Dinsdale wrote: ↑
Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:37 am
boundless wrote: ↑
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:11 am
In fact I think that "impermanence" (anicca) IMO is
of Dependent Arising, i.e. whatever dependently arises have to cease once conditions change.
An important point, though I think the relationship between transience and conditionality is chicken-and-egg - or two sides of the same coin?
"Sabbe sankhara anicca" = all conditions are transient.
Well I am inclined to agree. In fact, I think that "sankhara" also refers to "dependently arisen" objects (well, after all "Paticcasamuppada" is translated as "Dependent Arsing"
). By the way according to AN 3:47 alteration
is a feature of conditioned existence. Whereas alteration is not seen in the unconditioned.
In fact, I think that dependently arisen material objects (like flames, bubbles etc) are included in "sankhara"
Also if "time" is related to change, then "without alteration/change" also means "atemporal/timeless" (i.e. the "unconditioned dhamma" is timeless - or "dhammas" if there is more than one "unconditioned dhamma" as some schools held...)
aflatun wrote: ↑
Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:02 pm
SDC wrote: ↑
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:34 pm
How do see
'arising' or 'ceasing'? From what position? Does 'arising' and 'ceasing' happen in front of you? Behind you? In your field of vision? In your mind? Somewhere else? Is that view of
'arising' and 'ceasing' also part of that arising and ceasing?
Hi SDC and alfatun,
All quotes below are from A note on Paticasamuppada
. It has been an interesting read. However, I still have the same doubts as before. But let us begin…
Since, however, he does see it as permanent—more permanent, indeed, than anything else—he will think 'Other things may be impermanent, but not this thing, which is myself'. In order, then, that he shall see it as impermanent, indirect methods are necessary: he must first see that this thing is dependent upon, or determined by, some other thing, and he must then see that this other thing, this determination or sankhāra, is impermanent. When he sees that the other thing, the sankhāra on which this thing depends, is impermanent, he sees that this thing, too, must be impermanent, and he no longer regards it as 'self'
Have to disagree. Unless by “permanent” is meant “enduring”. The problem is, however, that annihilationists (despite their doctrinal difference) regarded the “self” as something that is impermanent, i.e. enduring but not everlasting or "unchanging"/“unaffected by time” (two possible meanings of permanent, eternal…).
(When merit is intended by an individual he is conscious of his world as 'world-for-doing-merit-in', and consciousness has thus 'arrived at merit'.) In §14 we saw that cetanā (or intentions) of all kinds are sankhārā, and these are no exception. As we see from the Sutta, however, they are of a particular kind; for they are not found in the arahat. They are intentions in which belief in 'self' is implicitly involved.
I disagree, in fact I think that “belief in a self” is not present in all sentient beings: belief in a “self” requires a conceptual mind, i.e. a mind that is able to understand the concept of “self”, itself. Ignorance is eradicated, IMO, when it is realized that “sabbe dhamma anatta”, i.e. one must “see” that things are selfless. At best, it is the tendency "I am" that is "responsible", but it is not "belief in a self".
Thus, with cessation of these particular intentions there is cessation of consciousness. The arahat, however, still lives, and he has both intentions (or, more generally, determinations) and consciousness; but this consciousness is niruddha, and the intentions (or determinations) must similarly be accounted as 'ceased'…
It is right to say that with a living arahat there is still consciousness, name-&-matter, six bases, contact, and feeling, but only in a certain sense…
And in the Kevaddhasutta (Dīgha i,11 <D.i,223>), viññānam anidassanam,[j] which is the arahat's 'non-indicative consciousness', is also viññānassa nirodho. While the arahat yet lives, his consciousness is niruddha, or 'ceased', for the reason that it is ananuruddha-appativiruddha (Majjhima ii,1 <M.i,65>). In the same way, when there is no longer any apparent 'self' to be contacted, contact (phassa) is said to have ceased: Phusanti phassā upadhim paticca / Nirūpadhim kena phuseyyum phassā.
Well, here lies the problem, in my opinion. If “ignorance” ceases then, if the "structural/timeless-only" version of DO is correct, all the “links” must cease. Among the links we have “consciousness” (vinnana), “contact” (phassa) and “feeling” (vedana). Problem is that, as Ven Nanavira acknowledges that the Arahant still lives and therefore “feels” and is conscious. But the Venerable says that, for example, the consciousness of the Arahant, “vinnana anidassana”, is “a ceased/stopped” consciousness. Of course, an Arahant does not have ignorance and conceit (“I am”) so his consciousness must be “qualitatively” different from “normal consciousness”. But in the definition of “contact” above lies a problem: contact, AFAIK, is defined as the “coming together” of the sense sphere, sense objects and sense-consciousness: I do not remember a passage that says that contact depends on a “belief” in a self (or on the tendency "I am" for that matter).
Of course, also, a “cessation” of feelings is at “cessation of perception and feelings”, which is not the “normal” consciousness of the Arahant. Also at “Nibbana without remainder” feelings cease. So, unless we have to admit two meanings for “cessation of feelings”, i.e. one which is relative to the “ceased feelings” of the Arahant and the other that is the “cessation of ceased feelings”, then we must conclude that “feelings” are still there. So everyday experience of the Arahant IMO must entail feelings. However ignorance and craving are eradicated, so even the everyday experience of the Arahant in regards to feeling is different. If “cessation of feeling” is also to be applied at “Nibbana with reminder” then “cessation of feelings” refer to a particular “experience” where “consciousness stops” (this is more or less, I think, the view proposed by professor Peter Harvey in his book "The Selfless Mind"). If this is true, then, “ceased consciousness” cannot refer to the everyday consciousness of the Arahant, which must of course be “purified”.
Here there is a strong difficulty with Ven Nanavira’s interpretation IMO. In fact, unless “cessation of feelings” has two meanings (i.e. “ceased feelings” and “cessation of ceased feeling”) then I cannot understand how a "structural/timeless-only" view of DO is compatible with the Suttas.
Of course the experience of an Aharant is structurally different from ours but there is still "feeling", "contact" etc.
Regarding these questions of SDC,
How do see 'arising' or 'ceasing'? From what position? Does 'arising' and 'ceasing' happen in front of you? Behind you? In your field of vision? In your mind? Somewhere else? Is that view of 'arising' and 'ceasing' also part of that arising and ceasing?
I think that “arising”, “changing” and “ceasing” do not require a “perspective”. In fact, I think that the point is to see that despite awareness/consciousness there is no need to posit a "self". In fact, I think that "arising" is cognized by consciousness but is not "dependent" on it (just like flames, bubbles etc arise and cease even if no cosciousness is aware of them).
In fact, they require simply a cognition. (in the Bahiya Sutta, for example, we have “in the seen only the seen…”…). I thinh that "arising" and "ceasing" is what is seen by the Arahant, without any subtle "I am" "tendency" in it.
Then also, there is SN 12.2 where “birth” and “death” are physical events. i wonder how the "timeless-only" model explain this Sutta.
This is why I find the view of Ven. Nagarjuna/MMK much more complete (as far as I understand it). In fact I think that Ven. Nanavira is wrong when he says that DO does not "include" rebirth.
Thank you in advance for the answer. And sorry for possible mistakes (I wrote this message in a hurry).
Edited for clarification