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
7%
Three lives model and moment to moment
10
24%
Multiple lives model
3
7%
Multiple lives model & moment-to-moment
7
17%
Moment to moment only
1
2%
Timeless/Atemporal/Structural
7
17%
Simultaneous, non-linear
4
10%
 
Total votes: 41

boundless
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

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

Post by boundless »

Dinsdale wrote: 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.

Yes, I think I agree with you.

In fact personally, I find value in both models and I do not consider them necessarily incompatible.
In some sense in my very humbe opinion we can say that "death ceases" at the moment of insight because it is not understood anymore as a death of a "being".
But, at the same time in my very humbe opinion, "death" is also understood as the "physical process of death", so in this second sense we cannot say that "death ceases" at the moment of insight :smile:

I think that thinking in the terms of conventional and ultimate truths can be useful here. And IMO it can help to find value in both models.

:anjali:
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 »

boundless wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 10:48 am In fact personally, I find value in both models and I do not consider them necessarily incompatible.
In some sense in my very humbe opinion we can say that "death ceases" at the moment of insight because it is not understood anymore as a death of a "being".
This happens at stream entry, not at arahantship. This is another problem that refutes Nanavira view that SDC has refused to adress. And of course there is nothing in the suttas remotely hinting that aging and death should be understood in that sense.
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.
Believing in a self is another problem of Nanavira philosophy. According to Buddha there was never a self to begin with. According to Nanavira philosophy, there are these 5 aggregates that are not self. But there is a self apart from them that has the power to either take these aggregates to be self or to be not self.

In reality, there is not a self doing some "taking" of something, there is simply a distorted perception tainted by coinceit arising in him due to conditions. That perception is impermanent, that conceit is impermanent, etc. There is no self there doing this and that.
Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation—what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that formation is born.

“Thus, bhikkhus, that formation is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that craving is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that contact is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen. When one knows and sees thus, bhikkhus, the immediate destruction of the taints occurs.
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/sn22.81

Belief in a self can not be eradicated through using counterfits of true dhamma. Also, the ideas about "self taking not self to be a self" and things written above have no logic and do not have anything to do with how things work in real life. The goal of any philosophy is to explain how things work if real life. No self can be found in real life, no matter how much one searches. It's good to lay on the coach from time to time and contemplate these ideas that one might read. It's good to for example ask oneself "if there really a self doing this and that, doing this taking up of aggregates to be the self" - let alone this idea being logically incomprehensible, but what evidence can be found for this ? All one can find is impermanent perception, impermanent ignorance (lack of information), impermanent conceit, etc. No self can be found under careful investigation. No evidence can be found to support this idea in real life. Not to mention other problems such as: how can this self have the capacity to think since it is something apart from thinking, from perception, etc. ? Thinking is required in order to take up the consider the aggregates as being self, based on the existence of ignorance (lack of information about how things really work). It's logically flawed on many grounds, let alone zero evidence existing for this idea in real life.

According to Nanavira philosophy, as shown by SDC post above, there are these 5 aggregates that are not self. But there is a self apart from them that has the power to either take these aggregates to be self or to be no self. Believing in a self apart from the 5 aggregates is listed as a wrong view countless times.
Last edited by Circle5 on Sat May 05, 2018 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6294
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 12:01 pm According to Nanavira philosophy, as shown by SDC post above, there are these 5 aggregates that are not self. But there is a self apart from them that has the power to either take these aggregates to be self or to be no self. Believing in a self apart from the 5 aggregates is listed as a wrong view countless times.
It was made quite clear in my post that I was describing the view of the puthujjana. You really should learn how to read if your going to try and be a professional Dhamma Defender.

Your obsession with me is getting absurd.
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 12:33 pm
Circle5 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 12:01 pm According to Nanavira philosophy, as shown by SDC post above, there are these 5 aggregates that are not self. But there is a self apart from them that has the power to either take these aggregates to be self or to be no self. Believing in a self apart from the 5 aggregates is listed as a wrong view countless times.
It was made quite clear in my post that I was describing the view of the puthujjana. You really should learn how to read if your going to try and be a professional Dhamma Defender.

Your obsession with me is getting absurd.
But that's not how things work for the puthijhana. There is no self existing in his case either.

Neither do things work like this for the Arahant either: "they CANNOT be held because that holding is "not mine"

Of course there can arise conceit ever if one has right view and understand that that conceit is "not mine". This happens in the case of stream enterers one-returners, etc.
upadana applies to that not-self which has been abandoned.
???
The arahat does not hold that holding. Upadana, in terms of suffering, has ceased.
So there is clinging still existing in regards to the 5 aggregates that make up the arahant, but that clinging is not considered to be mine by the arahant so therefore it can be said that clinging has ceased. Wasn't clinging "cut of at the root, made like a palm stump, etc" in the case of an arahant ?

I find it funny that we are even discussing this. Just try reading the suttas like one would read any other book: without trying read a whole philosophy into them that simply isn't there. There is just 1 set of aggregates, sometimes reffered to as "clinging aggregates" to emphasise that aspect of them. Nothing in the suttas remotely hint at these double-holding ideas.

Remember AN2.25 ?
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Not to mention this problem that you keep refusing to address:
This happens at stream entry, not at arahantship. This is another problem that refutes Nanavira view that SDC has refused to address. And of course there is nothing in the suttas remotely hinting that aging and death should be understood in that sense.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6294
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 12:47 pm
SDC wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 12:33 pm
Circle5 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 12:01 pm According to Nanavira philosophy, as shown by SDC post above, there are these 5 aggregates that are not self. But there is a self apart from them that has the power to either take these aggregates to be self or to be no self. Believing in a self apart from the 5 aggregates is listed as a wrong view countless times.
It was made quite clear in my post that I was describing the view of the puthujjana. You really should learn how to read if your going to try and be a professional Dhamma Defender.

Your obsession with me is getting absurd.
But that's not how things work for the puthijhana. There is no self existing in his case either.

Neither do things work like this for the Arahant either: "they CANNOT be held because that holding is "not mine"

Of course there can arise conceit ever if one has right view and understand that that conceit is "not mine". This happens in the case of stream enterers one-returners, etc.
upadana applies to that not-self which has been abandoned.
???
The arahat does not hold that holding. Upadana, in terms of suffering, has ceased.
So there is clinging still existing in regards to the 5 aggregates that make up the arahant, but that clinging is not considered to be mine by the arahant so therefore it can be said that clinging has ceased. Wasn't clinging "cut of at the root, made like a palm stump, etc" in the case of an arahant ?

I find it funny that we are even discussing this. Just try reading the suttas like one would read any other book: without trying read a whole philosophy into them that simply isn't there. There is just 1 set of aggregates, sometimes reffered to as "clinging aggregates" to emphasise that aspect of them. Nothing in the suttas remotely hint at these double-holding ideas.

Not to mention this problem that you keep refusing to address:
This happens at stream entry, not at arahantship. This is another problem that refutes Nanavira view that SDC has refused to address. And of course there is nothing in the suttas remotely hinting that aging and death should be understood in that sense.
I'm curious why you are still quoting me and asking me questions if you think my answers are stupid.

Are you accusing me of slander? Only a sotapanna or higher could possibly know whether or not their ideas are in line with Dhamma. Is that what you are claiming?
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 12:58 pm
I'm curious why you are still quoting me and asking me questions if you think my answers are stupid.

Are you accusing me of slander? Only a sotapanna or higher could possibly know whether or not their ideas are in line with Dhamma. Is that what you are claiming?
1) You called me dishonest in the post before that. I have only called your answer in regards to "biological birth does not mean rebirth in the context of buddhism" to be stupid (something had to deny), not all of your posts.

2) Just like it is with any discipline, one can be informed or not informed regarding what is taught in a book. The first and probably the most important one is reading it in the first place.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6294
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 1:41 pm
SDC wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 12:58 pm
I'm curious why you are still quoting me and asking me questions if you think my answers are stupid.

Are you accusing me of slander? Only a sotapanna or higher could possibly know whether or not their ideas are in line with Dhamma. Is that what you are claiming?
1) You called me dishonest in the post before that. I have only called your answer in regards to "biological birth does not mean rebirth in the context of buddhism" to be stupid (something had to deny), not all of your posts.

2) Just like it is with any discipline, one can be informed or not informed regarding what is taught in a book. The first and probably the most important one is reading it in the first place.
So you are informed by what you have read in a book or what by what you have confirmed in your experience? Which is it? Be explicit.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6294
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Dinsdale wrote: 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.
So everything is a sankhara? There are no dhammas (things)? If the Buddha meant to say that "all things are impermanent" then why didn't he just say that? Do you think there is a reason that he said "all determinations are impermanent" as opposed to saying "all things are impermanent"? I mean, he was willing to say "all things are not-self". He was indirect about it so he could emphasize it was to sankhara that we need to look for impermanence, not to things themselves. Of course there are dozens of suttas describing the aggregates as impermanent, but that is in terms of aggregates, not dhammas. Why did he make that distinction in his last instructions?

Do you at least see the liberty you are taking by equating sankhara and sankhata? And I would never criticize you for doing so - we all take risks in our attempts to understand things. Clearly I am doing the same with what I am saying, but at no point am I claiming that I am right and you are wrong. I think it is healthy for a discussion when people can admit this.

Just some food for thought: the sankhara of sankhara is avija in all cases. Its manifestation is suffering.
SN 12.1 wrote:Avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā
SN22.79 wrote:And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned volitional formations as volitional formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations.
Dinsdale wrote: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.
It seems to me that you see one mode as the structural mode that determines the state of things and that the other is some play by play of the whole thing. I really do not see how you can imply both just based on those two phrases. You are entitled to believe in that interpretation, but I just don't see the justification. Is there some formal commentary on this or is it how you see it? I am merely curious if there is additional literature on the matter, because either I am forgetting that I have heard it before or I just missed it in my past studies.
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 1:47 pm So you are informed by what you have read in a book or what by what you have confirmed in your experience? Which is it? Be explicit.
If one were to answer "no", then it would be bad. If one were to answer "yes", then it would be even worse and people would jump on him because of making claims of attainment, especially since by stream-entry most people understand something like arahantship or even higher. Only Nanavira can get away with making such claims of attainment every time he gets the chance. Needless to say this has no bearing on the issues being discussed.

So rather than discussing persons, let's try to focus on the ideas being discussed, such as the problems raised by me in my last message that have, as always, went ignored.
Attachments
7_arguments.jpg
7_arguments.jpg (90.56 KiB) Viewed 1414 times
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 3:49 pm It seems to me that you see one mode as the structural mode that determines the state of things and that the other is some play by play of the whole thing. I really do not see how you can imply both just based on those two phrases. You are entitled to believe in that interpretation, but I just don't see the justification. Is there some formal commentary on this or is it how you see it? I am merely curious if there is additional literature on the matter, because either I am forgetting that I have heard it before or I just missed it in my past studies.
All except one of the links of DO are directly visible and easy to check weather things are so or not. How ? By asking the question: "if there would be no contact whatsoever, could such a thing as feeling/perception/volition arise ?" - in that way you can show how 3 of the aggregates depend on contact. You can do that will all links of DO except one.

With the 1-life interpretation, you can't do that. You need to take it on faith. You can't check weather things are so or not in real life.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6294
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 7:23 pm
SDC wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 1:47 pm So you are informed by what you have read in a book or what by what you have confirmed in your experience? Which is it? Be explicit.
If one were to answer "no", then it would be bad. If one were to answer "yes", then it would be even worse and people would jump on him because of making claims of attainment, especially since by stream-entry most people understand something like arahantship or even higher.
Twice in this thread you accused me of slandering the Buddha. On what grounds do you have the right to make that claim? You talk to me about not making it personal - you made it personal with these accusations.

You aren't going to dodge this one.

So was it a book that informed you or do you have direct knowledge?
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8707
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot »

Dinsdale wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 8:37 amSure, a "being" is a convention, but these are teachings on anatta.
OK. You admit "a being" ("satta") is a "convention", "verbal designation" or merely a "view", as literally defined in SN 5.10, MN 98 and SN 23.2. I personally think this is a first step in having an honest, respectful & objective assessment of the suttas. Well done. :smile:
Dinsdale wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 8:37 amThis doesn't negate the fact that in the suttas the descriptions of birth, aging and death are clearly physical/biological.
This appears to be a contradiction. It was just claimed "a being" is merely a "convention" or "view" yet now it is claimed the sutta descriptions of birth, aging and death are clearly physical/biological even though these descriptions revolve around the "birth" & "death" of "beings". How can a "being", which is a "convention", "verbal designation" & "view", suddenly become "physical & biological"? :shrug:
Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

And what is birth? Whatever production, entering, completion & birth of the various beings in this or that group of beings [constructed from] the appearance of aggregates acquired via the sense media , that is called birth
In summary, there is no evidence it is a "fact" the sutta descriptions of birth, aging and death are clearly physical/biological. The evidence or facts appear to point to the fact the sutta descriptions of birth, aging and death are mental/psychological because "the beings" that are born & that age & die are mere "self-views" or "conventions" that are mental constructed or construed.

This would probably explain why many suttas say Arahants are not born, do not age & do not die, as follows:
A sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.'

MN 140
:alien:
Dinsdale wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 8:37 am They describe a physical process, not just the mental process of self-view arising.
No they don't, particularly the description of "birth", which has zero physical/biological components (apart from rupa khandha & the physical sense spheres). Every key Pali word ( sattā, jāti, sañjāti, okkanti, abhinibbatti, pātubhāvo & paṭilābho) in the description of "birth" is mental when compared with the use of these words ( sattā, jāti, sañjāti, okkanti, abhinibbatti, pātubhāvo & paṭilābho) in other suttas. :smile:

Please tell me. Are the descriptions below about physical arisings (such as the growth of a plant) or are they about mental arisings?
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

SN 22.81
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

SN 22.1
Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Angulimala went to that woman and on arrival said to her, "Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus." And there was wellbeing for the woman, wellbeing for her fetus.

MN 87
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

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

Post by sentinel »

In the dependent origination the six sense base is physical . With the six sense Physical base there arises the contact . So the rest etc etc . At the end of the day , the body disintegrates , then, comes a new body (Jati) with a renew six sense Physical base . Then aging and death . The story continues .
You always gain by giving
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha »

Doodoot wrote:
Dinsdale wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 8:37 amSure, a "being" is a convention, but these are teachings on anatta.
OK. You admit "a being" ("satta") is a "convention", "verbal designation" or merely a "view", as literally defined in SN 5.10, MN 98 and SN 23.2. I personally think this is a first step in having an honest, respectful & objective assessment of the suttas. Well done. :smile:
Dinsdale wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 8:37 amThis doesn't negate the fact that in the suttas the descriptions of birth, aging and death are clearly physical/biological.
This appears to be a contradiction. It was just claimed "a being" is merely a "convention" or "view" yet now it is claimed the sutta descriptions of birth, aging and death are clearly physical/biological even though these descriptions revolve around the "birth" & "death" of "beings". How can a "being", which is a "convention", "verbal designation" & "view", suddenly become "physical & biological"? :shrug:
Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

DO describes both the physical and psychological processes that make up the total organism. The 5 Khandhas, in particular, create the view of 'being' and give a psychological profile to this 'person'. Take away this mistaken view and you have a physical organism subject to the laws of the universe. Identification with either seems to be absent at that point.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8707
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot »

Saengnapha wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 4:11 amDO describes both the physical and psychological processes that make up the total organism.
Dependent origination is described as follows:
"And what is the noble truth of the origination of stress?

"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then old age & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"This is called the noble truth of the origination of stress.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
:alien:
Saengnapha wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 4:11 amThe 5 Khandhas, in particular, create the view of 'being' and give a psychological profile to this 'person'.
My reading of the suttas finds 1 khandha in particular creates the view of a "being" and gives a psychological profile to this 'person'. For example, how can the body or say the thumb, big toe or kidney create the view of a "being"?
Saengnapha wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 4:11 amTake away this mistaken view and you have a physical organism subject to the laws of the universe. Identification with either seems to be absent at that point.
Sound reasonable although the suttas appear to say when the mistaken view is removed the five aggregates remain.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Post Reply