Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by Sylvester » Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:57 am

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: 1739
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by gavesako » Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:57 pm

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: 3117
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by DooDoot » Sun May 06, 2018 10:01 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:38 am
In 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 am
Gombrich 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:
Never ordained... not an anonymous-online-bhikkhu or ex-bhikkhu...

James Tan
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by James Tan » Tue May 08, 2018 8:21 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 10:01 pm
mikenz66 wrote:
Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:38 am
In 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 am
Gombrich 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 !
:reading:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests