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
9
23%
Multiple lives model
3
8%
Multiple lives model & moment-to-moment
7
18%
Moment to moment only
1
3%
Timeless/Atemporal/Structural
7
18%
Simultaneous, non-linear
4
10%
 
Total votes: 40

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6462
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

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

Post by Mkoll » Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:40 am

Which view on DO resonates with you the most?
The one that conduces to avoiding embroilment in arguments about it.

:coffee:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

boundless
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

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

Post by boundless » Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:16 am

Hello SDC,

thank you for the answer.
SDC wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:14 pm
So yes, I agree there is no need for a source of that direction of view, but how can a thing's arising be discerned at all unless it does so against a background which is present with it? What I mean is, in order for the concept of movement to be discerned, there has to be that which is moving less, changing less in relation to it.
On this I think it is better to "split" the argument in two parts.
To simply "discern" the arising-alteration-ceasing the only necessary thing is consciousness, but not a "self". A self is "posited" to explain the continuity of experience, not experience (e.g. of "arising" etc).

On the other hand you make a very interesting point. If that awareness changes too, how can "it" be aware of change? How it is possible to speak of "arising, ceasing" etc if the reference frame itself changes? This is a very interesting point.
However it can be said that what awareness "sees" is the result of change. For example, if I watch the arising-alteration-ceasing of a flame, while my consciosness changes during the "watch" it can still be aware that there was an arising of a flame etc (maybe due to some subtle form of memory, but not because clinging). This does not mean that we need to "assume" a "self" that is "behind the scenes" in order to describe the change in the experience.

After all, if the Buddha and Arahants were unaware of change how could they speak, be aware of the progress of their disciples etc? I still think that they are aware of arising and ceasing in their "everyday" experience. They are still aware of change.
Hence, I disagree that "cessation of consciousness" refers to the "everyday" consciousness of the Arahants (which Ven. Nanavira apparently equates to "vinanna anidassana" of DN 11). That would in fact imply the IMO very awkward position that there are two "cessation of consciousness, cessation of feelings etc". The first would be the "cessation of consciousness, cessation of feelings etc" that corresponds to the "ceased consciousness, ceased feelings..." (i.e. a "structural change" in consciousness, feelings...) whereas the second would be the "cessation of ceased consciousness, cessation of ceased feelings...".

IMO, It is not that "Nibbana with reaminder" is a form of "changed consciousness" and "Nibbana without remainder" is when even that "changed consciousness" vanishes (as I think Ven. Nanavira says). Whatever is it, Nibbana/Unconditioned is one, not two. *


SDC wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:14 pm

The more you read Ven. Nv you will start to recognize the degree to which he discusses wrong view, but in the landscape of what he believes to be right view. With that he is going to thoroughly address the plight of the puthujjana and not just try and speak exclusively - for lack of a better phrase - in that ultimate sense. It gets easier to distinguish the difference in his writing.

As far as 'birth' and 'death' are concerned, you have to be open to the idea that PS/DO is not a blueprint of one's life but of one's suffering. With the former you are bound sequence and linear causality, as has been shown, but with the latter, these "physical events" are described by showing that upon which they depend in terms of "the arising of this whole mass of suffering". So yes, they are physical events, but in DO/PS it is all about how those events contribute to suffering, not how they contribute to one another. Remember all they do is depend on each other - lean together like the reeds in SN 12.67.

Thanks for this suggestion. I will keep it in mind. But my problem is when DO is taken to be only as "structural" (as if "DO is only structural, all other models are worthless"...). Anyway, I still think that Arahants are still subject to some inevitable suffering. At the same time, however their mind is structurally different and therefore they are not subject to some types of suffering. For example, "normally" contact is followed by craving and clinging whereas in the case of an Arahant there is still contact but not craving and clinging.
SDC wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:14 pm
I have a busy weekend, so I'll do my best to address your other points as soon as possible.
Well, I will maybe have a busy week, so take all the time you need :heart:

:anjali:

Note, possibly O.T.
*Well,as far as I understand and know, some interpreters suggest that Nibbana is one and is a "kind" of consciosuness (that "vinnana anidassana" taken to mean "non-manifest consciousness"), like professor Peter Harvey and some monks in the Thai Forest Tradition. But according to them this "consciousness" is not the "everyday consciousness" of the Arahant. But it is not the Classical Theravada position which does not take "vinnana anidassana" as a kind of consciousness. Ven Nagarjuna position differs form both but even according to him Nibbana is one (in Mahayana is called "abiding", in the non-abiding Nirvana The liberated does not abide neither in Samsara nor in Nirvana) AFAIK.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

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

Post by aflatun » Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:06 pm

boundless wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:42 am
Then also, there is SN 12.2 where “birth” and “death” are physical events. i wonder how the "timeless-only" model explain this Sutta.
You might decide that a timeless model cannot account for this. But if you want to try, my advice would be a start backwards. Is an Arahant subject to death?
Ven. Nv wrote:Actually and in truth (saccato thetato, which incidentally has nothing to do with paramattha sacca, 'truth in the highest [or absolute] sense', a fallacious notion much used in the traditional exegesis—see PARAMATTHA SACCA) there is, even in this very life, no arahat to be found (e.g. Avyākata Samy. 2 <S.iv,384>—see PARAMATTHA SACCA §4 [a]); and though there is certainly consciousness and so on, there is no apparent 'self' for whom there is consciousness. Yena viññānena Tathāgatam paññāpayamāno paññāpeyya, tam viññānam Tathāgatassa pahīnam ucchinnamūlam tālāvatthukatam anabhāvakatam āyatim anuppādadhammam; viññānasankhāya vimutto kho mahārāja Tathāgato... ('That consciousness by which the Tathāgata might be manifested has been eliminated by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, dug up, made non-existent, it is incapable of future arising; the Tathāgata, great king, is free from reckoning as consciousness...') (Avyākata Samy. 1 <S.iv,379>)
A NOTE ON PAṬICCASAMUPPĀDA 22
Ven. Nv wrote:[a] The question discussed here, whether saccato thetato a 'self' is to be found, must be kept clearly distinct from another question, discussed in A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPĀDA §22, viz whether saccato thetato the Tathāgata (or an arahat) is to be found (ditth'eva dhamme saccato thetato Tathāgate anupalabbhamāne... ('since here and now the Tathāgata actually and in truth is not to be found...') Avyākata Samy. 2 <S.iv,384>). The reason why the Tathāgata is not to be found (even here and now) is that he is rūpa-, vedanā-, saññā-, sankhāra-, and viññāna-sankhāya vimutto (ibid. 1 <S.iv,378-9>), i.e. free from reckoning as matter, feeling, perception, determinations, or consciousness. This is precisely not the case with the puthujjana, who, in this sense, actually and in truth is to be found.
PARAMATTHA SACCA

Hence the tetralemma as we find it in the Pali texts.
boundless wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:42 am
This is why I find the view of Ven. Nagarjuna/MMK much more complete (as far as I understand it).

It could be, but on this point there is no disagreement at all! 8-)
Ven. Nagarjuna wrote: One seized by the dense fixation
That the Thus-Gone exists
Will think that, upon his transcendence,
The Thus-Gone no longer exists. [XXII.13]

As for a Buddha empty of nature,
To declare that, upon transcendence,
He exists or does not exist
Would not make any sense. [XII.14]

Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone. [XXII.15]
Nagarjuna , Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

boundless
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

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

Post by boundless » Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:27 pm

aflatun wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:06 pm

You might decide that a timeless model cannot account for this. But if you want to try, my advice would be a start backwards. Is an Arahant subject to death?
Hi,

well, you are right. Better start backwards :thumbsup:

Ok, I will try to make a decent answer, saying how I see it now.

My answer is "two-fold":
1) ultimately, the answer is "it does not apply" (tetralemma etc). The doctrine of anatta is crystal clear on it. "Non-liberated" people instead see a self in what is not-self.
2) Conventionally, yes. Just like, conventionally, we speak of birth and death of other beings.

As I understand it, according to the "structural" view of DO, "avijja", ignorance, is the necessary "condition" of all other links.
Now, it is due that:
1) avijja is the condition for craving and clinging;
2) avijja is the condition for seeing "birth" and "death" as "birth" and "death" of a self;
3) without avijja anatta is understood.
4) craving & clinging stop, so there is no more fuel for "bhava".

At the same time, however:

1) "consciousness", "contact" and "feeling" are still there;
2) the body of the Arahant is subject to "ageing and death" (like the arising and cessation of a flame or a bubble etc).
3) the same is true for other aggregates (as SN 12.2 says).

So, "structural" DO is true in so far we notice the "change" of the "structure of the mind" (i.e. "how mind works"). An Arahant is completely free of the conceit "I am". So simply, he does not "see" death as is normally seen.

"Structural-only" DO, however does not address the fact that there are two truths. Indeed, the Arahant, conventionally, dies. And ideed his/her "physical death" has his/her "physical birth" as a condition. This is true for both the puthujjana and the Arahant. The fact that the Arahant does not "see" a "self" does not affect the fact that all "khandas are impermanent". Since (physical) "birth" is due to craving, and since "birth" in SN 12.2 is defined as "physical birth", then DO, at least in some contexts also refers to physical processes. Hence "structural-only" DO fails, IMO. While "death" does not apply to the Arahant and the Arahant does not "see" death as is normally seen, remains the fact that the conventional truth is valid.

Also, as I said in my response to SDC, there is the problem that, if "structural-only" interpretation of DO is true, then "cessation of feelings, consciousness etc" must have two meanings. Ven. Nanavira himself says that consciousness of the living Arahant is "ceased". So at the "death" of the Arahant, when all aggregates stop, also this "ceased consciousness" ceases (I find it very odd). The same goes for "contact". The Arahant still has contact. So, while of course the mind-stream of the Arahant experiences feelings and contact in a completely different way than others, it is also true that s/he has still contact and feelings. They are not "ceased feelings, contact" etc (I would say they are "untainted").

Ven. Nagarjuna's version is much more satisfying because he has also a version of DO that takes into account "physical birth, ageing and death" (and the arising and cessation of conditioned phenomena like flames, bubbles etc) and does not have the awkwardness of the double meaning of "cessation".

But, of course maybe I am misunderstanding. So, I will read again Ven. Nanavira's work. Unfortunately for some days I will not be able to write again.

See you soon :hello:

:anjali:

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:40 pm

boundless wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:42 am
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).
Just to use 'feeling' as an example, let's take a look something like SN 22.88, where it seems quite clear the verse is in reference to the arahat:
“Therefore … Seeing thus … He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’...

...If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached.
So I am happy you raised this point because there are often a lot of questions about how it plays into a "timeless" interpretation. Clearly this sutta is incompatible with cessation in terms of cessation of experience, but if it isn't cessation of experience, what is it cessation of? Again, I'm going to posit the idea that 'cessation' in terms of DO/PS must have exclusively to do with "...the cessation of this mass of suffering" and not cessation of arising in general. I hope I am not being too cavalier with this point. Things must continue to arise, but they do not arise with ignorance and therefore do not arise as "this is mine, this I am". Prior to arahantship, when arisen things were "mine", when they were "the five-clinging-aggregates", the pairs of DO/PS were one's suffering. Why? Because one did not decide for things to be mine: they arose as mine. That "I" arose as "me". When that ignorance is removed, those things no longer stand together as suffering. I also posit that they still stand together, but looking at SN 22.88 above, there is a detachment, there is opening where that dependency once meant suffering, but now means nothing. I posted the below in another thread where this came up. Perhaps it is of relevance.
SDC wrote:I think both monks, in choosing their words, are quite careful to emphasize that there is no correlation (no direct route) between the "respective intensities" of experience and the teleological/intentional nature common to both the arahat and puthujjana; but only that, while things remain teleological for the arahat, they are no longer mine, i.e. no longer significant "to me".
The arahat's experience, as stated above, is teleological, as is the puthujjana's; but with the arahat things no longer have the particular significance of being 'mine'. This special significance, dependent upon avijjā, is not of the same kind as a thing's simple intentional or teleological significances, but is, as it were, a parasite upon them. - Ven. Nv, ANICCA
Thus the hierarchy of signifying things continues to arise (cease and change-while-standing) but it no longer grows; it is “cut off at the root, made like a palm stump”. Its root was ignorance in itself and with its absence everything founded upon it comes to an end—one is free. In other words the respective experiences of the puthujjana and arahant alike, share the same fundamental nature of impermanence (arising and ceasing) but the respective intensities of those experiences are changed; for the arahant feeling none of it and for the puthujjana dependant on the amount of ignorance being present. More ignorance, more ‘intensity’, things appear as more ‘pressing’ and one is easily prone to giving in to desire-and-lust. - Ven. NN, Papañca-Saññā-Sankhā

User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 » Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:07 am

SDC wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:40 pm
So I am happy you raised this point because there are often a lot of questions about how it plays into a "timeless" interpretation. Clearly this sutta is incompatible with cessation in terms of cessation of experience, but if it isn't cessation of experience, what is it cessation of? Again, I'm going to posit the idea that 'cessation' in terms of DO/PS must have exclusively to do with "...the cessation of this mass of suffering" and not cessation of arising in general. I hope I am not being too cavalier with this point. Things must continue to arise, but they do not arise with ignorance and therefore do not arise as "this is mine, this I am". Prior to arahantship, when arisen things were "mine", when they were "the five-clinging-aggregates", the pairs of DO/PS were one's suffering. Why? Because one did not decide for things to be mine: they arose as mine. That "I" arose as "me". When that ignorance is removed, those things no longer stand together as suffering. I also posit that they still stand together, but looking at SN 22.88 above, there is a detachment, there is opening where that dependency once meant suffering, but now means nothing. I posted the below in another thread where this came up. Perhaps it is of relevance.
1) This does not answer the problem of the 5 aggregates dissapearing at 22:57 if ignorance disappears at 22:57 in a "structural, non-temporal, happening in every moment DO". The sutta you quoted only supports the normal interpretation that only craving ceases in the case of an arahant, not the 5 aggregates.

2) There are also unpleasant feelings (suffering) arising in an arahant too, a thing that is also explained in the suttas. Unpleasant feelings do not cease to arise in the case of an arahant.

3) Another problem Nanavira theories and your above post has is the fact that there is no belief in a self in the case of children below age 2 and all except 5-10 animals. All these ideas about belief in a self being a proximate cause for this and that (instead of a distant, general cause as claimed in normal interpretation) are refuted by the simple fact that not all being has a belief in a self at all points of their existence. Not to mention one might even lose this due to stream entry and then have it again in one of the next births that he still has to go.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:28 am

Circle5 wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:07 am
SDC wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:40 pm
So I am happy you raised this point because there are often a lot of questions about how it plays into a "timeless" interpretation. Clearly this sutta is incompatible with cessation in terms of cessation of experience, but if it isn't cessation of experience, what is it cessation of? Again, I'm going to posit the idea that 'cessation' in terms of DO/PS must have exclusively to do with "...the cessation of this mass of suffering" and not cessation of arising in general. I hope I am not being too cavalier with this point. Things must continue to arise, but they do not arise with ignorance and therefore do not arise as "this is mine, this I am". Prior to arahantship, when arisen things were "mine", when they were "the five-clinging-aggregates", the pairs of DO/PS were one's suffering. Why? Because one did not decide for things to be mine: they arose as mine. That "I" arose as "me". When that ignorance is removed, those things no longer stand together as suffering. I also posit that they still stand together, but looking at SN 22.88 above, there is a detachment, there is opening where that dependency once meant suffering, but now means nothing. I posted the below in another thread where this came up. Perhaps it is of relevance.
1) This does not answer the problem of the 5 aggregates dissapearing at 22:57 if ignorance disappears at 22:57 in a "structural, non-temporal, happening in every moment DO". The sutta you quoted only supports the normal interpretation that only craving ceases in the case of an arahant, not the 5 aggregates.

2) There are also unpleasant feelings (suffering) arising in an arahant too, a thing that is also explained in the suttas. Unpleasant feelings do not cease to arise in the case of an arahant.

3) Another problem Nanavira theories and your above post has is the fact that there is no belief in a self in the case of children below age 2 and all except 5-10 animals. All these ideas about belief in a self being a proximate cause for this and that (instead of a distant, general cause as claimed in normal interpretation) are refuted by the simple fact that not all being has a belief in a self at all points of their existence. Not to mention one might even lose this due to stream entry and then have it again in one of the next births that he still has to go.
1) I think you need to read my post more carefully. Literally the entire point was that the aggregates do not cease. I don't get what you are trying to say.

2) Again, that was the entire point of quoting that sutta. I never said unpleasant feeling is gone. Read it again. But you need to show me where the suttas equate "unpleasant feeling" with "suffering" for the arahat. And don't quote the back ache scenario again, because that isn't an example of what I am asking - that line is about bodily discomfort and there no mention of vedana or dukkha as far as I can recall.

3)Why do you continue to push this misrepresentation? I have clearly shown that this is not his view. Why do you keep falling back on it?

Dinsdale
Posts: 6131
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 » Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:09 am

bodom wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:44 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:18 am
bodom wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:02 pm
DO as observed in the present moment:



: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.
It wasn't my intention to show any momentary Notion of DO, only that it is visible in this present life and doesn't require the 3 lifetime model.

:namaste:
Fair enough, though IMO the inclusion of "birth" in the passage above suggests multiple lives.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6131
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 » Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:10 am

Mkoll wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:40 am
Which view on DO resonates with you the most?
The one that conduces to avoiding embroilment in arguments about it.
:coffee:
I'm not sure I agree with that. :tongue:
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6131
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 » Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:19 am

boundless wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:42 am
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...)
I agree, and it appears that Nibbana is the only "timeless" or unchanging dhamma. The nidanas are all sankharas, and therefore subject to anicca.

"Sabbe sankhara anicca".

I would still like to see a clear, practical explanation of what "timeless/atemporal" actually means when applied to DO, and it puzzles me that apparently nobody here is able to provide this.

I assume "timeless/atemporal" doesn't mean contemporaneous, ie present or occurring at the same time. That would be the first mode of conditionality in DO, ie "When this is, that is." Actually I think this mode would be better expressed as "While this is, that is."
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6131
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 » Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:52 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:44 am
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.
That would make more sense, but I would describe this as contemporaneous ( at the same time ), not "timeless" or "atemporal". It would equate to the first mode of conditionality in DO, "When this is, that is."

http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/contemporaneous

Unfortunately we still haven't had a clear, practical explanation of what people actually mean by "timeless/atemporal" as applied to DO. :shrug:
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6131
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 » Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:16 am

SDC wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:09 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
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?
It always, almost immediately, goes back to you (re)expounding about what you insist are "definitions", so what's the point? Is that what I should expect if I venture an answer?
My problem with the "timeless/atemporal" model is more basic than some of the nidana "definitions" not supporting it.

"Sabbe sankhara anicca" means that all the nidanas of DO subject to anicca, and therefore subject to change over time. So how can DO be described as "timeless/atemporal"?

I would really appreciate a clear practical explanation of what you mean by "timeless/atemporal" as applied to DO, and I think it would be very helpful for this discussion generally. It seems like people are voting for an option which they are unable or unwilling to explain clearly. :shrug:
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:14 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:16 am
I would really appreciate a clear practical explanation of what you mean by "timeless/atemporal" as applied to DO, and I think it would be very helpful for this discussion generally. It seems like people are voting for an option which they are unable or unwilling to explain clearly. :shrug:
I've probably spent more than half my posting history discussing this topic, so "unwilling" does not even make sense. As far as "unable", I guess it depends on who is reading --- multiple members are here discussing it and engaging with the material. Perhaps your long-standing apprehension towards the possibility of this interpretation being at all meaningful is hindering your ability to do the same.

Instead of being so broad in your disagreement perhaps you could hone in on something more tangible and particular. Maybe that would help start the discussion.

User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 » Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:23 am

SDC wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:28 am
1) I think you need to read my post more carefully. Literally the entire point was that the aggregates do not cease. I don't get what you are trying to say.

2) Again, that was the entire point of quoting that sutta. I never said unpleasant feeling is gone. Read it again. But you need to show me where the suttas equate "unpleasant feeling" with "suffering" for the arahat. And don't quote the back ache scenario again, because that isn't an example of what I am asking - that line is about bodily discomfort and there no mention of vedana or dukkha as far as I can recall.

3)Why do you continue to push this misrepresentation? I have clearly shown that this is not his view. Why do you keep falling back on it?
1) Then you agree that the "structural, timeless, happening in every moment" idea of DO does not make sense and does not hold up when put under the scrutiny of critical thinking ?

2) And isn't suffering a feeling ? :shrug: This feeling (suffering) never arised "for the arahant" to begin with because there never was a self. There was just suffering arising and ceasing. There was also the feeling tainted by conceit that arised from time to time. There was also the thought that "it is me that suffered" that appeared from time to time, same as a window would pup-up on a computer. But there never was a self for which these things to arise. Unpleasant feelings (suffering) continue to arise and cease in the case of an arahant, it is just a particula type of feelings (those tainted by conceit) and a particulat type of thoughts (those about self) not arising anymore, but unpleasant feelings (suffering) do continue to arise.

Buddha explains this too as I have shown before. He explains how unpleasant feelings due to physical causes continue to arise in the case of an arahant. The thing that ceases being unpleasant feelings born out of mental causes, born out of a wrong reaction of the mind to the unpleasant feelings caused by physical causes.

Suffering = unpleasant feelings - no matter out of which causes these unpleasant feelings were born

3) Maybe you missed that paragraph 10 from "a note on pattica" that I quoted earlier.

User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 » Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:28 am

SDC wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:14 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:16 am
I would really appreciate a clear practical explanation of what you mean by "timeless/atemporal" as applied to DO, and I think it would be very helpful for this discussion generally. It seems like people are voting for an option which they are unable or unwilling to explain clearly. :shrug:
I've probably spent more than half my posting history discussing this topic, so "unwilling" does not even make sense. As far as "unable", I guess it depends on who is reading --- multiple members are here discussing it and engaging with the material. Perhaps your long-standing apprehension towards the possibility of this interpretation being at all meaningful is hindering your ability to do the same.

Instead of being so broad in your disagreement perhaps you could hone in on something more tangible and particular. Maybe that would help start the discussion.
I too would be curious of what exactly do you understand a "structural, non-temporal, happening in every moment" DO to mean in real life if you do agree that the 5 aggregates do not dissappear in the case of an arahant. I remember how when I've started reading the nikayas, I've read them with the attitude of "the Buddha might have been right, or he might have been just another philosopher that got it wrong. Therefore, I need to check if things work in real life as he says they do or if they work differently and he was just another philosopher that got it wrong. One needs to ask himself "does feeling really exists because of contact" etc. "if there would be no contact, could such a thing as feeling possibly exist?" etc. What if they work differently and contact exists because of feeling or something else? That would mean the Buddha was wrong.

When reading a book, it is important to use critical thinking to check weather things written in there are correct or not. This is a step some feel like they can skip.

What use does a "structural, non-temporal, happening in every moment" idea of DO has when it does not even try to explain anything that is happening in reality, let alone even be correct about it ? What use does it have when proponents of it can't even explain what the point is of this idea since it does not appear to have anything to do with how things work in reality, and even they themselves admit that the 5 aggregates do not cease at 22:57 if ignorance ceases at 22:57 ?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 103 guests