Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply

Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

One life model
0
No votes
One life model and moment to moment
6
15%
Two lives model
0
No votes
Three lives model
3
8%
Three lives model and moment to moment
8
20%
Multiple lives model
3
8%
Multiple lives model & moment-to-moment
7
18%
Moment to moment only
2
5%
Timeless/Atemporal/Structural
7
18%
Simultaneous, non-linear
4
10%
 
Total votes: 40

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:00 pm

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:54 pm
That is not Nanavira's position.
I've edited the post before you answered. Buddha position is that volitional formations is the proximate cause for rebirth. Craving + belief in a self are the 2 distant causes for it. In Nanavira view, belief in a self is the proximate, technical cause of rebirth. This is different from the historical Buddha opinion and also refuted by the fact that a stream enterer also will get reborn up to 7 times.
You are taking jati to mean rebirth. That is fine, but doesn't refute what I am saying.
I am only saying that physical birth has ended for the arahant. There will be no more rebirth for the arahant, no more taking up of another body. Buddha even praises this in that sutta about suicide. Do you not agree that physical birth has ended for the arahant ?
This classic argument has been taken apart: back discomfort does not imply dukkha. Find that sutta, pull up the Pali. Does the Buddha say, "I am suffering because my back aches, I will rest it" or does he say, "My back aches, I will rest it"?
Buddha is asked about this in one sutta. He said that pain does arise. He said it is like a normal person is hit by 2 arrows, while an arahant is hit only by one arrow and is not hit again with a second arrow after that. The fact that an arahant has even commited suicide due to pain + inability to be useful anymore in the world also speaks a lot about weather an arahant feels pain or not.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:08 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:00 pm
In Nanavira view, belief in a self is the proximate, technical cause of rebirth.
This is not his position at all.
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:00 pm
Do you not agree that physical birth has ended for the arahant ?
Of course there will not be another, but that is not what the structural model of PS describes. It is talking about the current birth being part of this whole mass of suffering.
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:00 pm
Buddha is asked about this in one sutta. He said that pain does arise.
Yes, bodily pains do arise. Whether it be an itchy nose or a spear through the eye, there can be discomfort for the arahat, but that does not imply that there is suffering in that grand sense of the first noble truth. That dukkha is no more for the arahat.

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:23 pm

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:08 pm
This is not his position at all.
Really ?
10. Upādānapaccayā bhavo; bhavapaccayā jāti; jātipaccayā jarāmaranam... ('With holding as condition, being; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing-&-death...') The fundamental upādāna or 'holding' is attavāda (see Majjhima ii,1 <M.i,67>), which is holding a belief in 'self'. The puthujjana takes what appears to be his 'self' at its face value; and so long as this goes on he continues to be a 'self', at least in his own eyes (and in those of others like him). This is bhava or 'being'. The puthujjana knows that people are born and die; and since he thinks 'my self exists' so he also thinks 'my self was born' and 'my self will die'. The puthujjana sees a 'self' to whom the words birth and death apply.[d] In contrast to the puthujjana, the arahat has altogether got rid of asmimāna (not to speak of attavāda—see MAMA), and does not even think 'I am'. This is bhavanirodha, cessation of being. And since he does not think 'I am' he also does not think 'I was born' or 'I shall die'. In other words, he sees no 'self' or even 'I' for the words birth and death to apply to. This is jātinirodha and jarāmarananirodha. (See, in Kosala Samy. i,3 <S.i,71>, how the words birth and death are avoided when the arahat is spoken of. Atthi nu kho bhante jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā ti. N'atthi kho mahārāja jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja khattiyamahāsālā... brāhmanamahāsālā... gahapatimahāsālā..., tesam pi jātānam n'atthi aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja bhikkhu arahanto khīnāsavā..., tesam pāyam kāyo bhedanadhammo nikkhepanadhammo ti. ('—For one who is born, lord, is there anything other than ageing-&-death?—For one who is born, great king, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those, great king, who are wealthy warriors... wealthy divines... wealthy householders...,—for them, too, being born, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those monks, great king, who are worthy ones, destroyers of the cankers...,—for them, too, it is the nature of this body to break up, to be laid down.')) The puthujjana, taking his apparent 'self' at face value, does not see that he is a victim of upādāna; he does not see that 'being a self' depends upon 'holding a belief in self' (upādānapaccayā bhavo); and he does not see that birth and death depend upon his 'being a self' (bhavapaccayā jāti, and so on). The ariyasāvaka, on the other hand, does see these things, and he sees also their cessation (even though he may not yet have fully realized it); and his seeing of these things is direct. Quite clearly, the idea of re-birth is totally irrelevant here.
Paragraph nr 10 from here http://nanavira.org/notes-on-dhamma/paticcasamuppada
Of course there will not be another, but that is not what the structural model of PS describes. It is talking about the current birth being part of this whole mass of suffering.
Of course the current birth is part of this whole mass of suffering, same as all other past or future births. PS claims the reason for birth are volitional formations. It's also very clear that it is reffering to physical birth and physical death and not what Nanavira is claiming. To quote B.Bodhi:

"The above definitions, with their strings of synonyms and concrete imagery, clearly indicate that 'birth' refers to biological birth and 'aging-and-death' to biological aging and biological death -- not to the puthujjana's notions "I was born; I will age and die," or "My self was born; my self ages and dies." The textual definitions are perfectly staightforward and unambiguous in meaning, and give no hint that the Buddha had some other idea to convey about the significance of these terms."
Yes, bodily pains do arise. Whether it be an itchy nose or a spear through the eye, there can be discomfort for the arahat, but that does not imply that there is suffering in that grand sense of the first noble truth. That dukkha is no more for the arahat.
If you understand suffering as only consisting of unpleasant feelings born out of mental causes, then indeed there is no unpleasant feeling arising due to mental causes. But when we say "suffering", we include here unpleasant feelings born out of physical causes. Such unpleasant feelings will continue to arise. It is only the reaction that will follow them that will be different. Instead of further unpleasant feelings arising due to a wrong reaction, there will only be the original unpleasant feeling born out of physical causes. http://dhammatalks.net/suttacentral/sc/en/sn36.6.html

The arahant that commited sucide due to unpleasant feelings born out of physical causes also speaks miles about weather arahants suffer or not.

binocular
Posts: 5454
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

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

Post by binocular » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:49 pm

aflatun wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:08 pm
Hence for example we find the younger Nanavira actually formulating a sketch for a proof of rebirth
Thank you, I wasn't aware of this!

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:21 pm

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:08 pm
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:00 pm
In Nanavira view, belief in a self is the proximate, technical cause of rebirth.
This is not his position at all.
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:23 pm
Really ?
10. Upādānapaccayā bhavo; bhavapaccayā jāti; jātipaccayā jarāmaranam... ('With holding as condition, being; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing-&-death...') The fundamental upādāna or 'holding' is attavāda (see Majjhima ii,1 <M.i,67>), which is holding a belief in 'self'. The puthujjana takes what appears to be his 'self' at its face value; and so long as this goes on he continues to be a 'self', at least in his own eyes (and in those of others like him). This is bhava or 'being'. The puthujjana knows that people are born and die; and since he thinks 'my self exists' so he also thinks 'my self was born' and 'my self will die'. The puthujjana sees a 'self' to whom the words birth and death apply.[d] In contrast to the puthujjana, the arahat has altogether got rid of asmimāna (not to speak of attavāda—see MAMA), and does not even think 'I am'. This is bhavanirodha, cessation of being. And since he does not think 'I am' he also does not think 'I was born' or 'I shall die'. In other words, he sees no 'self' or even 'I' for the words birth and death to apply to. This is jātinirodha and jarāmarananirodha. (See, in Kosala Samy. i,3 <S.i,71>, how the words birth and death are avoided when the arahat is spoken of. Atthi nu kho bhante jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā ti. N'atthi kho mahārāja jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja khattiyamahāsālā... brāhmanamahāsālā... gahapatimahāsālā..., tesam pi jātānam n'atthi aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja bhikkhu arahanto khīnāsavā..., tesam pāyam kāyo bhedanadhammo nikkhepanadhammo ti. ('—For one who is born, lord, is there anything other than ageing-&-death?—For one who is born, great king, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those, great king, who are wealthy warriors... wealthy divines... wealthy householders...,—for them, too, being born, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those monks, great king, who are worthy ones, destroyers of the cankers...,—for them, too, it is the nature of this body to break up, to be laid down.')) The puthujjana, taking his apparent 'self' at face value, does not see that he is a victim of upādāna; he does not see that 'being a self' depends upon 'holding a belief in self' (upādānapaccayā bhavo); and he does not see that birth and death depend upon his 'being a self' (bhavapaccayā jāti, and so on). The ariyasāvaka, on the other hand, does see these things, and he sees also their cessation (even though he may not yet have fully realized it); and his seeing of these things is direct. Quite clearly, the idea of re-birth is totally irrelevant here.
No, it really isn't his position on rebirth, which is what you said above. This passage is about 'birth', not rebirth. You seem to be interchanging these terms at will.
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:23 pm
The arahant that commited sucide due to unpleasant feelings born out of physical causes also speaks miles about weather arahants suffer or not.
This is an ages old argument that is off topic for this thread, but needless to say the arahat is free from dukkha, it has ceased. Any discomfort that comes is nuisance in comparison to dukkha in the sense of the four noble truths.

Circle5
Posts: 878
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:48 pm

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:21 pm
No, it really isn't his position on rebirth, which is what you said above. This passage is about 'birth', not rebirth. You seem to be interchanging these terms at will.
By deffinition, any physical birth happening happening in the context of buddhism is a rebirth. :coffee:
This is an ages old argument that is off topic for this thread, but needless to say the arahat is free from dukkha, it has ceased. Any discomfort that comes is nuisance in comparison to dukkha in the sense of the four noble truths.
Such a small nisance that one can even decide to commit suicide due to it.
Sure, there might not be dukkha born out of mental causes, but there will still be dukkha born out of physical causes.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:38 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:48 pm
SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:21 pm
No, it really isn't his position on rebirth, which is what you said above. This passage is about 'birth', not rebirth. You seem to be interchanging these terms at will.
By deffinition, any physical birth happening happening in the context of buddhism is a rebirth. :coffee:
That is a bold simplification. It surely isn't an invalid position to take, but I don't believe the Buddha intended suffering to be grasped with so many lives under consideration at one time...just here and now with this "I" as the primary focus.

Nevertheless, Ven. Nanavira does differentiate between the two terms which is all I was trying to point out.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1396
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

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

Post by cappuccino » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:37 pm

What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?
Assu Sutta: Tears

Dinsdale
Posts: 5773
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 » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:13 am

DNS wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:48 pm
By making DO one life model only or moment-to-moment only; an ulterior motive could be to circumvent rebirth teachings (not saying that all who hold that view do that).
I think it can be a factor, and the interpretation we personally prefer is not necessarily the one which is best supported by what the suttas describe.

There does seem to be quite a lot of "physicality" in the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2 ( eg the physical descriptions of birth, aging and death ), and it is difficult to see how DO can be describing a purely mental or psychological process, as some claim.

PS Could you please add "multiple lives model" to the OP poll?
Last edited by Dinsdale on Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5773
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 » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:17 am

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:58 am
So the idea that Buddha meant momentary arising and death of phenomena instead of physical birth and physical death is pretty ridiculous to any informed buddhist
I wouldn't say "ridiculous", just unsupported by what the suttas actually describe.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:19 am

simultaneous, non-linear
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

Dinsdale
Posts: 5773
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 » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:29 am

dylanj wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:19 am
simultaneous, non-linear
Could you elaborate on "simultaneous"? And how does this work with the conditionality mode of "When this arises, that arises", which involves a sequence over time?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:34 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:29 am
dylanj wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:19 am
simultaneous, non-linear
Could you elaborate on "simultaneous"? And how does this work with the conditionality mode of "When this arises, that arises", which involves a sequence over time?
It's actually "when this arises, this arises". "imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati", not "imassuppādā etaṁ uppajjati"

there's nothing sequential here, in fact it's the opposite. "when", not "after". where there is one link there is the other.

the only reason they go in order is to indicate the closeness of the factors, i.e. it's ignorance that is most directly related to saṅkhārā,
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

Dinsdale
Posts: 5773
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 » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:40 am

dylanj wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:34 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:29 am
Could you elaborate on "simultaneous"? And how does this work with the conditionality mode of "When this arises, that arises", which involves a sequence over time?
It's actually "when this arises, this arises". "imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati", not "imassuppādā etaṁ uppajjati"
there's nothing sequential here, in fact it's the opposite. "when", not "after". where there is one link there is the other.
the only reason they go in order is to indicate the closeness of the factors, i.e. it's ignorance that is most directly related to saṅkhārā,
But there are two modes of conditionality ( 1 and 2 below ). I think you're talking about mode No. 1 here. Mode No. 2 involves a sequence of events or states, ie when A arises ( then ) B arises.

1. "'When this is, that is.
2. "'From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
1. "'When this isn't, that isn't.
2. "'From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:46 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:40 am
dylanj wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:34 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:29 am
Could you elaborate on "simultaneous"? And how does this work with the conditionality mode of "When this arises, that arises", which involves a sequence over time?
It's actually "when this arises, this arises". "imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati", not "imassuppādā etaṁ uppajjati"
there's nothing sequential here, in fact it's the opposite. "when", not "after". where there is one link there is the other.
the only reason they go in order is to indicate the closeness of the factors, i.e. it's ignorance that is most directly related to saṅkhārā,
But there are two modes of conditionality ( 1 and 2 below ). I think you're talking about No. 1 here. No. 2 involves a sequence of events or states.

1. "'When this is, that is.
2. "'From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
1. "'When this isn't, that isn't.
2. "'From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
no i quoted number 2.

imasmiṁ sati idaṁ hoti
imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati
imasmiṁ asati idaṁ na hoti
imassa nirodhā idaṁ nirujjhati

in each line it is "idaṁ" not "etaṁ" so it's this/this not this/that

& still there is no sequence beyond choosing to interpret it that way.
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Laurens and 92 guests