SteRo wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:15 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:05 pm
That's fine. However I have encountered in this forum the view that dependent origination only refers to the arising of dukkha. And looking at the sutta that view seems to be supported.
So in case of an arahant dependent origination is not applicable. But since an arahant still is able to live in this world, is able to eat and drink etc. there must be the arising and cessation of phenomena in her/his sphere of experience, too. But liberated from dukkha dependent origination isn't applicable in case of the arahant.
There are two forms of Nibbana. Whilst still alive the Buddha sees forms etc and uses the conventions of the world, but he is no longer fooled by them. The same for Arahants. Upon death, the aggregates then all grow cold and cease.
Ok. Then "Whilst still alive" the arahant still is subject to ignorance in the context of the arising and cessation of phenomena but no longer subject to ignorance as the root cause of dukkha. So there are actually two kinds of dependent origination: the standard one that leads to dukkha and the arahant's dependent arising that causes the arising and cessation of phenomena but lacks the factors that are necessary for dukkha. That's ok for me since from my perspective there are two kinds of ignorance and the arahant that is alive still is subject to ignorance but not to that ignorance that causes dukkha.
No, its due to old kamma not present ignorance:
"The eye [ear, nose tongue, body (touch), mind], monks, is to be regarded as old kamma, brought into existence and created by volition, forming a basis for feeling. This, monks, is called 'old kamma."
However, the Buddha's experience is different to that of the worldly person:
""Monks, whatsoever in the world with its gods, Maras and Brahmas, among the progeny consisting of recluses and brahmins, gods and men — whatsoever is seen, heard, sensed,1 cognized, attained, sought after and pondered over by the mind all that do I know. Monks, whatsoever in the world .........of gods and men — whatsoever is seen, .........by the mind — that have I fully understood; all that is known to the Tathagata,2 but the Tathagata has not taken his stand upon it.
If I were to say : 'Monks, whatsoever in the world . . . .of gods and men — whatsoever is seen .....by the mind — all that I do not know' — it would be a falsehood in me.1 If I were to say : 'I both know it and know it not' - that too would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say : 'I neither know it nor am ignorant of it' — it would be a fault in me.
Thus, monks, a Tathagata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive about a seer.
He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing; he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth—hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.
He does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from sensation; he does not conceive of an unsensed; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth—sensing'; he does not conceive about one who senses.
He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth—cognizing'; he does not conceive about one who cognizes.
Thus, monks, the Tathagata being such-like in regard to all phenomena seen, heard, sensed and cognized, is 'Such'. Moreover, than he who is 'Such', there is none other greater or more excellent, I declare.
Whatever is seen, heard, sensed or clung to,
is esteemed as truth by other folk,
Midst those who are entrenched in their own views’
being 'Such' I hold none as true or false."