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

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Sun May 06, 2018 5:47 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:11 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 4:11 am
DO 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 am
The 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 am
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.
Sound reasonable although the suttas appear to say when the mistaken view is removed the five aggregates remain.
Stress is psychological and produced within the khandhas, not the ear, eyes, nose, etc., or big toe. None of this can be separated into its parts and analyzed separately because it is a synchronistic process. Why would the aggregates disappear if you remove the mistaken view? Identification is absent.

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 » Sun May 06, 2018 7:02 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:47 am
Stress is psychological and produced within the khandhas...
I think the suttas say stress is created by ignorance, craving, clinging & identification. Each of these four unwholesome dhammas appear to fall into sankhara khandha. Therefore, it appears only the sankhara khandha produces stress.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Sun May 06, 2018 7:34 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 7:02 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:47 am
Stress is psychological and produced within the khandhas...
I think the suttas say stress is created by ignorance, craving, clinging & identification. Each of these four unwholesome dhammas appear to fall into sankhara khandha. Therefore, it appears only the sankhara khandha produces stress.
I can only provisionally accept this as I cannot say whether it is a specific khandha or the group of khandhas that create stress. I'm inclined to the group.

Ignorance is a catch-all word and I dislike using it. I'm sure it meant something specific at the time of the Buddha but without knowing the real context in which it was used, I will refrain from using it specifically. Craving, clinging & identification, I can relate to easily. For me, this is all conceptual when we discuss these things. I can see the fascination for those who tend towards the cerebral, but the 'entry point' seems to be in actual perception/cognition/memory. Then, something vital may take place, real Insight, which escapes the vast majority of thinkers. Without this insight, the reality of it all cannot be understood and experienced and the conceptual will take precedent. IOW, we see it or we don't. :D

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 » Sun May 06, 2018 9:27 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 9:12 pm
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:
I have just explained that saying a being is a convention is a teaching on anatta, not a teaching on DO. Your argument is out of context, a :redherring:
DooDoot wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 9:12 pm
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.
But it is a fact. You have just quoted the nidana descriptions for aging and death, which clearly do describe these as physical/biological. Obviously they include a mental component, but they are clearly not purely mental. More generally the nidana descriptions in SN12.2 support a psycho-physical model of DO, they do not support a purely mental model - it's not just the physical descriptions of birth, aging and death, it is also the presence of form in two of the nidanas.

So presumably the problem is not the physical events and processes themselves, but the self-view which leads to clinging and suffering.
Last edited by Dinsdale on Sun May 06, 2018 9:46 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 » Sun May 06, 2018 9:37 am

SDC wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 3:49 pm
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.
I can see the distinction, but IMO it is a technical one because sankhatas are also sankharas - it's like an infinite regression. And if sankharas are anicca, then sankhatas must also be anicca - if B is dependent on A, and A is transient, then B must also be transient.

So I am saying it is all anicca - sankharas, sankhatas, khandhas, nidanas, all of it. All conditioned phenomena. Hence my objection to the idea of DO being "timeless".
SDC wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 3:49 pm
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.
I have studied these two modes of conditionality over the years, and I am confident in my analysis. It looks pretty straightforward to me, and I don't understand your resistance - perhaps because it doesn't fit with your "structural" interpretation? It would be helpful if you could say exactly what you disagree with in my analysis.
Generally my approach is to look at what the suttas say, and try to work out what they mean, rather than starting with a preferred interpretation and then trying to make the suttas fit - square pegs and round holes.
However I will look around for some commentary.

From what I can tell your "structural" interpretation roughly represents the contemporaneous/synchronous mode. But that is only half the picture.
Last edited by Dinsdale on Sun May 06, 2018 10:05 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 » Sun May 06, 2018 10:03 am

boundless wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 10:48 am
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:
Yes, there seem to be two things going on here. One is the "death" of self-view, the other is actual physical death - though in DO it is clearly the latter which is being described. Presumably the "death" of self-view means the cessation of craving and insight, so actual physical death is no longer seen as a problem.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

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 » Sun May 06, 2018 10:17 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 9:27 am
I have just explained that saying a being is a convention is a teaching on anatta, not a teaching on DO. Your argument is out of context,
This is just your personal opinion rather than anything true or factual. More importantly, SN 5.10 appears to not support your personal view because SN 5.10 mentions both "satta" as a "view/convention" (in blue color) and dependent origination (in red color):
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away
.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

SN 5.10
Similarly, when MN 98 refers to beings as "verbal designation", it ends the teaching referring to Dependent Origination, as follows:
In human bodies in themselves, nothing distinctive can be found. Distinction among human beings is purely verbal designation….For name & clan are assigned, originating in conventions…Whoever makes his living among men by agriculture is called a ‘farmer’…Whoever makes his living among men by merchandise is called a ‘merchant’…that is how the wise truly see… seers of dependent origination.

MN 98
While I respect your personal faith in your personal interpretation, my impression is you are ignoring the Dhamma and giving priority to personal defilements. Your assertion Dependent Origination does not demonstrate Anatta appears totally against the Dhamma.

I already posted from SN 22.81; which literally states the view of self is "born" ("jati") via Dependent Origination. Similarly, suttas such as SN 12.12 refer to how self or the idea of "who" does not arise until attachment & becoming.

:heart:
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 9:27 am
You have just quoted the nidana descriptions for aging and death, which clearly do describe these as physical/biological.
No. I did not. The nidana descriptions for aging and death appear to refer to the ignorant idea the physical/biological is "a being". Therefore, when the ignorant mind looks into the mirror and sees wrinkling skin, grey hair & rotting teeth; the ignorant mind ignorantly thinks: "I am aging". The "being" aging here is called "I am". "I am" is a "convention", "view" or "verbal designation". When the ignorant mind thinks: "I am aging" and "I am dying" the ignorant mind suffers, experiencing sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & disappear.

I think my interpretation above has more literal support from the suttas than your personal & imaginative interpretations. Clinging to a computer as "self" ("my computer") does not make that clinging something physical/biological. The clinging is mental and the suffering arising from that clinging is mental.

:heart:
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 10:03 am
Yes, there seem to be two things going on here. One is the "death" of self-view, the other is actual physical death - though in DO it is clearly the latter which is being described. Presumably the "death" of self-view means the cessation of craving and insight, so actual physical death is no longer seen as a problem.
If DO described physical death then Arahant would be subject to death. But the suttas say Arahants are not subject to death (marana). It does not matter how many Pali suttas are presented to you about Arahants not experiencing "marana", you appear to ignore those suttas. While you are free to hold your personal opinions, you seem to not be able to acknowledge that others have a different view that might be valid. You seem to insist your view is the only right view despite presenting zero evidence to support your personal view. While I am not insisting my view is the right view, I think I have presented evidence from the suttas to support my view.

:smile:

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Sun May 06, 2018 10:53 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 10:17 am
I think my interpretation above has more literal support from the suttas than your personal & imaginative interpretations. Clinging to a computer as "self" ("my computer") does not make that clinging something physical/biological. The clinging is mental and the suffering arising from that clinging is mental.
I'm curious as to why you separate mental from physical/biological? Thinking is a measured response in the brain. It has physicality to it. It can trigger hormonal effects and can also affect breathing and heart rate. None of these processes have a 'being' behind them but are nevertheless parts of the whole. The organism can feel 'clinging'. It has a physical counterpart. If it didn't, there would be no registering of suffering, so I cannot see or support the way you are interpreting this.

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 » Sun May 06, 2018 11:07 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 10:53 am
I'm curious as to why you separate mental from physical/biological? Thinking is a measured response in the brain. It has physicality to it. It can trigger hormonal effects and can also affect breathing and heart rate. None of these processes have a 'being' behind them but are nevertheless parts of the whole. The organism can feel 'clinging'. It has a physical counterpart. If it didn't, there would be no registering of suffering, so I cannot see or support the way you are interpreting this.
Sure. But the physical stress referred to above has its origin in the mind's clinging, as follows:
When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built up for oneself in the future; and one’s craving—which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that—increases. One’s bodily and mental troubles increase, one’s bodily and mental torments increase, one’s bodily and mental fevers increase, and one experiences bodily and mental suffering.

https://suttacentral.net/mn149/en/bodhi
However, this is not related to what I was discussing. What I was discussing was how it is possible that dependent origination might be describing how the ignorant mind generates views of "beings" from the "appearance/manifestation of the aggregates obtained via the sense spheres". For example, the ignorant mind sees five aggregates manifesting with long hair, protruding breasts, hour-glass shape, flirtatious mind, compelling smile, ,etc, and generates the view of "a being" called "woman". I imagine for a Buddha there is no "woman" (apart from convention) but only mere aggregates.

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 » Sun May 06, 2018 11:33 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 10:17 am
The nidana descriptions for aging and death appear to refer to the ignorant idea the physical/biological is "a being". Therefore, when the ignorant mind looks into the mirror and sees wrinkling skin, grey hair & rotting teeth; the ignorant mind ignorantly thinks: "I am aging". The "being" aging here is called "I am". "I am" is a "convention", "view" or "verbal designation". When the ignorant mind thinks: "I am aging" and "I am dying" the ignorant mind suffers, experiencing sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & disappear.
The nidana descriptions for aging and death simply describe them as physical processes. Self-view is something added, it is that which leads to clinging and suffering. Conventionally we think of a "being" experiencing birth, aging and death, whereas in reality it is just a bunch of aggregates.
DooDoot wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 10:17 am
I think my interpretation above has more literal support from the suttas than your personal & imaginative interpretations.
Please don't patronise, it's horribly reminiscent of your old "Element" persona. It seems to me that you simply cannot accept the way in which the nidanas are described in SN12.2, because the descriptions don't support your personal preferences. And you simply cannot accept that you might be mistaken.
DooDoot wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 10:17 am
Clinging to a computer as "self" ("my computer") does not make that clinging something physical/biological. The clinging is mental and the suffering arising from that clinging is mental.
I'm not arguing that clinging is "physical", I am arguing that the clinging is something added to the physical experience. So for example there is aversion to the physical processes of aging and death, based on self-view.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Sun May 06, 2018 2:18 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 11:07 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 10:53 am
I'm curious as to why you separate mental from physical/biological? Thinking is a measured response in the brain. It has physicality to it. It can trigger hormonal effects and can also affect breathing and heart rate. None of these processes have a 'being' behind them but are nevertheless parts of the whole. The organism can feel 'clinging'. It has a physical counterpart. If it didn't, there would be no registering of suffering, so I cannot see or support the way you are interpreting this.
Sure. But the physical stress referred to above has its origin in the mind's clinging, as follows:
When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built up for oneself in the future; and one’s craving—which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that—increases. One’s bodily and mental troubles increase, one’s bodily and mental torments increase, one’s bodily and mental fevers increase, and one experiences bodily and mental suffering.

https://suttacentral.net/mn149/en/bodhi
However, this is not related to what I was discussing. What I was discussing was how it is possible that dependent origination might be describing how the ignorant mind generates views of "beings" from the "appearance/manifestation of the aggregates obtained via the sense spheres". For example, the ignorant mind sees five aggregates manifesting with long hair, protruding breasts, hour-glass shape, flirtatious mind, compelling smile, ,etc, and generates the view of "a being" called "woman". I imagine for a Buddha there is no "woman" (apart from convention) but only mere aggregates.
Once again, Doo Doot, you do not see that both are the case and insist on only an 'ultimate' view. This, to me, is not in line with the Buddha's teaching and the later views of Nagarjuna which expands on the Buddha's sutta. The relative and the ultimate need to be reconciled otherwise suffering continues. Convention is absolutely the case. It is your reality. To deny it is ridiculous. You are playing with words.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Sun May 06, 2018 2:23 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 11:33 am
I'm not arguing that clinging is "physical", I am arguing that the clinging is something added to the physical experience. So for example there is aversion to the physical processes of aging and death, based on self-view.
It is all physical, Dinsdale, according to UG, and so is the great awakening. But, let's not go there as this is only about Buddhist view and not the views of other possible adepts outside of your particular tradition.

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 May 06, 2018 2:34 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 9:37 am
SDC wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 3:49 pm
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.
I can see the distinction, but IMO it is a technical one because sankhatas are also sankharas - it's like an infinite regression. And if sankharas are anicca, then sankhatas must also be anicca - if B is dependent on A, and A is transient, then B must also be transient.
It is interesting that you are speaking about an infinite regress when you refused to acknowledge it as relevant when I explicitly referenced it earlier. Maybe you can go back and look at it again. So are you saying that you can maintain a view on all these layers of sankhara at once? Or do they just keep moving? Are they moving out of site? Do you lose knowledge of them as they go? Do you maintain knowledge of them as they go? If you maintain knowledge of them "as they go", then are they gone? If all of it is transient, then how do you have any knowledge about anything?
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 9:37 am
SDC wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 3:49 pm
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.
I have studied these two modes of conditionality over the years, and I am confident in my analysis. It looks pretty straightforward to me, and I don't understand your resistance - perhaps because it doesn't fit with your "structural" interpretation? It would be helpful if you could say exactly what you disagree with in my analysis.
Generally my approach is to look at what the suttas say, and try to work out what they mean, rather than starting with a preferred interpretation and then trying to make the suttas fit - square pegs and round holes.
However I will look around for some commentary.

From what I can tell your "structural" interpretation roughly represents the contemporaneous/synchronous mode. But that is only half the picture.
Well thanks for that bit of psychoanalysis, Dinsdale. Sorry to say you missed the mark. When did I ever say, Ven. Nanavira is 100% correct and that is all I believe? If you want to know how I contemplate, you could just ask rather than guess and get it wrong.

Exactly what do I disagree with? Why am I "resisting"? First of all, your justification that those two phrases imply two different modes. You are really out on a limb trying to say that it is clearly written in the suttas. It isn't clearly written. As you said, you are working it out in your own analysis. That is cool, but it isn't straightforward anywhere but in your own understanding. Give yourself a bit of credit - you put it together and it is your interpretation. If you do find it formally written about though, I would like to see it. Second of all, in my own contemplations I do not see how it is possible. Arising, ceasing and persisting-while-changing is a description of the aggregates and is probably the most direct description of a play by play of experience. So I don't see how this sequential mode of DO can also be the primary description of experience. Looks redundant. Are you saying both are there together? Agreed then. That is what I think. But if both are there together you are talking about simultaneity, that is layered in immediacy, and with that I am not sure where this sequential mode has a place.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16496
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

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

Post by mikenz66 » Sun May 06, 2018 9:28 pm

SDC wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 2:34 pm
...
I'm really struggling to see what this sub-discussion is actually about. How can one talk about "saṅkhatas" when saṅkhata is not a noun? Perhaps I need help from a Pali expert.

In Bhikkhu Bodhi's discussion of Saṅkhārā in his SN translation, viewtopic.php?t=23352#p335218 he notes:
The past participle connected with saṅkhārā is saṅkhata, which I translate “conditioned.” Unfortunately I could not render the two Pāli words into English in a way that preserves the vital connection between them: “formed” is too specific for saṅkhata, and “conditions” too wide for saṅkhārā (and it also encroaches on the domain of paccaya). If “constructions” had been used for saṅkhārā, saṅkhata would have become “constructed,” which preserves the connection, though at the cost of too stilted a translation. Regrettably, owing to the use of different English words for the pair, a critically important dimension of meaning in the suttas is lost to view. In the Pāli we can clearly see the connection: the saṅkhāras, the active constructive forces instigated by volition, create and shape conditioned reality, especially the conditioned factors classified into the five aggregates and the six internal sense bases; and this conditioned reality itself consists of saṅkhāras in the passive sense, called in the commentaries saṅkhata-saṅkhārā.

Further, it is not only this connection that is lost to view, but also the connection with Nibbāna. For Nibbāna is the asaṅkhata, the unconditioned, which is called thus precisely because it is neither made by saṅkhāras nor itself a saṅkhāra in either the active or passive sense. So, when the texts are taken up in the Pāli, we arrive at a clear picture in fine focus: the active saṅkhāras generated by volition perpetually create passive saṅkhāras, the saṅkhata dhammas or conditioned phenomena of the five aggregates (and, indirectly, of the objective world); and then, through the practice of the Buddha’s path, the practitioner arrives at the true knowledge of conditioned phenomena, which disables the generation of active saṅkhāras, putting an end to the constructing of conditioned reality and opening up the door to the Deathless, the asaṅkhata, the unconditioned, which is Nibbāna, final liberation from impermanence and suffering.
See also the definitions;
https://suttacentral.net/define/sa%E1%B9%85khata
https://suttacentral.net/define/sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra

:heart:
Mike

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 May 06, 2018 9:38 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 9:28 pm
How can one talk about "saṅkhatas" when saṅkhata is not a noun? Perhaps I need help from a Pali expert.
You're correct. When we first started talking about it in this thread I was using the phrase sankhata dhamma (conditioned thing) and just shortened it as we and I went on. I don't think Dinsdale meant it to be a noun either.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], paul, Spaciousness and 85 guests