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

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

Post by SDC » Fri May 04, 2018 2:34 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 8:28 am
SDC wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 8:39 pm
First off, the phrase "sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā" does not mean "all experience is transitory/impermanent". The word sankhara, no matter the rendering, does not equate to "things". A "determination" or a "volitional formation" correspond to something upon which a dhamma (thing) depends. (Did you see my earlier comments here about sankhara sankhata dhamma in SN 22.55 which describes the nature of the nidanas, specifically the fact that they are in pairs?) Furthermore, the phrase sabbe dhammā anattā is what is in reference to "things", but as in "all things are not self", i.e. impermanence is indirect when it comes to "things". I am not sure if I am misunderstanding you here, but with what evidence are you using for sankhara to mean "experience" and applying anicca directly to it? Do you have a sutta in mind that puts this into context?
See here for example: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I take "sabbe sankhara anicca" to refer to all conditioned phenomena, ie to our experience of the world. All the nidanas are sankharas in this sense, as are the aggregates and sense-bases.
But what about the phrase sankhata dhamma which seems to mean "conditioned/determined thing". How is that any different from what you are using as the definition of sankhara?

Here are some definitions of sankhata: determined, conditioned, conditioned by causes. This seems to be more in line with what you are referring to. But sankhara is the thing doing the conditioning. It is that which is determining the determined.
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 8:28 am
SDC wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 8:39 pm
Secondly, it is the nature of the aggregates to manifest as arising, ceasing and persisting-while-changing (SN 22.38). Can you show me in what way DO/PS is said to follow the same nature? Indeed suffering is an arisen phenomena, and we all know DO/PS is about "the origin of this mass of suffering", but manifestation seems to apply to aggregates specifically whereas dependency applies to the makeup of suffering. There is SN 22.5 where the five aggregates and PS overlap, but it does not seem as though the nidanas are granted that nature of manifesting in three ways - at least not without aggregates being present. I am just looking for some clarification on what you mean.
See above. The nidanas are all sankharas ( conditioned phenomena ) so "sabbe sankhara anicca" applies. Also DO describes arising and ceasing in dependence upon conditions, and arising and ceasing is integral to anicca. The contemporaneous mode ( When this is, that is.. ) includes "persisting while changing", since it describes states and processes, rather than events.
In lieu of what I said above, annica is not in reference to "conditioned phenomena" but to that which is a condition for conditioned phenomena. Do you see why I am saying this?
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 8:28 am
SDC wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 8:39 pm
Lastly...yes, "unnecessary philosophizing", so said everyone else that has no interest in answering the question. Are you denying that there is a broader framework within experience that can encompass a simple linear picture of time? One that, just like a reference to linear time, appears to link, or hold that reference to an even broader reference? Like, you can say it isn't the Dhamma, but are you also going to deny that it is there at all?
I'm really not sure what this "broader framework" is, or it's relevance to DO. In any case, I would associate "timeless" with Nibbana, the unconditioned, and not with DO, the conditioned. Note that "sabbe dhamma anatta" is usually taken to mean that Nibbana is "exempt" from anicca.
Do you mean to say that right view is not available in the experience? Wouldn't the fundamental nature of things as they are have some relevance even if we are talking about a non-ariya?
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 8:28 am
SDC wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 8:39 pm
I had meant to ask you this earlier. Where do you see these two different modes described? Not being difficult, I would just like to see the sutta you referred to about this, again for context.
See here for example ( second paragraph ): https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
I have described these two modes as contemporaneous ( When this is, that is.. ) and sequential ( When this arises, that arises ). You could also describe the contemporaneous mode as the synchronous mode, ie the presence of one state or process being dependent on the presence of another - for example the presence of suffering being dependent on the presence of ignorance.
I always thought the Buddha used the two different phrases to elaborate on what he was referring to - I never saw this as description of two different modes.

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 » Fri May 04, 2018 2:48 am

SDC wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 2:15 am
It isn't the nail in the coffin. If suffering is gone then the factors of PS are all nirodha. They have ceased to be this mass of suffering. Upadana (clinging) is no more for the arahat. He knows already that they are "suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself. For the arahant, friend, there is nothing further that has to be done and no repetition of what he has already done." Sariputta is clearly talking to a non-arahat about an arahat so he is sure to keep the phrasing on those terms. You can't see that?
If suffering is gone (which is not in the case of an arahant) the 5 aggregates are all "ceased" ? Don't they continue to exist despite no clinging existing in regards to them ?

Have you ever seen this idea being said or at least remotely hinted in the suttas ? The 5 aggregates ceasing 2 times ? From 10.000 pages of sutta pitakka, what made you think of such an idea ?

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 » Fri May 04, 2018 3:10 am

Let's make a summary of this philosophy:

You have the idea of ceasing of the aggregates being meant methaphorically and all DO links including birth and aging and death being meant methaphorically not as biological birth and biological death. (something clearly contradicted since all terms have a string of synonims attached and are very clear and straightforeward)

Then you have this methaphorical DO that is something like "this only reffers to wrong understanding about aging and death applying to me, contact applying to me, etc." Then, at arahantship these wrong views do not arrise anymore. (actually this happens at stream entry and this is just another refutation of the idea)

So now you are left with the real, non-methaphorical 5 aggregates that have no explanation for how they got there and how they function. You need a different DO for these, the 3-life one. But since you deny the 3life interpretation, it would look strange to use it here after you made such a scandal about it at the beggining. So you are left with zero explanation about rebirth, something I have pointed out before. All you can do is say "rebirth happened because 2 people had sexual intercourse" same as an atheist would respond. (same as you too responded when pressed on this matter) All this while Buddha made it clear that he believes in rebirth and believes this process happens because of volitional formations. (kamma, a term basically non-existent in Nanavira philosophy and for good reason)

The problem this theory has are two:

1) It does not apply to how things work in real life. The goal of any philosophy is to explain how things work in real life, not to be a simple game of philosophical sudoku.

2) It simply has nothing to do with what the historical Buddha taught, these are ideas from another movie. Sure, it's a philosophy and one can believe in whatever one wants, but why claim the historical Buddha shared this philosophy ? Why embarrass oneself trying to make a case that these are EBT ideas?

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 » Fri May 04, 2018 4:20 am

Circle5 wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 3:10 am
Why embarrass oneself trying to make a case that these are EBT ideas?
The only embarrassment I see is watching you repeatedly fail to even comprehend these ideas prior to trying to criticize them. I'm done being a part of it for this round. Please refer to the previous five threads for reference, just in case you forgot just how much I have been entertaining your ridiculous antics over the past year.

And for the record:
Circle5 wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 3:10 am
All you can do is say "rebirth happened because 2 people had sexual intercourse" same as an atheist would respond.
Actually this is what I said when you asked about biological birth:
SDC wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:42 pm
Circle5 wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:31 pm
What is the cause for biological birth in Nanavira view ?
The birds and the bees.
But when you did actually ask about rebirth I quoted this from Ven. Nv:
...unless craving has ceased, rebirth does take place.
Thanks again for showing everyone that you are so easily willing to lie to push you agenda. This is the lowest I have seen you sink. Later.

James Tan
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

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

Post by James Tan » Fri May 04, 2018 6:19 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 2:01 am
James Tan wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 10:50 am
Death or Termination of Physical life is the main problem . Physicality separation mean suffering .
No. The problem is separation from the loved. When the termination of life occurs to what you love, this is Death and this is suffering. The termination of life is not "Death", as explained in SN 22.85 and many suttas. Arahants do not die.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.13/en/bodhi

“At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, form is suffering, feeling is suffering, perception is suffering, volitional formations are suffering, consciousness is suffering. Seeing thus … He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’”


Therefore , physical death is suffering .
:reading:

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3232
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Fri May 04, 2018 6:39 am

SDC wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 2:15 am
Sariputta is clearly talking to a non-arahat about an arahat so he is sure to keep the phrasing on those terms.
This might certainly be the case however it also may not be. Instead (despite SN 22.48) the term 'upadanakhandha' may possibly merely be an generic term often used to mean: "khandhas that are generally clung to". Probably more research is required to show whether or not 'upadanakhandha' is always used to describe the actual arising of attachment or whether it is commonly used merely to refer to aggregates in general. For example, in the following verses, particularly MN 122, obviously attachment is not occurring. But, as I said, more conclusive research is probably required.
And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"There are these five clinging-aggregates where a monk should stay, keeping track of arising & passing away (thus): 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' As he stays keeping track of arising & passing away with regard to these five clinging-aggregates, he abandons any conceit that 'I am' with regard to these five clinging-aggregates. This being the case, he discerns, 'I have abandoned any conceit that "I am" with regard to these five clinging-aggregates.' In this way he is alert there.

MN 122 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
However, my working work is over & the tropical beach is better than Pali research. But MN 122 appears very conclusive :mrgreen:

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3232
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Fri May 04, 2018 11:40 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 6:39 am
But MN 122 appears very conclusive
Also, here:
Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising." And these things — the five clinging-aggregates — are dependently co-arisen. Any desire, embracing, grasping, & holding-on to these five clinging-aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five aggregates subjects of clinging is the cessation of stress.'

MN 28

The desire, clinging, attraction and attachment for these five grasping aggregates is the origin of suffering.

Yo imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chando ālayo anunayo ajjhosānaṃ so dukkhasamudayo.

Giving up and getting rid of desire and greed for these five grasping aggregates is the cessation of suffering.

Yo imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chandarāgavinayo chandarāgappahānaṃ, so dukkhanirodho’ti.

https://suttacentral.net/mn28/en/sujato
The sutta refers to "holding" the "upadana-khandha'", which is a tautology or double clinging, i.e., clinging to clinging :shock: . Also, if desire & passion has been abandoned for the five upadana-khandha then obviously upadana (attachment) cannot exist. This seems to provide a case that the term "upadana-khandha" is used for the khandha in general, even when there is no actually clinging happening. Possibly Ven Dhammanando can assist. :smile:

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 » Fri May 04, 2018 11:48 am

SDC wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 4:20 am
Thanks again for showing everyone that you are so easily willing to lie to push you agenda. This is the lowest I have seen you sink. Later.
Jezus... This is the lowest I have seen you sink in terms of projecting and also stupidity of the argument.

1) Nanavira is not reffering there to rebirth (biological birth happening again and againg due to kamma), he is reffering to his own deffinition of "rebirth happening every moment", rebirth of phenomenons. If he would reffer there to the first one, then he would have no problems with DO 3-life interpretation. Or, in the worst case, he would accept both 1life and 3life, saying something like "both are correct", but that is not the case.

2) You claim biological birth happening due to kamma is not rebirth. I have pointed out to you that any biological birth happening in the context of buddhism, is a rebirth. ... and you have not agreed with this. This has been the lowest point in terms of stupidity of a debate that I have seen probably in my whole time spent on this forum.

You're trying to fix this problem through the beautiful postmodernist tactic of changing deffinition of words. You are trying to say that "rebirth" should not be used for biological birth, as 99.9999999% of people including the Buddha used it. Instead, you claim "rebirth" should only be used for "rebirth of phenomena", despite this term never being used in that way by the Buddha. It is also ridiculously dishonest to be asked about rebirth and then act like somebody asked you about your own deffinition of "rebirth of phenomenons" and pretend you have no idea the person was asking about "biological death happening due to kamma" - the way 99.period9 of people use the term. Changing the meaning of words is a childish postmodernist tactic that is shun by adult humans including by the Buddha in the sutta "pathways of language" for example.
This might certainly be the case however it also may not be. Instead (despite SN 22.48) the term 'upadanakhandha' may possibly merely be an generic term often used to mean: "khandhas that are generally clung to". Probably more research is required to show whether or not 'upadanakhandha' is always used to describe the actual arising of attachment or whether it is commonly used merely to refer to aggregates in general. For example, in the following verses, particularly MN 122, obviously attachment is not occurring. But, as I said, more conclusive research is probably required.
:goodpost: For more research I would suggest "Book of aggregates" chapter from SN where, same as in your example, these terms are used interchangably. Nowhere in the whole suttapitakka can one find the idea of 2 different sets of aggregates with different DO applying to them. There are just the aggregates that sometimes are called "clinging aggregates" to emphasise this aspect of them.
This seems to provide a case that the term "upadana-khandha" is used for the khandha in general, even when there is no actually clinging happening. Possibly Ven Dhammanando can assist. :smile:
:goodpost: I've even checked the pali versions to show that "upadanakhanda" is used in these suttas in case someone has the audacity to claim it's some evil mistranslation done by the "evil traditionalist" conspiracy made out of every pali dictionary and every translator in the world.
Last edited by Circle5 on Fri May 04, 2018 12:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3232
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Fri May 04, 2018 12:08 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 11:48 am
I have pointed out to you that any biological birth happening in the context of buddhism, is a rebirth. ... and you have not agreed with this. This has been the lowest point in terms of stupidity of a debate that I have seen probably in my whole time spent on this forum.
You haven't pointed out anything because you appear to be claiming there are two types of aggregates arising from two types of Dependent Origination. For example, the quote below is obviously not about physical rebirth of multitudes of aggregates:
For him — infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five clinging-aggregates head toward future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress.

MN 149
For example, when papanca is dominating the mind, this papanca creates hundreds of different aggregates, piled & piled on top of each other, in the body & mind. Again, from SN 22.79:
He tears down feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not build it up.
Again, from SN 23.2:
Just as when boys or girls are playing with [building] little sand castles: as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
.
:alien:
Circle5 wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 11:48 am
: For more research I would suggest "Book of aggregates" chapter from SN where, same as in your example, these terms are used interchangably.
Lol.. what an insightful suggestion? Search the SN. I wouldn't have never thought of that.
Circle5 wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 11:48 am
Nowhere in the whole suttapitakka can one find the idea of 2 different sets of aggregates with different DO applying to them.
I did not read any poster here assert this, except Circle5. Circle5 seems to be saying the pure undefiled aggregates of an Arahant are Dependently Originated from physical rebirth.
Circle5 wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 11:48 am
There are just the aggregates that sometimes are called "clinging aggregates" to emphasise this aspect of them.
The clinging seems to emphasise the clinging (rather than the aggregates). Have you read this quote before, below? Where you so busy enlarging the type that you forgot to read it? :roll:
But sir, is that grasping the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates? Or is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another?”

“Neither. Rather, the desire and greed for them is the grasping there.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.82/en/sujato

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 » Fri May 04, 2018 12:26 pm

@DootDot: SDC has claimed there are 2 ceasings of aggregates taking place. And yes, the 5 aggregates of the arahant had appeared due to physical birth. They change due to other conditions. A different feeling might arise this moment compared to the moment before it, etc. But the 5 aggregates have appeared there due to physical birth that happened because of volitional formations (meant in the sense of kamma, since the term has 2 main meanings).

But again, I am not willing to debate secular buddhist ideas about how "Buddha never taught rebirth". Any informed buddhist will tell you that not only did Buddha believe in rebirth, but he also believed this rebirth process has been happening since infinity. (go check the subchapter on "without discoverable beggining". The point of arahantship is ending this rebirth process and "not taking up another body" after death same as a non-arahant would do. You even have a bardo state mentioned in the suttas. Rebirth is one of the main teachings in Buddhism, it's something hard to miss. Really I am just not willing to lose time on proving Buddha believed in rebirth.

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 » Fri May 04, 2018 1:08 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 11:48 am
SDC wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 4:20 am
Thanks again for showing everyone that you are so easily willing to lie to push you agenda. This is the lowest I have seen you sink. Later.
Jezus... This is the lowest I have seen you sink in terms of projecting and also stupidity of the argument.

...
It is always so sad to see you fall apart and start calling everything stupid. Maybe one day you'll actually read Ven. Nv's work so you don't have to frantically make things up as you go.

I'll be referring to all this nonsense in the future when you try to pretend it didn't happen. So glad it is documented. Have fun repeating yourself. Goodbye.

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 » Sat May 05, 2018 1:25 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 11:40 am
The sutta refers to "holding" the "upadana-khandha'", which is a tautology or double clinging, i.e., clinging to clinging :shock: . Also, if desire & passion has been abandoned for the five upadana-khandha then obviously upadana (attachment) cannot exist. This seems to provide a case that the term "upadana-khandha" is used for the khandha in general, even when there is no actually clinging happening. Possibly Ven Dhammanando can assist. :smile:
Good find.

If you take a look at AN 4.49, one of the four distortions of perception, mind, and view is "taking not-self as self" and one of the four corrections in that regard is "taking not-self as not-self". In terms of the distortions, that which is not-self is taken as self, i.e. things are "mine" for the putthujana. Why? because not-self was not recognized. So not only is it taken as self, the self did the taking. Furthermore, the statement, "taking not-self as self" implies that not-self - even though it is taken as self - has appeared: to put it crudely, it is an object that stands for the appearance of my self. That is the holding two times: the experience is holding the five-holding-aggregates, which is none other than self taking not-self as self. The arahat has the correct view, he takes "not-self as not-self". So even if he were to identify the aggregates as the five-holding-aggregates, which I concede is in suttas for the arahat, they CANNOT be held because that holding is "not mine". The upadana applies to that not-self which has been abandoned. It seems as though that is what MN 122 is referring to: "This being the case, he discerns, 'I have abandoned any conceit that "I am" with regard to these five clinging-aggregates." The arahat does not hold that holding. Upadana, in terms of suffering, has ceased.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6117
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 May 05, 2018 8:22 am

SDC wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 2:34 am
But what about the phrase sankhata dhamma which seems to mean "conditioned/determined thing". How is that any different from what you are using as the definition of sankhara?
Here are some definitions of sankhata: determined, conditioned, conditioned by causes. This seems to be more in line with what you are referring to. But sankhara is the thing doing the conditioning. It is that which is determining the determined.
In lieu of what I said above, annica is not in reference to "conditioned phenomena" but to that which is a condition for conditioned phenomena.
But the sankharas doing the conditioning have themselves been conditioned by other sankharas. So anicca applies generally to conditioned phenomena, and that includes the nidanas.

"Sabbe sankhara anicca" = all conditions are transient.
SDC wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 2:34 am
I always thought the Buddha used the two different phrases to elaborate on what he was referring to - I never saw this as description of two different modes.
Clearly he did describe these two different modes, and I think it is difficult to understand the mechanics of DO without understanding the distinction.

Contemporaneous/synchronous = "While this is, that is..." The presence of one state or process depends on the presence of another, eg suffering depends on ignorance.

Sequential = "When this arises, that arises..." The occurrence of one event depends upon the occurrence of another event, eg the occurrence of feeling depends upon the occurrence of contact.

Both modes can be applied to DO as a whole, and to the relationship between individual nidanas.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6117
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 May 05, 2018 8:31 am

boundless wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 6:17 pm
what I meant in that post is that the Arahant does not "see",for example, "death" as a "death of a being". So, in this sense "death" ceases (i.e. there is a change in how "death" is seen). In my understanding, for proponents of the "structural model" this "change in understanding" means "cessation of death".
However, like you, I am not convinced by this explanation. In fact, I still think that SN 12.2 (and others) implies that the event "physical death" is conditioned by the event "physical birth". So (at least for now) I respectfully disagree with the "timeless" model. As I said in other posts, I think that (maybe) it is right in some cases.
It perhaps depends on how one interprets amata, "The Deathless", which is a synonym for Nibbana. But yes, the suttas clearly describe physical aging and death arising in dependence on physical birth, not the arising and cessation of self-view.
Last edited by Dinsdale on Sat May 05, 2018 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6117
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 May 05, 2018 8:37 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 2:01 am
SN 23.2, SN 5.10 and MN 98 say that "a being" ("satta") is merely a "view" or "convention". Therefore, it appears Nanavira may have been correct.
Sure, a "being" is a convention, but these are teachings on anatta. This doesn't negate the fact that in the suttas the descriptions of birth, aging and death are clearly physical/biological. They describe a physical process, not just the mental process of self-view arising.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: paul, Spaciousness and 87 guests