Bundles of reeds simile.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Dinsdale
Posts: 5930
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:14 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:44 am
Have you read Buddhadasa's essay on the two ways of interpretation? One is people language, the other is dhamma language. The difference in interpretation according to him lies in the difference between these two ways of speaking.
I have, but didn't find him convincing on this point - he just makes a bland claim about this supposed distinction, but he doesn't provide any evidence to support his assertion.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

SarathW
Posts: 9989
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by SarathW » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:18 am

In any case think it's worth remembering that DO is an elaboration of the Second Noble Truth.
and when it is in reverse mode the Third Noble Truth.
Dependent Origination is revolving around explaining how Dukkha arises.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:55 am

Greetings Mike,
retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:17 am
Dependent origination explains an ignorant mis-understanding of emptiness, and its consequences.
mikenz66 wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:02 am
Hi retro, would you mind explaining in detail the meaning of this brief passage?
OK, can do now, but will have to be brief, and done holding an occasionally grizzly baby with one arm. :)

Firstly, Nanavira from his Note On Paticcasamuppada... I will bold for emphasis... underline for conclusion.
11. Let us now turn to the beginning of the paticcasamuppāda formulation and consider the word sankhāra. The passage from the Cūlavedallasutta quoted in §5 evidently uses sankhāra to mean a thing from which some other thing is inseparable—in other words, a necessary condition. This definition is perfectly simple and quite general, and we shall find that it is all that we need. (If a sankhāra is something upon which something else depends, we can say that the 'something else' is determined by the first thing, i.e. by the sankhāra, which is therefore a 'determination' or a 'determinant'. It will be convenient to use the word determination when we need to translate sankhāra.)

12. Some discussion will be necessary if we are to see that sankhāra, whenever it occurs, always has this meaning in one form or another. We may start with the fundamental triad: Sabbe sankhārā aniccā; Sabbe sankhārā dukkhā; Sabbe dhammā anattā. ('All determinations are impermanent; All determinations are unpleasurable (suffering); All things are not-self.') (Dhammapada xx,5-7 <Dh. 277-9>) A puthujjana accepts what appears to be his 'self' at face value. When he asks himself 'What is my self?' he seeks to identify it in some way with one thing or another, and specifically with the pañc'upādānakkhandhā or one of them (see Khandha Samy. v,5 <S.iii,46>[4]). Whatever thing (dhamma) he identifies as 'self', that thing he takes as being permanent; for if he saw it as impermanent he would not identify it as 'self' (see DHAMMA). Since, however, he does see it as permanent—more permanent, indeed, than anything else—he will think 'Other things may be impermanent, but not this thing, which is myself'. In order, then, that he shall see it as impermanent, indirect methods are necessary: he must first see that this thing is dependent upon, or determined by, some other thing, and he must then see that this other thing, this determination or sankhāra, is impermanent. When he sees that the other thing, the sankhāra on which this thing depends, is impermanent, he sees that this thing, too, must be impermanent, and he no longer regards it as 'self'. (See SANKHĀRA.) Thus, when sabbe sankhārā aniccā is seen, sabbe dhammā anattā is seen. And similarly with sabbe sankhārā dukkhā. We may therefore understand sabbe sankhārā aniccā as 'All things upon which other things (dhammā) depend—i.e. all determinations (sankhārā)—are impermanent' with a tacit corollary 'All things dependent upon other things (sankhārā)—i.e. all determined things (sankhatā dhammā)—are impermanent'. After this, sabbe dhammā anattā, 'All things are not-self', follows as a matter of course.[e]

13. Every thing (dhamma) must, of necessity, be (or be somehow included within) one or more of the pañc('upādān)akkhandhā, either generally—e.g. feeling in general, feeling as opposed to what is not feeling—or particularly—e.g. this present painful feeling as opposed to the previous pleasant feeling (present as a past feeling). In the same way, every determination (sankhāra) must also be one or more of the pañc('upādān)akkhandhā. Thus the pañc('upādān)akkhandhā can be regarded either as sankhārā or as dhammā according as they are seen as 'things-that-other-things-depend-on' or simply as 'things themselves'. See Majjhima iv,5 <M.i,228>
Thus, all the five aggregates are actually sankharas, whether they are assigned to the sankhara aggregate or one of the other four.

As you know, the SN 22.95: Phena Sutta goes on to describe how all five aggregates are to be known. In each instance there is the common refrain...
Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in [object]? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any [aggregates] that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in [aggregates] ?
This is reaffirmed in verse...
Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately.
So, whether we are reflecting in terms of paticcasamuppada or the five aggregates, everything that is a sankhata-dhamma (which, remember, is all dhammas with the exception of nibbana) is dependent upon something. It's either dependent upon other sankhata-dhammas (which you could take back through a potentially infinite regress) but the fundamental dependence upon which the whole set of dhammas rely, is the ignorance (avijja) of the reality that dhammas are "empty, void, without substance". The whole set of sankhata-dhammas (whether measured by paticcasamuppada or the five aggregates) are what is known in the Dhamma as a "perversion of perception".

As Ven. Nanananda explains...
We are not willing to accept that existence is a perversion. Existence is suffering precisely because it is a perversion.
This is why over the years I have stressed the importance of not believing in the "existence" of dhammas, because when you think of them as "existing", you inadvertently think of them as real things, rather than as the products of erroneous / perverted perceptions. Non-existence of dhammas is equally wrong, because to talk of non-existence is to posit a thing, only to go on and negate its existence.

Hence, the Dhamma is a middle way between existence and non-existence... not just the middle way between existence and non-existence of a self, or soul... but between the existence and non-existence of any thing.

That concludes the detailed explanation of what was said in brief.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

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

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:46 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:55 am
Greetings Mike,
retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:17 am
Dependent origination explains an ignorant mis-understanding of emptiness, and its consequences.
mikenz66 wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:02 am
Hi retro, would you mind explaining in detail the meaning of this brief passage?
OK, can do now, but will have to be brief, and done holding an occasionally grizzly baby with one arm. :)

Firstly, Nanavira from his Note On Paticcasamuppada... I will bold for emphasis... underline for conclusion.
11. Let us now turn to the beginning of the paticcasamuppāda formulation and consider the word sankhāra. The passage from the Cūlavedallasutta quoted in §5 evidently uses sankhāra to mean a thing from which some other thing is inseparable—in other words, a necessary condition. This definition is perfectly simple and quite general, and we shall find that it is all that we need. (If a sankhāra is something upon which something else depends, we can say that the 'something else' is determined by the first thing, i.e. by the sankhāra, which is therefore a 'determination' or a 'determinant'. It will be convenient to use the word determination when we need to translate sankhāra.)

12. Some discussion will be necessary if we are to see that sankhāra, whenever it occurs, always has this meaning in one form or another. We may start with the fundamental triad: Sabbe sankhārā aniccā; Sabbe sankhārā dukkhā; Sabbe dhammā anattā. ('All determinations are impermanent; All determinations are unpleasurable (suffering); All things are not-self.') (Dhammapada xx,5-7 <Dh. 277-9>) A puthujjana accepts what appears to be his 'self' at face value. When he asks himself 'What is my self?' he seeks to identify it in some way with one thing or another, and specifically with the pañc'upādānakkhandhā or one of them (see Khandha Samy. v,5 <S.iii,46>[4]). Whatever thing (dhamma) he identifies as 'self', that thing he takes as being permanent; for if he saw it as impermanent he would not identify it as 'self' (see DHAMMA). Since, however, he does see it as permanent—more permanent, indeed, than anything else—he will think 'Other things may be impermanent, but not this thing, which is myself'. In order, then, that he shall see it as impermanent, indirect methods are necessary: he must first see that this thing is dependent upon, or determined by, some other thing, and he must then see that this other thing, this determination or sankhāra, is impermanent. When he sees that the other thing, the sankhāra on which this thing depends, is impermanent, he sees that this thing, too, must be impermanent, and he no longer regards it as 'self'. (See SANKHĀRA.) Thus, when sabbe sankhārā aniccā is seen, sabbe dhammā anattā is seen. And similarly with sabbe sankhārā dukkhā. We may therefore understand sabbe sankhārā aniccā as 'All things upon which other things (dhammā) depend—i.e. all determinations (sankhārā)—are impermanent' with a tacit corollary 'All things dependent upon other things (sankhārā)—i.e. all determined things (sankhatā dhammā)—are impermanent'. After this, sabbe dhammā anattā, 'All things are not-self', follows as a matter of course.[e]

13. Every thing (dhamma) must, of necessity, be (or be somehow included within) one or more of the pañc('upādān)akkhandhā, either generally—e.g. feeling in general, feeling as opposed to what is not feeling—or particularly—e.g. this present painful feeling as opposed to the previous pleasant feeling (present as a past feeling). In the same way, every determination (sankhāra) must also be one or more of the pañc('upādān)akkhandhā. Thus the pañc('upādān)akkhandhā can be regarded either as sankhārā or as dhammā according as they are seen as 'things-that-other-things-depend-on' or simply as 'things themselves'. See Majjhima iv,5 <M.i,228>
Thus, all the five aggregates are actually sankharas, whether they are assigned to the sankhara aggregate or one of the other four.

As you know, the SN 22.95: Phena Sutta goes on to describe how all five aggregates are to be known. In each instance there is the common refrain...
Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in [object]? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any [aggregates] that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in [aggregates] ?
This is reaffirmed in verse...
Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately.
So, whether we are reflecting in terms of paticcasamuppada or the five aggregates, everything that is a sankhata-dhamma (which, remember, is all dhammas with the exception of nibbana) is dependent upon something. It's either dependent upon other sankhata-dhammas (which you could take back through a potentially infinite regress) but the fundamental dependence upon which the whole set of dhammas rely, is the ignorance (avijja) of the reality that dhammas are "empty, void, without substance". The whole set of sankhata-dhammas (whether measured by paticcasamuppada or the five aggregates) are what is known in the Dhamma as a "perversion of perception".

As Ven. Nanananda explains...
We are not willing to accept that existence is a perversion. Existence is suffering precisely because it is a perversion.
This is why over the years I have stressed the importance of not believing in the "existence" of dhammas, because when you think of them as "existing", you inadvertently think of them as real things, rather than as the products of erroneous / perverted perceptions. Non-existence of dhammas is equally wrong, because to talk of non-existence is to posit a thing, only to go on and negate its existence.

Hence, the Dhamma is a middle way between existence and non-existence... not just the middle way between existence and non-existence of a self, or soul... but between the existence and non-existence of any thing.

That concludes the detailed explanation of what was said in brief.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Paul,

That is a very clear elucidation. Now, for the realization of it................!!

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16452
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by mikenz66 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:39 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:55 am
OK, can do now, but will have to be brief, and done holding an occasionally grizzly baby with one arm. :)
...
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Very helpful.

:heart:
Mike

Dinsdale
Posts: 5930
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:40 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:55 am
Thus, all the five aggregates are actually sankharas, whether they are assigned to the sankhara aggregate or one of the other four.
I think you are muddying the water by conflating these two quite distinct uses of "sankhara". Again it's a case of square pegs and round holes, trying to force one meaning onto another in an attempt to justify a particular interpretation.
retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:55 am
The whole set of sankhata-dhammas (whether measured by paticcasamuppada or the five aggregates) are what is known in the Dhamma as a "perversion of perception".
I don't see the justification for this claim, given that the Vipallasa Sutta refers to four specific perversions of perceptions, not "the whole set of sankhata-dhammas", as you claim. Again it seems like you are playing fast and loose with the suttas in order to promote your favoured interpretation.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:43 am

Greetings Dinsdale,

If you see nothing in it for you, then that's OK.

:heart:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16452
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:57 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:40 am
retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:55 am
Thus, all the five aggregates are actually sankharas, whether they are assigned to the sankhara aggregate or one of the other four.
I think you are muddying the water by conflating these two quite distinct uses of "sankhara". Again it's a case of square pegs and round holes, trying to force one meaning onto another in an attempt to justify a particular interpretation.
Perhaps you'd prefer Bhikkhu Bodhi's explanation:
viewtopic.php?t=23352#p335218
(3) In the widest sense, saṅkhārā comprises all conditioned things, everything arisen from a combination of conditions. In this sense all five aggregates, not just the fourth, are saṅkhāras (see III 132,22–27 SN 22.90), as are all external objects and situations (II 191,11–17 SN 15.20). The term here is taken to be of passive derivation—denoting what is conditioned, constructed, compounded—hence I render it simply “formations,” without the qualifying adjective. This notion of saṅkhārā serves as the cornerstone of a philosophical vision which sees the entire universe as constituted of conditioned phenomena. What is particularly emphasized about saṅkhāras in this sense is their impermanence. Recognition of their impermanence brings insight into the unreliable nature of all mundane felicity and inspires a sense of urgency directed towards liberation from saṃsāra (see SN 15.20; SN 22.96).
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:40 am
retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:55 am
The whole set of sankhata-dhammas (whether measured by paticcasamuppada or the five aggregates) are what is known in the Dhamma as a "perversion of perception".
I don't see the justification for this claim, given that the Vipallasa Sutta refers to four specific perversions of perceptions, not "the whole set of sankhata-dhammas", as you claim. Again it seems like you are playing fast and loose with the suttas in order to promote your favoured interpretation.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Retro is, of course presenting his interpretation, which is influenced by Vens Nanananda and Nanavira. But do note that in the sutta you quoted one of the perversions is:
'Self' with regard to not-self is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view.
So, if we accept the idea that DO is essentially about the arising of a sense of self then that's where it fits.
The implication is that this so-called individual, or person, is in fact a
vortex, formed out of the same kind of primary elements that obtain
outside of it. So then, the whole idea of an individual or a person is a mere
perversion. The notion of individuality in samsaric beings is comparable
to the apparent individuality of a vortex. It is only a pretence. That is why
it is called asmimàna, the "conceit `am'". In truth and fact, it is only a
conceit.
[Bhikkhu Nanananda, Nibbana Sermon 21]
:heart:
Mike

SarathW
Posts: 9989
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by SarathW » Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:05 am

"Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.
Why Buddha ignored that Sankara is the requisite condition for the consciousness.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16452
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:34 am

SarathW wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:05 am
"Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.
Why Buddha ignored that Sankara is the requisite condition for the consciousness.
Do you mean "why did the Buddha teach several different variations?" Perhaps to make it clearer for people who might find it easier to understand it in different ways.

Heres a comment from Bhikkhu Bodhi: http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/buddhas- ... ght-wisdom
Though the twelve-factor formula is the most familiar version of the doctrine of dependent origination, the Nidānasaṃyutta introduces a number of little-known variants that help to illuminate the standard version. One such variant, Text IX,4(4)(e), https://suttacentral.net/sn12.38 speaks about the conditions for “the continuance of consciousness” (viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā), in other words, how consciousness passes on to a new existence. The causes are said to be the underlying tendencies, namely, ignorance and craving, and “what one intends and plans,” namely, the volitional formations. Once consciousness becomes established, the production of a new existence begins; thus we here proceed directly from consciousness (the usual third factor) to existence (the usual tenth factor). Text IX,4(4)(f) https://suttacentral.net/sn12.44 says that from the six internal and external sense bases (the former being the usual fifth factor), consciousness (the third factor) arises, followed by contact, feeling, craving, and all the rest. These variants make it plain that the sequence of factors should not be regarded as a linear causal process in which each preceding factor gives rise to its successor through the simple exercise of efficient causality. Far from being linear, the relationship among the factors is always complex, involving several interwoven strands of conditionality.
:heart:
Mike

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

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:37 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:57 am

So, if we accept the idea that DO is essentially about the arising of a sense of self then that's where it fits.
The implication is that this so-called individual, or person, is in fact a
vortex, formed out of the same kind of primary elements that obtain
outside of it. So then, the whole idea of an individual or a person is a mere
perversion. The notion of individuality in samsaric beings is comparable
to the apparent individuality of a vortex. It is only a pretence. That is why
it is called asmimàna, the "conceit `am'". In truth and fact, it is only a
conceit.
[Bhikkhu Nanananda, Nibbana Sermon 21]
:heart:
Mike
I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure calling DO as essentially about the arising of a sense of self. If the sense of self/existence is itself a perversion, DO itself doesn't point to that. It shows the dependent nature of all arisings. Illusory perceptions are how we commonly construct a self. Even sankharas are not said to be self. I don't see self as part of DO. Self is a perversion of DO. Whether we see this or not, there is never any self. This is dhamma talk.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16452
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:48 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:37 am
I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure calling DO as essentially about the arising of a sense of self. If the sense of self/existence is itself a perversion, DO itself doesn't point to that. It shows the dependent nature of all arisings. Illusory perceptions are how we commonly construct a self. Even sankharas are not said to be self. I don't see self as part of DO. Self is a perversion of DO. Whether we see this or not, there is never any self. This is dhamma talk.
Perhaps I was a little too brief - I was simply providing some justification for Retro's statements that some might find useful, and a small portion of Ven Nananada's argument, which is based on that vortex of name-and-form.

The various variations of DO describe the arising of suffering, and part of that whole mess is the arising of a sense of self. You seem to be interpreting DO as a positive thing, which doesn't make sense. It's the cessation of DO that is nibbana...

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2735
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by DooDoot » Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:22 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:37 am
If the sense of self/existence is itself a perversion, DO itself doesn't point to that. It shows the dependent nature of all arisings.
This sounds Mahayana or Nāgārjuna. Its not what is found in the Pali. In the Pali, DO is called "the wrong way" or "the wrong path".
At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the wrong way and the right way. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak.”

Yes, venerable sir,” those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:

“And what, bhikkhus, is the wrong way? With ignorance as condition, formations come to be; with formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the wrong way.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the right way? With the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of formations; with the cessation of formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the right way.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.3/en/bodhi
If the above is unclear, more below:
And what is clinging These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
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; feeling; perception; fabrication; &/or consciousness to be a 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.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

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

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:57 am

DooDoot wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:22 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:37 am
If the sense of self/existence is itself a perversion, DO itself doesn't point to that. It shows the dependent nature of all arisings.
This sounds Mahayana or Nāgārjuna. Its not what is found in the Pali. In the Pali, DO is called "the wrong way" or "the wrong path".
At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the wrong way and the right way. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak.”

Yes, venerable sir,” those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:

“And what, bhikkhus, is the wrong way? With ignorance as condition, formations come to be; with formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the wrong way.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the right way? With the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of formations; with the cessation of formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the right way.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.3/en/bodhi
If the above is unclear, more below:
And what is clinging These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
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; feeling; perception; fabrication; &/or consciousness to be a 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.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
I think you are confused about what I wrote. I am not talking about Mahayana or Nagarjuna.

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

Re: Bundles of reeds simile.

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:58 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:48 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:37 am
I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure calling DO as essentially about the arising of a sense of self. If the sense of self/existence is itself a perversion, DO itself doesn't point to that. It shows the dependent nature of all arisings. Illusory perceptions are how we commonly construct a self. Even sankharas are not said to be self. I don't see self as part of DO. Self is a perversion of DO. Whether we see this or not, there is never any self. This is dhamma talk.
Perhaps I was a little too brief - I was simply providing some justification for Retro's statements that some might find useful, and a small portion of Ven Nananada's argument, which is based on that vortex of name-and-form.

The various variations of DO describe the arising of suffering, and part of that whole mess is the arising of a sense of self. You seem to be interpreting DO as a positive thing, which doesn't make sense. It's the cessation of DO that is nibbana...

:heart:
Mike
No, neither positive nor negative. Just the way it is. We cannot 'know' what the cessation of DO is really like. The paradigm has changed.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: auto, Bundokji, denise, Kim OHara, Majestic-12 [Bot], rightviewftw, robertk, Sam Vara, smallchap, Sobhana and 95 guests