Dependant Arising - 2nd Link

[sentinel]

I doubt that the meaning that all links in paticasamuppada is everything about Mental construction !

Some argue that interpretation, but I don't think it is well supported by the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2 and MN9. When you read those nidana descriptions there is actually quite a lot of form or "physicality" involved, so DO seems to describe a psycho-physical process rather than a purely mental process.

"Physicality" is a mental consruction.
chownah

I am not so sure ? I am confused . What about your body that is living here on this earth ? Is that a mental construction ? I suppose the money in the bank is not ? Please clarify .

Thanks

[chownah]

Some argue that interpretation, but I don't think it is well supported by the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2 and MN9. When you read those nidana descriptions there is actually quite a lot of form or "physicality" involved, so DO seems to describe a psycho-physical process rather than a purely mental process.

"Physicality" is a mental consruction.
chownah

I am not so sure ? I am confused . What about your body that is living here on this earth ? Is that a mental construction ? I suppose the money in the bank is not ? Please clarify .

Thanks

The experience which leads you to think that you have a body which is living here on this earth is a result of mental constructions being applied to the inputs of the senses and so leads to a mental construction.
Another angle: Do you think that a newborn baby thinks that it has a body which is living here on this earth? I think it does not.....because its interpretations of its experience have not yet fabricate this idea....it will take a couple of years for it to reach level of mental fabrication which includes these ideas.
Another angle: When one is in a formless jhana one does not think that one has a body which is living here on this earth.......does this mean that when in a formless jhana that one is deluded?
chownah

[sentinel]

"Physicality" is a mental consruction.
chownah

I am not so sure ? I am confused . What about your body that is living here on this earth ? Is that a mental construction ? I suppose the money in the bank is not ? Please clarify .

Thanks

The experience which leads you to think that you have a body which is living here on this earth is a result of mental constructions being applied to the inputs of the senses and so leads to a mental construction.
Another angle: Do you think that a newborn baby thinks that it has a body which is living here on this earth? I think it does not.....because its interpretations of its experience have not yet fabricate this idea....it will take a couple of years for it to reach level of mental fabrication which includes these ideas.
Another angle: When one is in a formless jhana one does not think that one has a body which is living here on this earth.......does this mean that when in a formless jhana that one is deluded?
chownah

The baby cannot think yet , but the physical body is reality . You are talking about psychological aspect of the human being .

[chownah]

I am not so sure ? I am confused . What about your body that is living here on this earth ? Is that a mental construction ? I suppose the money in the bank is not ? Please clarify .

Thanks

The experience which leads you to think that you have a body which is living here on this earth is a result of mental constructions being applied to the inputs of the senses and so leads to a mental construction.
Another angle: Do you think that a newborn baby thinks that it has a body which is living here on this earth? I think it does not.....because its interpretations of its experience have not yet fabricate this idea....it will take a couple of years for it to reach level of mental fabrication which includes these ideas.
Another angle: When one is in a formless jhana one does not think that one has a body which is living here on this earth.......does this mean that when in a formless jhana that one is deluded?
chownah

The baby cannot think yet , but the physical body is reality . You are talking about psychological aspect of the human being .

Babies can think....they can make mental constructions but their experience is so limited that it has not yet fabricated the mental construct of the self or the mental constructs necessary to divide experience into the "physical" and "mental"....both of which are mental constructs meaning that it takes a certain amount of data from having experienced for those ideas to arise.
Of course the physical body is "reality".....just like all mental constructs are "reality".....there is no other "reality" in our experience other than mental constructs....and even "mental constructs" is a mental construct......in seeing is only the seen, in the sensing only the sensed, and in the thinking only the thought. In the thinking only the thought means that if you are thinking about the physical body then there is only the thought.....and what are thoughts other than mental constructs?
chownah

[pegembara]

In DO jati is clearly described as physical birth, so I don't understand this comment. Also "bhava" doesn't mean a "being".

Being a person, man, lawyer, father, child, brother, an enlightened one etc. The idea of birth is the result of clinging/upadana to the belief of one's existence. On the brighter side without such clinging there is no birth and no death/annihilation.

I don't understand what you mean by the "idea" of birth, since birth is just a fact of life, something we observe regularly in the human and natural world. Same for aging and death.

Same as the idea of a "self", something we observe regularly in the human and natural world. "Just a fact of life" as you put it.
Did you observe your own birth? Were you born when the eggs get fertilised, or even before that?
When did you become self aware and hence became aware of the meaning of death?

Appearances are determined into existence. Why must we determine them? Because they don't intrinsically exist. For example, suppose somebody wanted to make a marker. He would take a piece of wood or a rock and place it on the ground, and then call it a marker. Actually it's not a marker. There isn't any marker, that's why you must determine it into existence. In the same way we ''determine'' cities, people, cattle - everything! Why must we determine these things? Because originally they do not exist.

Concepts such as ''monk'' and ''layperson'' are also ''determinations.'' We determine these things into existence because intrinsically they aren't here. It's like having an empty dish - you can put anything you like into it because it's empty. This is the nature of determined reality. Men and women are simply determined concepts, as are all the things around us.

If we know the truth of determinations clearly, we will know that there are no beings, because ''beings'' are determined things. Understanding that these things are simply determinations, you can be at peace. But if you believe that the person, being, the ''mine,'' the ''theirs,'' and so on are intrinsic qualities, then you must laugh and cry over them. These are the proliferation of conditioning factors. If we take such things to be ours there will always be suffering. This is micchāditthi, wrong view. Names are not intrinsic realities, they are provisional truths. Only after we are born do we obtain names, isn't that so? Or did you have your name already when you were born? The name comes afterwards, right? Why must we determine these names? Because intrinsically they aren't there.

http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Toward_Unconditioned1.php

“Then, having understood Brahmā’s invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world. Just as in a pond of blue or red or white lotuses, some lotuses—born & growing in the water—might flourish while immersed in the water, without rising up from the water; some might stand at an even level with the water; while some might rise up from the water and stand without being smeared by the water—so too, surveying the world with the eye of an Awakened One, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world.

“Having seen this, I answered Brahmā Sahampati in verse:

‘Open are the doors to the deathless.
Let those with ears show their conviction.
Let them show their conviction.
Perceiving trouble, O Brahmā,
I did not tell people
the refined,
sublime Dhamma.’

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN26.html

[Spiny Norman]

I don't understand what you mean by the "idea" of birth, since birth is just a fact of life, something we observe regularly in the human and natural world. Same for aging and death.

Same as the idea of a "self", something we observe regularly in the human and natural world. "Just a fact of life" as you put it.

I don't see how our sense of self is the same as biological birth. The first is psychological, the second is physical.

Did you observe your own birth?

I don't think anyone does. But then why is ( biological ) birth included as a nidana in DO, if DO only refers to a single lifetime, or only describes a mental process?

Were you born when the eggs get fertilised, or even before that?

Biologically I think it was at the point of conception. But how is this relevant?

When did you become self aware and hence became aware of the meaning of death?

At quite a young age. But again I'm not sure how this is relevant. And we can't put our self-awareness back in the box.

[Spiny Norman]

I doubt that the meaning that all links in paticasamuppada is everything about Mental construction !

Some argue that interpretation, but I don't think it is well supported by the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2 and MN9. When you read those nidana descriptions there is actually quite a lot of form or "physicality" involved, so DO seems to describe a psycho-physical process rather than a purely mental process.

"Physicality" is a mental construction.

The suttas do distinguish between mental and physical ( bodily? ), eg in the classification of vedana. And then there is the distinction in the Arrow Sutta, that between bodily pain and mental anguish. And of course rupa ( form ) is "physical", it's described in terms of the four great elements.

So I don't understand why you're objecting to the distinction between mental and physical - it seems more like a philosophical position than something based on the suttas.

And if I drop a brick on my foot it is going to hurt, whether or not I have a "mental construction" about it.

[Spiny Norman]

The baby cannot think yet , but the physical body is reality . You are talking about psychological aspect of the human being .

Indeed. And this distinction ( bodily v. mental ) is present in the suttas.

[chownah]

Some argue that interpretation, but I don't think it is well supported by the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2 and MN9. When you read those nidana descriptions there is actually quite a lot of form or "physicality" involved, so DO seems to describe a psycho-physical process rather than a purely mental process.

"Physicality" is a mental construction.

The suttas do distinguish between mental and physical ( bodily? ), eg in the classification of vedana. And then there is the distinction in the Arrow Sutta, that between bodily pain and mental anguish. And of course rupa ( form ) is "physical", it's described in terms of the four great elements.

So I don't understand why you're objecting to the distinction between mental and physical - it seems more like a philosophical position than something based on the suttas.

And if I drop a brick on my foot it is going to hurt, whether or not I have a "mental construction" about it.

"Mental" and "physical" are thoughts and associations which are based in the compounded fabrications which historically go back (at least) to our childhood.
Certainly the suttas distinguish between the various fabrications which arise in our experience (such as "mental" and "physical" and many many others) since it is just these fabrications which arise through ignorance that have enthralled us and which are keeping us from seeing the way things really are. I don't think it is merely a philosophical position to point out the obvious that experience is best described as a mental event.....given the absence of any mental activity then what experience is there to report? If there is pain when a brick hits your foot that pain is a mental event.......you do not "feel" the brick hitting your foot....what you feel is a painful bodily feeling and you fabricate the association with the brick....if you didn't see a brick hitting your foot you might not fabricate the concept of a brick hitting your foot....you might fabricate the concept that someone stepped on your foot.....the painful bodily feeling prompts you to fabricate what is its cause.
chownah

[sentinel]

I think there is a buddhist school of Mahayana called "mind only" , it advocate everything is included in the mind phenomena . If everything is mind construction , say when your child dies in an accident , what appears in your mind is the totality of your experience , you would not know Outside of your mind is there anything actual or real such as your son already dead !

[pegembara]

I don't understand what you mean by the "idea" of birth, since birth is just a fact of life, something we observe regularly in the human and natural world. Same for aging and death.

Same as the idea of a "self", something we observe regularly in the human and natural world. "Just a fact of life" as you put it.

I don't see how our sense of self is the same as biological birth. The first is psychological, the second is physical.

Did you observe your own birth?

I don't think anyone does. But then why is ( biological ) birth included as a nidana in DO, if DO only refers to a single lifetime, or only describes a mental process?

Were you born when the eggs get fertilised, or even before that?

Biologically I think it was at the point of conception. But how is this relevant?

When did you become self aware and hence became aware of the meaning of death?

At quite a young age. But again I'm not sure how this is relevant. And we can't put our self-awareness back in the box.

"Psychological" liberation also means "freedom" from physical birth and death. Actually there is no one to be freed.

I will try to explain what I mean.

There is no Dinsdale entity. Therefore Dinsdale was never born. Just a set of conditions that leads to another set. The baby "dinsdale" isn't the same as the adult "Dinsdale".

Just as the Hurricane Florence or Mangkut are just sets of conditions. Giving them names doesn't make them real. The mistake is to take the nameable to be real entities(atta). The result is that entity(atta) is apparently seen to undergo birth, ageing and death ie. moves through time.

The task, then, as the Nikāya Buddha presents it, is to disconnect our naming practices from a belief in the inherent existence of ‘things.’ It is neither the case that ‘things’ have a prior existence, and are there already to be named; nor that the naming creates them.

“Beings are conscious of what can be named,
They are established on the nameable,
By not comprehending the nameable things,
They come under the yoke of death.”
– Translated by Bhikkhu Ñāṇananda, Nibbāna – The Mind Stilled.

http://christopher-ash.com.au/ayeartoli ... ring-view/

“If, Ānanda, consciousness were not to find a footing, or get established in, name-and-form, would there be an arising or origin of birth, decay, death and suffering in the future?”
“No indeed, Lord.”
-Translated by Bhikkhu Ñāṇananda, Nibbāna – The Mind Stilled

http://christopher-ash.com.au/ayeartoli ... ut-naming/

The same message is found in Dogen's Genjōkōan

Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is after and the firewood before. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes before and after and is independent of before and after. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes before and after. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.

This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in the Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

[DooDoot]

It doesn't say that at all. SN5.10 is a teaching on anatta, it's saying that a "being" is just a collection of aggregates.

SN 5.10 appears to literally say "a being" is a view and convention. I will quote it again.

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.'

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

But of course rupa ( the four great elements ) is one of those aggregates, so a "being" clearly has a physical dimension.

It appears physical (rupa) "assumed" to be "a being" is unrelated to what "a being" actually is; as defined as in SN 5.10, namely, a mental assumption, view or convention. SN 12.2 says quite literally "jati" is the "bringing forth" of this & that "beings (sattānaṃ)" into this & that "groups of beings" ("sattanikāye"). The Pali words appear to be plural. The Pali words appear to not say: "birth of a single being among the different beings".

Since the "ignorance" of the 1st link is not a "collective ignorance" from collective kamma, then it appears the plural of "beings" in "groups of beings" could not mean many different physical births at the same time. Instead, it seems to mean the mental categorizing by an individual mind views of many different types of "beings". Instead of viewing the world like a Buddha, namely, composed of 35 billion aggregates, the ordinary person views the world as comprised of 7 billion beings, made up of American beings, English beings, Chinese beings, Arabic beings, Jewish beings, white beings, black beings, yellow beings, brown beings, male beings, females beings, transgender beings, etc. While a Buddha sees only aggregates, sense objects and elements; the ordinary person sees "people" or "beings" left, right, up, down, everywhere.

I think the mere Pali of "tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti" is compelling evidence that "jati" probably does not refer to "physical birth" because that might mean many different types, groups & orders of physical births (sattanikāye) would originate from the same 1st and 2nd links. Why don't we start a new topic about it?

[Spiny Norman]

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html[/i]

It appears physical (rupa) "assumed" to be "a being" is unrelated to what "a being" actually is; as defined as in SN 5.10, namely, a mental assumption, view or convention. SN 12.2 says quite literally "jati" is the "bringing forth" of this & that "beings (sattānaṃ)" into this & that "groups of beings" ("sattanikāye").

So a "being" is what we call a living creature, but it is really just a set of aggregates, a collection of parts. But the nidana "definitions" below clearly describe the birth, aging and death of living creatures, and not just the birth, ageing and death of a view or idea. These descriptions have a strong physical/biological component, and are clearly not just describing a mental process. How can be a view or idea be subject to "decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties...."?

You are attempting to isolate one aspect of birth, but this approach isn't credible because aging and death arise in dependence upon birth - it's all one process.

From SN12.2 ( repeated in MN9 ):

"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 birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

The Pali words appear to be plural. The Pali words appear to not say: "birth of a single being among the different beings".

Actually this plurality argues against the idea of DO as an individual mental experience.

[Spiny Norman]

..if you didn't see a brick hitting your foot you might not fabricate the concept of a brick hitting your foot....you might fabricate the concept that someone stepped on your foot.....the painful bodily feeling prompts you to fabricate what is its cause.
chownah

But the pain is there, regardless of the cause. And the suttas do make a distinction between bodily and mental.

[Spiny Norman]

Therefore Dinsdale was never born.

Oh yes I was, and I have a birth certificate to prove it.

But seriously, there seems to be a fudging of the issue here, an attempt to conflate physical birth and identity view, to conflate the biological and the psychological. But these are not the same.