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

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 » Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:42 am

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: 664
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 » Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:49 am

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
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4207
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:21 pm

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.

User avatar
bodom
Posts: 6200
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 » Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:02 pm

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:
To study is to know the texts,
To practice is to know your defilements,
To attain the goal is to know and let go.

- Ajahn Lee Dhammadharo


With no struggling, no thinking,
the mind, still,
will see cause and effect
vanishing in the Void.
Attached to nothing, letting go:
Know that this is the way
to allay all stress.

- Upasika Kee Nanayan

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11569
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 » Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:39 pm

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:

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

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

Post by Circle5 » Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:08 pm

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: 4207
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » 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.

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

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

Post by Circle5 » Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:08 pm

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: 4207
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:13 pm

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.

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

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

Post by Circle5 » 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.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4207
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:19 am

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.

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

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

Post by pilgrim » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:12 am

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?"

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

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

Post by Circle5 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:14 am

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: 1862
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:18 am

Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:14 am
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.
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.

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

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

Post by Circle5 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:28 am

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.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1862
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:32 am

Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:28 am
Perfectly true, that was my point.
How can two meanings now be more than two meanings? Since when did 2 = 3 or 2 = 4 or 2 = 5?
Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:28 am
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.
10 is more than the 1 you previously claimed. First 2 became more than 2 and now 1 becomes 10. :roll:
Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:28 am
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.
VBB is not explicitly correct here & easily refuted; as I previously posted. VBB is in self-created contraction due to picking a sectarian fight. To argue an arahant would cease to breathe is the same as arguing an arahant would cease to be conscious or cease to have sense contact. VBB has no argument & is instantly defeated by a feather of a refutation.
Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:28 am
Nobody has even tried before to respond to this problem of arahant vanishing into thin air in a "structural, non-termporal" understanding of DO.
False.
Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:28 am
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.
Just more materialism in believing the word "nirodha" literally means "cease". :roll:
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Post by Circle5 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:37 am

How can two meanings now be more than two meanings? Since when did 2 = 3 or 2 = 4 or 2 = 5?
Any pali dictionary will tell you that is has 2 meanings, by this meaning 2 main meanings and small deviations among those 2 main meanings. The fact that it is a broad word does not mean it has 10 meanings. Go ahead and list the "more than 2 meanings" that you feel exist.
10 is more than the 1 you previously claimed. First 2 became more than 2 and now 1 becomes 10.
No, it is never used like that outside 1 single sutta in a very specific context. My point with "10 suttas outside SN" was that only about 10 suttas outside SN (that I have read) contain the world and that I have checked those about 10 instances just before my previous post. Therefore, it can be said that I have read all 10k pages of nikayas where the term might have appeared :anjali:
VBB is not explicitly correct here & easily refuted; as I previously posted.
I'm waiting, especially since nobody ever tried doing this before on the forum. All ran away when asked that question :anjali: :anjali: :anjali:
Go ahead and tell me how can consciousness exist past 22:57 if ignorance ceases at 22:57 and DO is "structural, non-temporal, happening in every moment" :anjali:

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1862
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:46 am

Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:37 am
Go ahead and tell me how can consciousness exist past 22:57 if ignorance :roll: ceases :roll: at 22:57 and DO is "structural, non-temporal, happening in every moment"
The Buddha did not teach in the English language but you seem to believe in a doctrine as expressed in Romanian-English. :roll:
If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
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. From the cessation of clinging 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
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Post by Circle5 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:47 am

After you edit, I see you didn't get that Bhikkhu Bodhi was arguing against, not for the 1-life, "structural, non-termporal, happening in every moment" interpretation of DO that of course leads to the problem of arahant consciousness dissapearing on the spot at 22:57 if ignorance ceased at 22:57.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1862
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:49 am

Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:47 am
After you edit, I see you didn't get that Bhikkhu Bodhi was arguing against, not for the 1-life, "structural, non-termporal, happening in every moment" interpretation of DO that of course leads to the problem of arahant consciousness :roll: dissapearing :roll: on the spot at 22:57.
I already posted suttas which you, similar to VBB, appear to choose to ignore. Since when did "nirodha" always mean "disappearing"? :roll:

Again:
If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
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. From the cessation of clinging 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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 74 guests