoever.) So no matter the pair in question, one will be the determination and the other the determined thing. So such as "with craving as a condition, clinging", the determination (saṅkhāra) in that pair is craving, and the determined thing (saṅkhata dhamma) is clinging.

Be that as it may, can you show me the sutta you are talking about where it says, "volitional formations to be the cause for consciousness to descend into the womb". I think I know what you are referring to, but I would like to see it in context. One sutta will do. No need to clutter up the thread. And why do you say 'cause' and not 'depend'? How did you make that decision?

I don't know why this gets you so upset. They guy did his homework. You can disagree with him all you want, but your claims that these things cannot be found in the suttas are baseless.

I may not be back on until tomorrow.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
pilgrim
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

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

Post by pilgrim »

SDC wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:19 am

Be that as it may, can you show me the sutta you are talking about where it says, "volitional formations to be the cause for consciousness to descend into the womb". I think I know what you are referring to, but I would like to see it in context. One sutta will do. No need to clutter up the thread. And why do you say 'cause' and not 'depend'? How did you make that decision?
That's being unnecessary pedantic. In the MahaNidana sutta, the Buddha says
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
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: Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:19 am So go check out SN 22.55. Take a look at the Pali too.

The pairs in DO/PS are saṅkhāra saṅkhata dhamma: volitional formation and that which is produced. Ven. Nv would say a determination and the determined thing. (Use whatever translation you like, it doesn't alter my point whatsoever.) So no matter the pair in question, one will be the determination and the other the determined thing. So such as "with craving as a condition, clinging", the determination (saṅkhāra) in that pair is craving, and the determined thing (saṅkhata dhamma) is clinging.
I am aware of his absolutally brutal mistranslation of the word sankhara. But as any pali dictionary and any person who has read the suttas will tell you: there are 2 meanings for sankhara. One means volition (and has an active sense) while the other means constructed things (and has a passive sense). Only a person who has not read the suttas and has only read Nanavira writings could ever claim otherwise.

Nanavira only uses the "determination" translation regardless of context and ignores the other meaning of the term. What's worse is that he takes the meaning of shankhana form a sutta where a person is asked about how things work when one is emerging from the 8th jhana and contains this passage: "The in-&-out breaths are body-sankhaara, thinking-&-pondering are speech-sankhaara, perception and feeling are mind-sankhaara". Nowhere else is that term used like that in 10k pages of suttas except that one with that specific context.

The brutal mistranslation of this term as that also leads to the famous problem of Nanavira, that of Arahant 5 aggregates vanishing into thin air at the moment of attaining arahantship. Again, to quote B.Bodhi:

These sa"nkhaaraa are not necessarily dependent upon ignorance and do not cease with the ceasing of ignorance. Though the arahant has completely eradicated ignorance, he continues to breathe in and out (except when in the fourth jhaana and higher attainments), to think and ponder (except when in the second and higher jhaanas), and to perceive and feel (except when in the cessation of perception and feeling).

What's more ridiculous is that not only are there countless suttas where shankana is clearly meant to mean volition/kamma (not determinations) but even the DO sutta itself describes it in that way.

This is arguably one of the most ridiculous brutal mistranslations of Nanavira. It's praying on the fact that many people have not read the suttas. It's so dishonest that he clearly did this on purpose and not due to crackpottines. It's like telling non-english speakers that "mouse" should only be interpreted as a computer joystick and never as an animal. He knew this was wrong, since any person that has read the suttas can confirm the term has a double meaning giving the radically different context in which it is used and one does not need to know any pali. Needless to say all pali dictionaries say the same thing: that is has a double meaning.
Be that as it may, can you show me the sutta you are talking about where it says, "volitional formations to be the cause for consciousness to descend into the womb". I think I know what you are referring to, but I would like to see it in context. One sutta will do. No need to clutter up the thread. And why do you say 'cause' and not 'depend'? How did you make that decision?

I don't know why this gets you so upset. They guy did his homework. You can disagree with him all you want, but your claims that these things cannot be found in the suttas are baseless.

I may not be back on until tomorrow.
Ok, here is just one, let me know if I should continue:
“Those ascetics and brahmins, bhikkhu, who do not understand as it really is: ‘This is suffering’; who do not understand as it really is: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; who do not understand as it really is: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; who do not understand as it really is: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering’—they delight in volitional formations that lead to birth, in volitional formations that lead to aging, in volitional formations that lead to death, in volitional formations that lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. Delighting in such volitional formations, they generate volitional formations that lead to birth, generate volitional formations that lead to aging, generate volitional formations that lead to death, generate volitional formations that lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. Having generated such volitional formations, they tumble into the darkness of birth, tumble into the darkness of aging, tumble into the darkness of death, tumble into the darkness of sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. They are not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from suffering, I say.

“But, bhikkhu, those ascetics and brahmins who understand as it really is: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering’—they do not delight in volitional formations that lead to birth, nor in volitional formations that lead to aging, nor in volitional formations that lead to death, nor in volitional formations that lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. Not delighting in such volitional formations, they do not generate volitional formations that lead to birth, nor generate volitional formations that lead to aging, nor generate volitional formations that lead to death, nor generate volitional formations that lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. Not having generated such volitional formations, they do not tumble into the darkness of birth, nor tumble into the darkness of aging, nor tumble into the darkness of death, nor tumble into the darkness of sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. They are freed from birth, aging, and death; freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; freed from suffering, I say.
https://suttacentral.net/sn56.46/en/bodhi
Last edited by Circle5 on Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot »

Circle5 wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:14 amI am aware of his absolutally brutal mistranslation of the word sankhara. But as any pali dictionary and any person who has read the suttas will tell you: there are 2 meanings for sankhara.
Sankhara is one of the most broad words in Pali, which has more than two meanings.
Circle5 wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:14 am the meaning of shankhana from a sutta where a person is asked about how things work when one is emerging from the 8th jhana and contains this passage: "The in-&-out breaths are body-sankhaara, thinking-&-pondering are speech-sankhaara, perception and feeling are mind-sankhaara". Nowhere else is that term used like that in 10k pages of suttas except that one with that specific context.
The above criticism is clearly wrong & misinformed. Since you have not read 10k pages of suttas, why would you post such error that can be refuted in 1 minute?
Circle5 wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:14 am Again, to quote B.Bodhi:

These sa"nkhaaraa are not necessarily dependent upon ignorance and do not cease with the ceasing of ignorance. Though the arahant has completely eradicated ignorance, he continues to breathe in and out (except when in the fourth jhaana and higher attainments), to think and ponder (except when in the second and higher jhaanas), and to perceive and feel (except when in the cessation of perception and feeling).
The above is so easily refuted also. Child's play. :roll:
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
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 »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:18 am Sankhara is one of the most broad words in Pali, which has more than two meanings.
Perfectly true, that was my point.
The above is clearly wrong & misinformed. Since you have not read 10k pages of suttas, why would you post such error that can be refuted in 1 minute?
Indeed, I have not read them all. But I have searched the term inside all 4 nikayas before posting my previous reply and the term is not used in more the 10 instances outside SN, instances that I have checked. Also that claim was made by B.Bodhi and is reffering to the use from Culavedalla Sutta:

If the Buddha had intended the sa"nkhaaraa that are conditioned by ignorance and that condition consciousness to signify the in-&-out breaths, thinking-&-pondering, and perception and feeling, then one could reasonably expect to find at least one sutta on pa.ticca-samuppaada where he exemplifies sa"nkhaaraa by way of the Cuu.lavedalla triad. But not a single sutta of such a nature can be found anywhere in the entire Pali Canon.

It does not reffer to the use of the word as "determinations" that is used numerous times throughout the suttas.
The above is so easily refuted also. Child's play.
Nobody has even tried before to respond to this problem of arahant vanishing into thin air in a "structural, non-termporal" understanding of DO. So go on, be the first to try. Tell me how can consciouss exist past 22:57 if ignorance ceases at 22:57 and DO is "structural, non-temporal, happening in every moment" :anjali: :anjali: :anjali: :anjali: :anjali:
Last edited by Circle5 on Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply