Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by Sylvester »

Much obliged for your explanation, ancientbuddhism.

I would be the last to disagree with your thoughts about maññati of a self, since that features so prominently in DN 15, even if the terminology used there is slightly different (attānaṃ paññapento paññapeti). This attapaññatti, I suspect, should be synonymous with the attamaññati that you allude to, or perhaps they are closely connected via the papañca process in MN 18. MN 18 explains papañca as a potential consequence of paññatti into contact etc. MN 11 makes the express connection between papañca and the views of existence/non-existence, which is what draws maññati and papañca close together as culprits in Clinging.

Alternatively, attamaññati could be a particularly unskilfull type of paññatti, since DN 15's analysis of nāmarūpa as furnishing paññāvacara (a sphere of wisdom) seems to be mediated by adhivacanapatha (a pathway for designation), niruttipatha (a pathway for language) and paññattipatha (a pathway for description/manifestation). Awakening, it seems, cannot dispense with paññatti, no matter how dangerously close it appears to be the precursor of attamaññati.

But, while nāmarūpa has a prominent role in the construction of self-view as a consequence of contact, I still find it hard to ignore the other aspect of nāmarūpa described in DN 15. That seems to be a description of rebecoming and the formation of a new being. The reference to mātukucchi (mother's womb) is a clear indicator of this. The idea that nāmarūpa can samuccissathā (take shape) in the womb, also does not appear to be a reference to the cognitive process or even adhivacanasamphassa, but looks like a throwback to the Upanishadic idea of nāmarūpa as name and appearance/embodiment.

Unless we accept that nāmarūpa as a term actually has 2 distinct meanings, I think we may need to parse the compound in the the same way when describing either process, ie as a dvanda. I'm currently experimenting with a dvanda reading of nāmarūpa that preserves the potential for attamaññati, but it'll be a while before I'm am even half-sure.

:anjali:
User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by gavesako »

In this new article Ven. Pannobhasa investigates "what the Buddha really originally taught" and in particular he raises doubts about the 12-step formula of Dependent Arising, because he personally prefers the "everything is mutually dependent" interpretation a la Nagarjuna:

http://www.nippapanca.org/articles/What ... yTeach.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

Access to Insight - Theravada texts
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
Dhammatalks.org - Sutta translations
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by DooDoot »

mikenz66 wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:38 amIn the Rig Veda :

1. First there is nothing, not even existence or non-existence. This corresponds to ignorance.
Ignorance in Buddhism is an "element" ("dhatu"; MN 115); an outflow ("asava"; MN 9) and the leader of unskilful qualities (SN 45.1). Therefore, in Buddhism, ignorance is obviously not "nothing". In fact, MN 9 includes within ignorance the asava of existence (bhava) therefore Gombrich is off to a questionable start here.
mikenz66 wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:38 amGombrich continues:
"The later Buddhist tradition did not understand how the Buddha had appropriated this term nama-rupa from the Upanishads. Realising that at this point in the chain there should be a reference to the emergence of the individual person with teh five khandha, the tradition made nama-rupa equivalent to the five khandha by saying that rupa was the first khandha and nama referred to the other four. Since three of these four (vedana, samkhara, and vinnana) appear elsewhere in the chain under their usual names, this can hardly be correct."
For me, the major flaw in ideas of Gombrich here is there appears to be the assumption by Gombrich that the Buddha respected or honored the core Brahmin concept of "nama-rupa". However, I would suggest the opposite occurred; that in the Buddha's redefinition of "nama-rupa" (in SN 12.2) the Buddha utterly trashed the Nibbanically irrelevant Brahmin concept of "nama-rupa" ("naming-forms") and, instead, focused upon how ignorance conditions mentality & physically with defilement.

For example, this is similar to how the Christians redefined the Jewish "god" from a punishing jealous god (asura) to a loving forgiving god (deva). Such redefinitions of core doctrines are the demolition of the former religion into irrelevancy.

:smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by sentinel »

DooDoot wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 10:01 pm
mikenz66 wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:38 amIn the Rig Veda :

1. First there is nothing, not even existence or non-existence. This corresponds to ignorance.
Ignorance in Buddhism is an "element" ("dhatu"; MN 115); an outflow ("asava"; MN 9) and the leader of unskilful qualities (SN 45.1). Therefore, in Buddhism, ignorance is obviously not "nothing". In fact, MN 9 includes within ignorance the asava of existence (bhava) therefore Gombrich is off to a questionable start here.
mikenz66 wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:38 amGombrich continues:
"The later Buddhist tradition did not understand how the Buddha had appropriated this term nama-rupa from the Upanishads. Realising that at this point in the chain there should be a reference to the emergence of the individual person with teh five khandha, the tradition made nama-rupa equivalent to the five khandha by saying that rupa was the first khandha and nama referred to the other four. Since three of these four (vedana, samkhara, and vinnana) appear elsewhere in the chain under their usual names, this can hardly be correct."
For me, the major flaw in ideas of Gombrich here is there appears to be the assumption by Gombrich that the Buddha respected or honored the core Brahmin concept of "nama-rupa". However, I would suggest the opposite occurred; that in the Buddha's redefinition of "nama-rupa" (in SN 12.2) the Buddha utterly trashed the Nibbanically irrelevant Brahmin concept of "nama-rupa" ("naming-forms") and, instead, focused upon how ignorance conditions mentality & physically with defilement.



:smile:
Ignorance as Dhatu is probably better define as Dimension instead of element though .


You're probably right , Buddha's redefined namarupa and ignorance and how it conditions the psychological and physical aspects thus give rise to defilements .
However , you are just one step away from Accurately defining NamaRupa !
You always gain by giving
Post Reply