Thanks Mike.Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other
Can we apply the same simile to other limbs?
Say Avijja and Sankhara.
Thanks Mike.Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other
As opposed to the suttas that mention Avijja and Sankhara (ignorance and choices in this translation):Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other. In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields. The six sense fields are conditions for contact. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. If the first of those bundles of reeds were to be pulled away, the other would collapse. And if the other were to be pulled away, the first would collapse. In the same way, when name and form cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease. When name and form cease, the six sense fields cease. When the six sense fields cease, contact ceases. … That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.”
When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease. When name and form cease, the six sense fields cease. When the six sense fields cease, contact ceases. When contact ceases, feeling ceases. When feeling ceases, craving ceases. When craving ceases, grasping ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases. When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease. That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.1/en/sujato
The way I understand you can break any link of the dependent origination and the rest will fall apart.Can you explain your reasoning for suggesting that pair?
Can you explain the connection of this quote to the topic?Dhammarakkhito wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:11 am From the uprising of the cankers is the uprising of ignorance,
from the stopping of the cankers is the stopping of ignorance
[...]
From the uprising of ignorance is the uprising of the cankers,
from the stopping of ignorance is the stopping of the cankers
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts ... rn.pts.htm
No but I can recall a monk talking like that.Is there a sutta that states that?
No, because for the other nidanas in paticcasamuppada, one factor is dependent upon the one prior for its arising.
retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:59 am No, because for the other nidanas in paticcasamuppada, one factor is dependent upon the one prior for its arising.
Nama-rupa & vinnana are the exception to this rule, for they are actually co-dependent upon one another for its arising... hence the simile.
The above appears to be one condition rather than two conditions. In other words, the "cankers" ("asava") are "ignorance" and are not "sankhara".Dhammarakkhito wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:11 am From the uprising of the cankers is the uprising of ignorance,
from the stopping of the cankers is the stopping of ignorance
[...]
From the uprising of ignorance is the uprising of the cankers,
from the stopping of ignorance is the stopping of the cankers
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts ... rn.pts.htm
Your reverences, there are these three (kinds of) formations:
Activity [activators] of the body,
activity [activators] of speech,
activity [activators] of mind.
Your reverences, there are these three cankers:
The canker of sense-pleasures [sensuality],
the canker of [past] becoming,
the canker of ignorance.
I see your point but what about Aurpavacara beings?Nama-rupa & vinnana are the exception to this rule, for they are actually co-dependent upon one another for its arising... hence the simile.
Others may disagree with me, but I believe you're conflating two different senses of the word "rupa"... (i.e. materiality and form)
Ok.one factor is dependent upon the one prior for its arising.
aññamañña paccayatā – mutual conditionalityCan you explain the connection of this quote to the topic?
Mike
???two different senses of the word "rupa"... (i.e. materiality and form)
Metta,
Paul.
The quote posted was contextually wrong. MN 9 was misunderstood.
Please post an example from the suttas (but not from the DN). Thanks