DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by Sylvester »

OK, here’s an analyses of the 3 suttas, starting with Cetana Sutta 1, SN 12.38.
What one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

Yañca, bhikkhave, ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā. Ārammaṇe sati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa hoti. Tasmiṃ patiṭṭhite viññāṇe virūḷhe āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti. Āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbattiyā sati āyatiṃ jāti jarāmaraṇaṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā sambhavanti. Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti.
It will not be apparent from BB’s English translation, but take a look at the Pali, especially where the locative absolute are employed in red. Contrast that to the rest of the passage where that construction is not used. Now, if punabbhava is to be understood metaphorically as denoting mere psychological states attendant with consciousness, instead of renewed bhava in the traditional sense (see AN 3.76 later), why bother with the locative absolute, when the genitive absolute would have been more useful and conclusive in indicating contemporaneity?

Iddapaccayata is famous for its locative absolute construction, and there is nothing in iddapaccayata to indicate contemporaneity in each and every of DO’s nidanas. It may be so for vinnana-namarupa (per SN 12.67) and phassa-vedana (per MN 43). But this is one of the unfortunate side-effects of the modern interpretation of DO – if every paccaya is interpreted as being contemporaneous with its consequence, logically one must conclude that birth is simultaneous with death. It must follow that salayatana and phassa must always co-exist, contradicting MN 28’s allowance for it to be otherwise. In fact, every dhamma in the chain would be contemporaneous with its paccaya and its consequence, leaving no time for states to be recognized.


Skipping the middle passage, we come to the final passage –
When one does not intend, and one does not plan, and one does not have a tendency towards anything, no basis exists for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is no basis, there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is unestablished and does not come to growth, there is no production of future renewed existence. …

Yato ca kho, bhikkhave, no ceva ceteti no ca pakappeti no ca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ na hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā. Ārammaṇe asati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti. Tadappatiṭṭhite viññāṇe avirūḷhe āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti na hoti.
Now, if (i) punabbhava were interpreted to be a metaphor for mere psychological states, and
(ii) “establishment”/patittham were interpreted to be “contacting” in the cognitive series, instead of rebirth consciousness, does this mean that an Arahant free of the anusayas (obliquely referenced by ‘anuseti’) will be unconscious 24/7?

Clearly, “establishment” wrt consciousness is not the event of phassa where consciousness phusati/touches the indriya and ayatana. If phassa or phusati were meant, it is odd that the text speaks of maintenance of consciousness. “ṭhitiyā” is just so far removed from contact.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by Sylvester »

Moving on to Cetana Sutta 2, SN 12.39.
What one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is descent of name-&-form. With name-&-form as condition, the six sense bases (etc per the rest of the std DO formula)

Yañca, bhikkhave, ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā. Ārammaṇe sati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa hoti. Tasmiṃ patiṭṭhite viññāṇe virūḷhe nāmarūpassa avakkanti hoti. Nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ;….
Note again the locative absolute used. If namarupa is simply interpreted as the normal mental states attendant on every cognitive event, why need it “descend”? If namarupa had to “descend” in order to be the sheave of reeds supporting consciousness (as cognitive event), then prior to its descent there would be no salayatana. No salayatana = no phassa. No phassa = no consciousness. Surely the salayatana do not need to descend with each and every phassa? MN 28 posits the “persistence” of the salayatana waiting for tajja samanahara, and not a khanika type of rapid arising and dissolution of the salayatana. If DO were to be interpreted as importing contemporaneity of all of its dhammas, this would surely be impossible –
But was there even one minute spent watching the arising of consciousness, and what caused that consciousness to arise, and the role of attention and intention in the formation of that consciousness?
It’s been said before in another thread but it is worth repeating here. The “establishment” of consciousness is to be understood in the context of rebirth. In SN 4.23, we see this query by Mara after Ven Godhika’s suicide –
That, monks, is Mara searching for the consciousness of the clansman Godhika, wondering : “Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Godhika been established?” However, monks, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Godhika has attained final Nibbana.

“Eso kho, bhikkhave, māro pāpimā godhikassa kulaputtassa viññāṇaṃ samanvesati— ‘kattha godhikassa kulaputtassa viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitan’ti? Appatiṭṭhitena ca, bhikkhave, viññāṇena godhiko kulaputto parinibbuto”ti
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by Sylvester »

Moving on to the Bhava Sutta 1, AN 3.76.
As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, this word, 'becoming, becoming' — to what extent is there becoming?
"Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-realm, would sensuality-becoming be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in a lower realm. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.

Ekamantaṃ nisinno kho āyasmā ānando bhagavantaṃ etadavoca— “bhavo, bhavoti, bhante, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, bhavo hotī”ti?
Kāmadhātuvepakkañca, ānanda, kammaṃ nābhavissa, api nu kho kāmabhavo paññāyethā”ti? “No hetaṃ, bhante”.
“Iti kho, ānanda, kammaṃ khettaṃ, viññāṇaṃ bījaṃ, taṇhā sneho. Avijjānīvaraṇānaṃ sattānaṃ taṇhāsaṃyojanānaṃ hīnāya dhātuyā viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ evaṃ āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti.
Certainly, the lines between the kamadhatu, rupadhatu and arupadhatu are porous, here and now, given the possibility of Jhana to move one from one dhatu to the other. This might then import a mere psychological dimension to “bhava”, instead of a cosmological one. But given how “establishment” of consciousness is clearly used to suggest rebirth, I say that the cosmological dimension is intended for bhava.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by Sylvester »

retrofuturist wrote:Just so long as you know in advance, words translated as "descent" or "establishment" will not cut the mustard if you're attempting to convince me of a biological reading to namarupa, that is not amenable to said 'nama-rupa' ceasing due to vijja within this lifetime.
Well, according to the locative absolute formulation of the negative series in the Cetana Sutta 2, SN 12.39-
Yato ca kho, bhikkhave, no ceva ceteti no ca pakappeti no ca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ na hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā. Ārammaṇe asati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti. Tadappatiṭṭhite viññāṇe avirūḷhe nāmarūpassa avakkanti na hoti
there will be no descent of namarupa when consciousness is not established. The nirodha of namarupa in the reverse order of DO can also read as non-arising, tying nicely to non-descent.

It's not just DN 15, but SN 12.39 which also attests to a biological presentation of rupa in namarupa.
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by piotr »

Hi Acinteyyo,
acinteyyo wrote:The Buddha never taught that "I am born", "I will die" or "I will be reborn"
  • "'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' This is the third fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.

    ...

    "Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death'? There are beings who are intoxicated with a [typical] living person's intoxication with life. Because of that intoxication with life, they conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that living person's intoxication with life will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...

    Upajjhatthana-sutta (AN 5.57)
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sylvester,

Whether these words are locative absolutes, genitive absolutes, or whatever, is irrelevant if the fundamental understanding of what the root form of each word actually means in terms of its experience or application.

For example, "birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres" means something very real and relevant to existence, here-and-now. If you believe "birth" in this context to refer to some biological thing bursting forth from the womb, then there is nothing to be learned from this teaching in this life. Whereas, regarded phenomenologically, in terms of experience, these words (and the selection of the words used) have very real and profound implications to how one rightly views their experiences with discernment. This way of viewing things is not conventional and worldly, and thus the idiomatic nature of the Pali serves some purpose in leaving openings where openings are apt, and means that language isn't as much of a limitation as it might otherwise be.

To wit, I've read your posts but they have convinced me of nothing, sorry. I hope others find benefit in your exposition, but I do not see how such an understanding can be applied in order to attain liberation... rather, I see a belief system, and I see the liberative elements of the teaching obscured. It feels like the Dhamma being hermitically sealed, studied, and dissected... without at any point being embraced, utilised or fully tested for oneself, not by logic or inference.
AN 3.65 wrote:"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness" — then you should enter & remain in them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by acinteyyo »

piotr wrote:Hi Acinteyyo,
acinteyyo wrote:The Buddha never taught that "I am born", "I will die" or "I will be reborn"
  • "'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' This is the third fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.

    ...

    "Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death'? There are beings who are intoxicated with a [typical] living person's intoxication with life. Because of that intoxication with life, they conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that living person's intoxication with life will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...

    Upajjhatthana-sutta (AN 5.57)
This is exactly what I was talking about, unfortunately what I was trying to point out has not been understood. The Buddha tells us "I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death." and you seem to understand it simply as "I will die" not seeing the clinging, the conceit "I am". That this is a hint directly pointing to clinging. Whatever it is which will be regarded as "I am this" is one, more or all of the aggregates. It is impermanent, fabricated and suffering. Arising, passing away, alteration while staying is discernible of what is fabricated and because of unskillfully regarding what is fabricated as "I am this", "I am subject to death" (ceasing) applies as well es "I am subject to birth" (arising) and "I am subject to aging" (alteration while staying).

That means, as long as the aggregates are considered to be "me, mine, this is my self, I am this" this makes the identification subject to birth, aging and death.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by rowyourboat »

Hi Retro, Sylvester,

My opinion is that to miss out the physical reality of literal rebirth is to consign this great dhamma to mere psychology. It saps it of being something greater than you or me, it's sense of vastness of samsara, and reduces it to therapy.

But that's just me..

With metta

Matheesha
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings RYB,

I don't think anyone here denies the value in rebirth belief... the matter in question is whether it needs to be shoehorned into the Buddha's sublime teachings on dependent origination - turning it from a revolutionary phenomenological framework into a mere belief system of transmigration due to ignorance and craving.

Furthermore, I don't see the problem in the Dhamma being regarded as "therapy"... it's a cure for dukkha.
MN 75 wrote:Magandiya, associate with men of integrity. When you associate with men of integrity, you will hear the true Dhamma. When you hear the true Dhamma, you will practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. When you practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, you will know & see for yourself: 'These things are diseases, cancers, arrows. And here is where diseases, cancers, & arrows cease without trace. With the cessation of my clinging comes the cessation of becoming. With the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by ground »

retrofuturist wrote:... phenomenological framework ... mere belief system of transmigration.
Which may be revealed to be an ill-founded fabricated dichotomy ... if seen from the phenomenological perspective which entails sort of integration as "neither one nor two".


Kind regards
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:the matter in question is whether it [rebirth] needs to be shoehorned into the Buddha's sublime teachings on dependent origination
MN 75 wrote:Magandiya, associate with men of integrity. When you associate with men of integrity, you will hear the true Dhamma. When you hear the true Dhamma, you will practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. When you practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, you will know & see for yourself: 'These things are diseases, cancers, arrows. And here is where diseases, cancers, & arrows cease without trace. With the cessation of my clinging comes the cessation of becoming. With the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."
Well, as this text neatly shows, no shoehorning needed. Taking the language at face value, it is there.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Taking the language at face value, it is there.
Oh, I didn't say the shoehorning was recent. As mentioned above, I'm skeptical that DN 15 itself is probably not the Buddha's teaching. I would not be the first to raise such doubts about it.

By the way... wasn't it you who was just talking about Pali being an idiomatic language. 8-)

As for "With the cessation of my clinging comes the cessation of becoming. With the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease.".... if jati is understood to be "literal post-mortem rebirth", then "literal post-mortem rebirth" has to cease before "sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease"... meaning that an arahant (or Buddha, for that matter) cannot bring an end to dukkha in this lifetime. No hop, skips and jumps around the nidanas, at face value, it is there.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings TMingyur,
TMingyur wrote:Which may be revealed to be an ill-founded fabricated dichotomy ... if seen from the phenomenological perspective which entails sort of integration as "neither one nor two".
I'm not establishing that as a dichotomy... they're just two different ways to look at it. Doubtless there are others.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:meaning that an arahant (or Buddha, for that matter) cannot bring an end to dukkha in this lifetime. No hop, skips and jumps around the nidanas, at face value, it is there.
One can try to exorcise rebirth from paticcasamuppada by reading part of it figuratively and part of it literally, as some do, but once there is awakening there is no more becoming – no grasping after, no pushing away, no more impelling self-delusion leading to further birth and death and all that is in between. With the stopping of becoming, dukkha is stopped now. It works with or without rebirth.

Through not seeing the Four Noble Truths,
Long was the weary path from birth to birth.
When these are known, removed is rebirth's cause,
The root of sorrow plucked; then ends rebirth.
DN ii 91

With firm resolve, guard your own mind!
Whoso untiringly pursues the Dhamma and the Discipline
Shall go beyond the round of births and make an end of suffering.
DN ii 123

"Destroyed is birth; the higher life is fulfilled; nothing more is to
be done, and beyond this life nothing more remains."
DN ii 153
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:One can try to exorcise rebirth from paticcasamuppada by reading part of it figuratively and part of it literally, as some do
Yes, some may do, but that's not what I'm advocating. No 'figuratively' or 'literally' at play... just 'phenomenologically', understanding the terms as the Buddha explained (and as he himself experienced prior to becoming Buddha), rather than as how some unenlightened translator rendered them, presumably through the lens of commentaries. So no need to exorcise "rebirth", because it's not there in the first place. The only "rebirth" entailed is the fact we go through that sad process with every sankhara that arises due to avijja... that is the 'round' of 'existence'.... i.e. repeatedly giving these things existence, through failure to see the conditionality underpinning any distorted perception of 'existence'... over and over again. That is why (getting back to the topic) there is no dependent origination that is not dependent upon avijja and sankhara, and importantly, why avijja and sankhara should not be assigned to a 'previous life', where we cannot observe, here-and-now, their active role in influencing and shaping subsequent formations and nidanas being experienced in this lifetime.
tiltbillings wrote:but once there is awakening there is no more becoming – no grasping after, no pushing away, no more impelling self-delusion leading to further birth and death and all that is in between. With the stopping of becoming, dukkha is stopped now. It works with or without rebirth.
Yes, I agree.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply