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

Circle5
Posts: 882
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 2:00 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:49 am
I already posted suttas which you, similar to VBB, appear to choose to ignore. Since when did "nirodha" always mean "disappearing"? :roll:

Again:
Just a couple of suttas after DO:
‘When there is no ignorance, volitional formations
do not come to be; with the cessation of ignorance comes
cessation of volitional formations.’
“What do you think, bhikkhus, can a bhikkhu whose taints are
destroyed generate a meritorious volitional formation, or a
demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional
formation?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“When there are utterly no volitional formations, with the cessation
of volitional formations,would consciousness be discerned?
”142
“No, venerable sir.”
“When there is utterly no consciousness, with the cessation of
consciousness, would name-and-form be discerned?”
This is no problem for the 3 life interpretation, but it is a major problem with the "structural, non-temporal, happening in every moment" idea of DO. If ignorance ceases as 22:57, volitional formations cease at 22:57, consciousness ceases at 22:57. In that very moment, not afterwards. (since it's a "happening in every moment" do)

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2498
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 2:02 am

Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:14 am
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 word 'kaya sankhara" is found at least in the following:
In-&-out breaths is kaya sankhara.

MN 44
In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his kaya sankhara have ceased & subsided... in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his kaya sankhara have ceased & subsided...

MN 43
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming kaya sankhara.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming kaya sankhara.'

MN 118
The meaning of kaya sankhara is obviously exactly the same in all three cases above thus should probably be the same in the following:
And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: kaya sankhara, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.

SN 12.2
In his description of Nibbana, the Buddha did not say 'sankhara' disappears or is destroyed. The Buddha said the sankhara are calmed (samatho):
This state, too, is hard to see: the samatho of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana.

MN 26
Sorry, but it seems VBB has materialistic view about what 'nirodha' is. :smile:

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2498
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 2:08 am

Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:00 am
“When there are utterly no volitional formations, with the cessation
of volitional formations,would consciousness be discerned?
You have ignored the suttas I posted which clearly state an arahant attains Nibbana and remains conscious. And taken refuge in a dodgy sutta that has been discussed before. I return after I pack the vegetables in the fridge which have just been delivered. Please post a link to the ONE sutta you are relying on so we can discuss its problems . ;)

Circle5
Posts: 882
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 2:18 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:08 am
You have ignored the suttas I posted which clearly state an arahant attains Nibbana and remains conscious. And taken refuge in a dodgy sutta that has been discussed before. I return after I pack the vegetables in the fridge which have just been delivered. Please post a link to the ONE sutta you are relying on so we can discuss its problems . ;)
Jezus there are counless suttas saying the DO in reverse and how with the cessation of volitional formations comes the cessation of consciousness. (refering to the descent of consciousness into the womb). There are countless suttas about "when there is no X, there is no Y" listing all links of DO and how the cessation of one leads to the cessation of another. All pali dictionaries translate "cessation" there not
Sorry, but it seems VBB has materialistic view about what 'nirodha' is.
Spoke the secual buddhist who is defending 1-life interpretation of DO because he doesn't accept rebirth
You have ignored the suttas I posted which clearly state an arahant attains Nibbana and remains conscious. And taken refuge in a dodgy sutta that has been discussed before.
At this point I don't know weather you are reading the topic or wanted to post somewhere else but posted here by mistake. That was the whole point, that no suttas support the ideas of arahant consciousness disappearing at 22:57 if ignorance ceases at 22:57, therefore refuting the idea of DO being "structural, non-temporal, happening in every moment" that is implied by such an interpretation of DO.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2498
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 2:39 am

Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:18 am
........
Slow down tiger. Stay on topic rather than move the soccer posts. I just ate two avocado. Can Romanian's afford avocado or only potato?

Back to the ONE sutta you are relying on, SN 12.51.

1. The following verse from SN 12.51 appears to say the meritorious formations are types of upadana (9th condition).
He does not generate (abhisaṅkharoti) a meritorious volitional formation, or a demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional formation. Since he does not generate (abhisaṅkharoti) or fashion (anabhisañcetayanto) volitional formations, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Not being agitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’

:P
2. The next verse says after the arahant attains Nibbana, the arahant continues to be conscious & feel:
If he feels a pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘It is impermanent’; he understands: ‘It is not held to’; he understands: ‘It is not delighted in.’ If he feels a painful feeling, he understands: ‘It is impermanent’; he understands: ‘It is not held to’; he understands: ‘It is not delighted in.’ If he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘It is impermanent’; he understands: ‘It is not held to’; he understands: ‘It is not delighted in.’
3. The next verse refers to the arahant feeling at the termination life:
When he feels a feeling terminating with the body, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with the body.’ When he feels a feeling terminating with life, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with life.’ He understands: ‘With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here; mere bodily remains will be left.’
4. The next verse returns to the topic of attachment (9th condition):
api nu kho khīṇāsavo bhikkhu puññābhisaṅkhāraṃ vā abhisaṅkhareyya apuññābhisaṅkhāraṃ vā abhisaṅkhareyya āneñjābhisaṅkhāraṃ vā abhisaṅkhareyyā”ti?

“What do you think, bhikkhus, can a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed generate a meritorious volitional formation, or a demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional formation?”

“No, venerable sir.”
5. The next verse returns to sankhara of 2nd condition & does not use the verbs abhisaṅkharoti & anabhisañcetayanto that are used for the 9th condition:
Sabbaso vā pana saṅkhāresu asati, saṅkhāranirodhā api nu kho viññāṇaṃ paññāyethā”ti?

When there are utterly no formations, with the cessation of formations, would consciousness be discerned?” “No, venerable sir.”
6. Since volition (cetana) is first found at nama-rupa (4th condition), the verbs abhisaṅkharoti & anabhisañcetayanto cannot occur at the 2nd condition. The translation of 'sankhara' as 'volitional' formations for the 2nd condition appears to have no support in the Pali because SN 12.51 clearly appears to say anabhisañcetayanto occurs at the 9th condition of clinging.

Therefore, the sankhara (noun) of the 2nd condition appear to certainly not be the generation (verb) of meritorious volitional formation, or a demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional formation. Meritorious volitional formation, or a demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional formation appear to be mental states of clinging & grasping (9th condition), i.e., clinging to views.

:woohoo: :twothumbsup: :rofl: :pig:
Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:18 am
:strawman: :jedi:
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:18 am
:strawman: :jedi:

chownah
Posts: 7412
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Post by chownah » Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:04 am

Lots of explanations about why this or that view of DO is right or makes sense or is consistent with other sutta or not. For me this does nothing for what resonates for me....nothing. Do people making these posts think that someone is going to read them and it will make that person resonate with what the people making the posts have said? Maybe this can happen sometimes but I kind of doubt it. Maybe I am wrong.
chownah

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2498
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 3:08 am

Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:18 am
Jezus there are counless suttas saying the DO in reverse and how with the cessation of formations comes the cessation of consciousness.
Yes but I have posted many many suttas that appear to show vinnana nirodha does not mean the disappearance of consciousness. You simply cannot ignore these suttas & impute your own personal materialistic Western meaning upon the term 'nirodha'.
Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:18 am
(refering to the descent of consciousness into the womb).
There appears only ONE sutta (DN 15) that refers to this & it might be referring to how consciousness falls into the womb for a mother to know & name her baby in the womb. If a mother cannot feel her womb, how can she know she is pregnant & name her child?

Regardless, many diverse scholars, such as Buddhadasa, Bodhi, Thanissaro & Sujato have held similar views the DN was often composed for the conversion of Brahmins to Buddhism thus the DN contains some different ideas.
Circle5 wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:18 am
There are countless suttas about "when there is no X, there is no Y" listing all links of DO and how the cessation of one leads to the cessation of another. All pali dictionaries translate "cessation" there not
This continues to ignore important suttas and impute your own meaning onto other suttas. SN 22.81 clearly states the meaning of contact in DO is "contact with ignorance" (avijjāsamphassajena). Therefore, if following the strict definition found in SN 22.81, when consciousness ceases, what this means is consciousness that is polluted by ignorance ceases, which I already quoted from SN 22.53, which you have chosen to deliberately ignore. The nirodha of consciousness seems clearly described in SN 22.53, below:
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.'
:pig:

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2498
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 3:29 am

chownah wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:04 am
Maybe I am wrong.
I think my replies to Circle5 are important because the Buddha taught:
'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.'

User avatar
bodom
Posts: 6240
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 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:17 am

DNS wrote:
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:
Lol I found that funny as well.

:anjali:
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

Dinsdale
Posts: 5859
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 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:14 am

dylanj wrote:
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
You seem to be agreeing with me. All processes being inconstant involves change over time, so describing this as "timeless" doesn't make any sense.
dylanj wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:49 am
...dependent origination is not the same as things-dependently-arisen
Why not? The suttas describe one nidana arising in dependence upon another.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5859
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 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:18 am

bodom wrote:
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:
This passage seems to describe an insight into how DO works, but I don't see how it supports the idea of moment-to-moment DO, where the whole process is supposed to take place in a moment.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5859
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 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:21 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?
Anyone?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5859
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 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:31 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:32 am
Just more materialism in believing the word "nirodha" literally means "cease". :roll:
"Cease" looks like a reasonable translation to me. What do you think it means?

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/nirodha
Buddha save me from new-agers!

boundless
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

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

Post by boundless » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:42 am

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 a consequence 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.
Hello Dinsale,

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" :thinking: ). 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...)


:anjali:


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).

:anjali:

Edited for clarification
Last edited by boundless on Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:11 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2498
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 9:44 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:31 am
"Cease" looks like a reasonable translation to me. What do you think it means?
I already explained. Possibly read my previous post. To me, nirodha means the defilements extinguish. Therefore, when the teaching says: "vinnana nirodha", to me, this means consciousness ceases to be affected by defilements such as ignorance & craving. What remains is undefiled liberated consciousness; as I previously quoted from SN 22.53.
I doubt Dhamma is found in dictionaries. For me, Dhamma is found in the context of a passage. Regards
Dinsdale wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:14 am
so describing this as "timeless" doesn't make any sense.
My understanding is the Pali word "akaliko" does not mean "timeless". It means "without delay" or "immediate" thus "without time delay". Therefore D.O. is "akaliko" because as soon as attachment arises, dukkha arises; or as soon as ignorance, craving or attachment ceases, dukkha immediately ceases.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 80 guests