Co-dependent Origination?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by vinasp » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:52 am

Hi Sam Vega,

Quote:"You seem to be saying that feeling is something that is desired; that one desires to feel some feeling or other - is that the case?"

Yes. SN 27.5 says:

"Bhikkhus, desire and lust for feeling born of eye contact ... for feeling born
of mind contact is a corruption of the mind. ..."

All desire must have an object, one cannot speak of a desire without specifying
the object. But there are really two objects. The first is just a thought which
is part of the desire. This thought represents the actual thing which is desired.
This actual thing is the second object.

In the passage above does "desire and lust for feeling" mean desire together
with its thought object, or does it mean desire and lust for actual feeling?

When desire and lust for feeling ceases, "feeling" as the thought object of the
desire, also ceases.

SN 27.1 speaks of "desire and lust for the eye", elsewhere the "eye" is said to
"fade away and cease" due to "revulsion towards the eye".
This "revulsion" counteracts the desire and lust, reducing and eventually
removing it. The result is - no "eye" as a thought object of desire.

Quote:"And does this mean that the other links in the chain are also things that one could or does desire?"

There is said to be desire for the six-spheres, contact, feeling and craving.
But dispassion must be developed towards all these and also everything which
arises due to contact.

There is also said to be desire for form, feeling, perception, volitional
formations, and consciousness (see SN 27.10). This could cover most of the
items in the DO chain before the six-spheres, with the exception of ignorance.

Regards, Vincent.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4423
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:33 am

reflection
Revulsion (or dispassion) is a natural result of seeing things as they are.
I think it might be more useful to separate out revulsion (nibbida) from dispassion (viraga), as Mike's quoted sutta points out. The dispassion appears to be supported by the attempt to turn the will aside from something (re-volens, the root of revulsion). I also like the translation "disgust", but again in the minimal sense of unwillingness to consume, rather than the stronger sense of wanting to vomit, etc. Revulsion is a little more active than dispassion.

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by vinasp » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:00 pm

Hi DarwidHalim,

Quote: "I just have a doubt with this translated Sutta."
"through revulsion towards the eye". End Quote.

Yes. I see your point, that is a good question.

"If, through revulsion towards the eye, through its fading away and cessation,
one is liberated by nonclinging ..."[Part of SN 35.155, BB, CD, page 1217.]

cakkhussa ce, bhikkhu, nibbidā virāgā nirodhā anupādāvimutto hoti [SN 35.138 DPR]

Here, nirodha is cessation, viraga is fading away, and nibbida is revulsion.

PED entry for nibbida [edited]:

Nibbidā (f.) [ ... ] weariness, disgust with worldly life, tedium, aversion, indifference, disenchantment N. is of the preliminary & conditional states for the attainment of Nibbāna (see nibbāna II B 1) & occurs frequently together with ;virāga, vimutti & nibbāna; ..."

Does nibbida in this passage mean a positive aversion or just the absence of
desire and lust? I do not know.

Regards, Vincent.

User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by reflection » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:20 pm

Sam Vega wrote:reflection
Revulsion (or dispassion) is a natural result of seeing things as they are.
I think it might be more useful to separate out revulsion (nibbida) from dispassion (viraga), as Mike's quoted sutta points out. The dispassion appears to be supported by the attempt to turn the will aside from something (re-volens, the root of revulsion). I also like the translation "disgust", but again in the minimal sense of unwillingness to consume, rather than the stronger sense of wanting to vomit, etc. Revulsion is a little more active than dispassion.
Yes point well made, but it becomes just a matter of words basically. Also, I'm not native English, so for me these tiny nuances in words don't mean a lot, anyway. I think they shouldn't, anyway, for it would place the emphasis on intellect rather than actual understanding. The main idea is that there is aversion based on ill will and 'aversion' based on insight. They are fundamentally different. In the practice this can be much more obvious than any possible translation will ever be.

:hello:
:anjali:

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by DarwidHalim » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:42 pm

Vinasp:
Nibbidā (f.) [ ... ] weariness, disgust with worldly life, tedium, aversion, indifference, disenchantment N. is of the preliminary & conditional states for the attainment of Nibbāna (see nibbāna II B 1) & occurs frequently together with ;virāga, vimutti & nibbāna; ..."
If we see this possible translation of nibbida, there are a lot of contradicting words here.

Aversion and disgust with Worldly life is basically just same.

Disgust is actually the root of aversion. It is even worse than aversion.

Because of ignorant, not able to see something as what they really are, for some object you feel disgust, and for some object you feel attraction. The one that you feel disgust, you avert it. And the one you attract to, you attach.

The right word in my opinion should be indifferent.

Indifferent is unbiased. It is unbiased to good nor bad - and that is the nature of this reality.

The eye see the shit.
Consciousness rised through the eye (which we can call eye consciousness) does not have the ability to differentiate that shit as good or bad.

It is at the second level - which is mind consciousness that is the culprit to differentiate that shit as good or bad.

The way we differentiate that shit as good or bad is the reflection of our ignorance.
One of Buddhist master said this:
...in seeing all the dharmas, the mind is not defiled or attached.....
[The mind’s] functioning pervades all locations, yet it is not attached to all the locations
.

If we see something and at that instant, we have the sense of disgust, your mind has been defiled.

Your mind has been defiled by something not there, because in reality what you see is actually indifferent.

How can we free from aversion and attachment?
It is actually not through this sense of disgust.

But actually through the sense of indifferent.

When we have this ability to see everything as indifferent, the monkey stop from jumping here and there. It stops from jumping between attachment and aversion.

Because of that, the mind achieve its natural stability.

When this natural stability is achieved through the ability to see every diversity of form, sound, etc. as indifferent, your peace of mind born naturally due to the stopping of monkey mind born from this wisdom.

When anger arise, the arising of anger is not the sign of failure.

But if that anger, successfully defile you so you feel disgust to it and vow to subdue anger, you get defile. All efforts are then effort based on conceptual.

But when that anger arise and we can see the indifferent of that anger as not bad nor good, that anger has no power to bother you as something need to be reacted or something need to e abandoned.

Through that indifferent wisdom, the anger pass by like the dark cloud pass by the indifferent (unbiased) sky.

Untouch through the power of indifferent.

Liberation is natural without any efforts.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
piotr
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by piotr » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:57 pm

Hi,
DarwidHalim wrote:Liberation is natural without any efforts.
The Buddha:
  • "Monks, what is the noble eightfold path? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

    (...)

    "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds, & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort.

    — SN 45.8, trans. Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4423
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:23 pm

reflection
The main idea is that there is aversion based on ill will and 'aversion' based on insight. They are fundamentally different. In the practice this can be much more obvious than any possible translation will ever be.
Yes, I agree that this is the central distinction - thanks for reminding me of it.

I'm surprised you say that you are not a native English speaker, by the way!

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by Nyana » Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:53 pm

vinasp wrote: "If, through revulsion towards the eye, through its fading away and cessation,
one is liberated by nonclinging, one can be called a bhikkhu who has attained
Nibbana in this very life." [Part of SN 35.155]

Passages such as this one compel us to rethink our understanding of Dependent
Origination.
No, they don't.

Here's a suggestion: Set aside this speculative theorizing and practice satipaṭṭhāna.

Dinsdale
Posts: 5986
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:33 am

mikenz66 wrote:And see SN 12.23 Upanisa Sutta: Discourse on Supporting Conditions
"Regarding this knowledge of destruction, I declare that there is a supporting condition without which it does not arise...What is this supporting condition? Liberation... Liberation has a supporting condition...: Dispassion... Dispassion has a supporting condition...: Disenchantment [nibbida]... Disenchantment has a supporting condition...: Knowledge-and-vision-of-things-as-they-are... Knowledge-and-vision-of-things-as-they-are has a supporting condition...: Concentration... Concentration has a supporting condition...: Happiness... Happiness has a supporting condition...: Tranquillity... Tranquillity has a supporting condition...: Rapture... Rapture has a supporting condition...: Joy... Joy has a supporting condition...: Faith... Faith has a supporting condition...: Suffering...Suffering has a supporting condition...: Birth...Becoming... Grasping... Craving... Feeling... Contact... the Six Sense-Bases... Name-and-Form... Consciousness... the (kamma-) formations... Ignorance...
:anjali:
Mike
Yes, well remembered!
Buddha save me from new-agers!

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by vinasp » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:08 am

Hi everyone,

This post attempts to demonstrate that there is "desire" for many "things".
I will try to argue, in due course, that this "desire" is more fundamental
than craving, since it is the "root" or origin of many of the things which
craving is said to arise in dependence on.

These twenty-four things comprise what I will call Group A.

Eye, forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact.
Ear, sounds, ear-consciousness, ear-contact.
Nose, odours, nose-consciousness, nose-contact.
Tongue, flavours, tongue-consciousness, tongue-contact.
Body, tangibles, body-consciousness, body-contact.
Mind, mind-objects, mind-consciousness, mind-contact.

In various discourses this group is extended in one of three ways:

a) The six (or eighteen) kinds of feeling are added after contact.
b) Feeling, perception, volition and craving are added.
c) Everything that arises due to contact is included.

In MN 147.9 we find: "Seeing thus, Rahula, a well-taught noble disciple becomes
disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, ..."
[ And so forth, for all the items in Group A, together with a type (c) extension.]

" ... and disenchanted with anything comprised within the feeling, perception,
formations, and consciousness that arise with eye-contact as condition."

The Pali word translated as "disenchanted" is - nibbindati: gets wearied of; is
disgusted with. [B. Bodhi, MLDB page 1127.]

So the 'ordinary man' is 'enchanted' with these things, and desires them.
The phrase "seeing thus" refers to seeing "the eye" as impermanent, suffering
and non-self. Seeing "the eye" in this way results in disenchantment. The ordinary
man sees "the eye" as permanent, a source of pleasure, and related to self. This
is why he is enchanted with "the eye", and has desire and lust for it.

"Bhikkhus, when one does not know and see the eye as it actually is ..."
" ... then one is inflamed by lust for the eye, for forms, ..."
"Bhikkhus, when one knows and sees the eye as it actually is ..."
" ...then one is not inflamed by lust for the eye, for forms, ..."
[ And so forth, for all the items in Group A, plus feelings.]
[ MN 149.3 to 149.9 - B. Bodhi, MLDB page 1137-8.]

The Pali word translated as "inflamed by lust" here is:
sārajjati: to be attached to, to be pleased with, (saṃ + raj + ya.

We have already noted SN 27.1 to 27.4 which say that:

" ... desire and lust for the eye is a corruption of the mind."
[ And so forth, for all the items in Group A.]

SN 27.5 to 27.8 speak of "desire and lust" for feeling, perception, volition,
and craving. A bhikkhu must abandon this mental corruption. [Bodhi, 2000, p.1012]

The Pali term translated as "desire and lust" here is - chandarāgo.

In SN 35.28 the items of Group A, plus the eighteen types of feeling are called
"the all", and are said to be "burning":

"Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hatred, with the fire of
delusion, ..."
"Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion
towards the eye ..." [ and all the items in Group A, plus the eighteen feelings.]
"Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind
is liberated. ..." [Bhikkhu Bodhi, Connected Discourses, page 1143.]

Translation notes: rāgaggi: the fire of lust. (m.)
dosaggi: the fire of anger. (m.)
mohaggi: the fire of delusion.
Revulsion = nibbindati: gets wearied of; is disgusted with.
Dispassionate = virāga: dispassionateness; absence of desire. (m.)

In SN 35.76 - Radha (1) [Bodhi], [DPR, SN 35.59], we read:

"Radha, you should abandon desire (chando) for whatever is impermanent. And
what is impermanent? ..." [All the items in Group A, plus the eighteen feelings.]

If we are told to abandon desire for all these things then we obviously do have
such desires. But what exactly are these desires? Take "the eye" for example,
what does it mean that one has "desire and lust for the eye"?

Regards, Vincent.

User avatar
piotr
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by piotr » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:09 am

Hi Vincent,
vinasp wrote:If we are told to abandon desire for all these things then we obviously do have
such desires. But what exactly are these desires? Take "the eye" for example,
what does it mean that one has "desire and lust for the eye"?
It's desire for seeing. I think that you're stuck with an idea that here „the eye” (cakkhu) is an actual organ. But in fact if you take a look at Pāli you can see that there's more or less clear distinction in terminology between organ & function of an organ.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12R4 ... eNSqE/edit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by vinasp » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:34 am

Hi piotr,

Quote:"It's desire for seeing. I think that you're stuck with an idea that here „the eye” (cakkhu) is an actual organ. But in fact if you take a look at Pāli you can see that there's more or less clear distinction in terminology between organ & function of an organ."

I cannot read Pali, and have only a small vocabulary at present. I did not even
know that there was another word for "eye".

Your suggestion that cakkhu means "seeing" is an interesting one, and I do not
reject it. However, there do seem to be some problems with such an idea.

1. You are claiming that our current best English translations are seriously in
error with their treatment of these terms. This is possible but would need
to be demonstrated in detail.

2. What about "eye-consciousness"? This is often understood as "seeing". When
it is said that eye-consciouness arises in dependence on the eye and (visible)
form, this would mean that seeing is said to arise in dependence on sight.
But seeing and sight are the same thing.

3. The problem in #2 could be removed by some alternative understanding of
eye-consciousness, by taking it in a cognitive sense, for example.

4. Some of the most puzzling passages about the "eye" do not make any more sense
when we read "eye" as "sight" or "seeing."

Here is SN 35.7

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent both of the past and the
future, not to speak of the present. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed
noble disciple is indifferent towards the eye of the past; he does not seek
delight in the eye of the future; and he is practising for revulsion towards
the eye of the present, for its fading away and cessation."

[Repeat for ear, nose, tongue, body and mind.]

" ... and he is practising for revulsion towards seeing in the present, for its
fading away and cessation." [?]

The only understanding of "eye" which could make any sense here would be one
which takes "eye" as something which is non-essential and should be eliminated.

Regards, vincent.

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by daverupa » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:00 pm

vinasp wrote: 1. You are claiming that our current best English translations are seriously in
error with their treatment of these terms. This is possible but would need
to be demonstrated in detail.
I understand that Pali translation is already under such scrutiny; "current best English" presupposes the conclusion you wish to reach, so you will want to edit that assumption.
vinasp wrote: 2. What about "eye-consciousness"? This is often understood as "seeing". When
it is said that eye-consciouness arises in dependence on the eye and (visible)
form, this would mean that seeing is said to arise in dependence on sight.
But seeing and sight are the same thing.
Again, "often understood" is a presupposition, and something of an argumentum ad populum.
vinasp wrote: 3. The problem in #2 could be removed by some alternative understanding of
eye-consciousness, by taking it in a cognitive sense, for example.
Or, understand that sight/seeing only occurs with the confluence of the three, and that 'seeing' is not only one of them.
vinasp wrote:4... The only understanding of "eye" which could make any sense here would be one
which takes "eye" as something which is non-essential and should be eliminated.
SN 35.191 wrote:"No, my friend. The eye is not the fetter of forms, nor are forms the fetter of the eye. Whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

User avatar
piotr
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by piotr » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:50 pm

Hi Vincent,

Thanks for your questions. It's always good to verify one's own ideas. So here is my attempt to clarify your doubts about mine.
vinasp wrote:1. You are claiming that our current best English translations are seriously in error with their treatment of these terms. This is possible but would need to be demonstrated in detail.
I don't think that these translations are wrong. For example ‘eye’ is an ambigous term in English (it's the same in my native Polish language, as well as in Pāli). It can refer to eyeball or to eyesight (see this). The same might apply to ‘ear’, ‘nose’, etc. I don't know translators' intentions behind this particular rendering, but I think that it's quite convenient to use ambigous terms in such cases. Translator can use one rendering regardless of the context. As far as I remember it was Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli's aspiration to use only one English term for one term in Pāli.
2. What about "eye-consciousness"? This is often understood as "seeing". When it is said that eye-consciouness arises in dependence on the eye and (visible) form, this would mean that seeing is said to arise in dependence on sight. But seeing and sight are the same thing.
Consciousness (viññaṇa) refers to the mind's knowing faculty in contrast with other aspects of mind, i.e. feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā) and volition (saṅkhāra). So basically it's cognizance. As for sight and seeing they don't need to be the same thing (see this).
4. Some of the most puzzling passages about the "eye" do not make any more sense when we read "eye" as "sight" or "seeing."
I don't see anything puzzling in this quote. Are you familiar with concept of two kinds of extinguishments (nibbāna)? If not, take a look at Iti 44. First kind is an extinguishment with residue (i.e. with unimpared five senses, and with mind lacking of greed, hatred and delusion). Second kind is an extinguishment without residue, that is when ‘residue’ stops functioning and ceases.

The quote seems to imply that a reader knows this two kinds of extinguishments. “Practising for revulsion (nibbidā), dispassion (virāga) and cessation (nirodha) of the present eye” (as I would translate this passage) means that disciple practices dhamma in order to understand things for what they are (yathābhūtañāṇadassana). This is a supporting condition for revulsion. Revulsion is a supporting condition for dispassion. And dispassion is a supporting condition for emancipation (vimutti) (see SN 12.23) which is, I think, a synonym for achievement of extinguishment with residue. And then, when the time comes, after break up of the body, extinguishment without residue takes place — that is ‘eye’ (along with other senses) finally ceases.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Post by Nyana » Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:47 pm

:goodpost:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AgarikaJ, Baidu [Spider], budo, Google [Bot], Volovsky and 101 guests