Sylvester wrote:Looking back again at Jurewicz' essay... she acknowledges that there is no avidya in the Vedas. Thus, she resorts to the mysterious state in which neither sat (Being) nor asat (Non-Being) exist, which is expressed in the Nasadiya Sukta. She equates this state as the Vedic antecedent to the Buddha's description of avijja.
Now, here's the bummer. Doubt has now been thrown on the age of the Nasadiya Sukta. It has been suggested that the Nasadiya Sukta is a very, very late addition to the Vedas...
If we now discount the Nasadiya Sukta as furnishing any Vedic antecedent to DO, I think we can safely say that during the Buddha's career, the First Point in Indian cosmogony was either Sat or Atman.
...Perhaps the parody theory needs to be re-examined...
daverupa wrote:nowheat wrote:daverupa wrote:I agree that tying English "self" to sakkayaditthi and asmimana is best.
Atta is probably worth discussing in terms of English "soul", since paticcasamuppada-12 is already pedagogically structured to counter a theistic model which relies on such a thing.
You're saying that dependent arising in its 12 step formula denies a god-created soul?
I'm saying it lampoons an Upanisadic understanding of the creation of the cosmos and the soul, and therefore denies that claim. It's an instance of idapaccayata being held against a prevailing metaphysics in order to accomplish Dhamma instruction, which means it's possible that it can serve this purpose against modern understandings of a soul as well.
daverupa wrote:...This is probably something I read, perhaps Gombrich somewhere.
mikenz66 wrote:Yes, see here:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7464Gombrich wrote: " My conclusion is that Frauwallner and Hwang are right, and the Buddha's chain originally went back only five links, to thirst. (It could also go back six, seven, or eight links - nothing hangs on the difference.) Then, at another point, the Buddha produced a different causal chain to ironize and criticise Vedic cosmogony, and noticed that it led very nicely into the earlier chain - perhaps because it is natural for the creation of the individual to lead straight on to the six senses, and these, via 'contact' and 'feeling', to thirst. It is quite plausible, however, that someone failed to notice that once the first four links become part of the chain, it's negative version meant that in order to abolish ignorance one first had to abolish consciousness!"
ancientbuddhism wrote:Indeed, the Buddha deconstructed the Upaniṣadic claims of an ātman principle at play in the psychophysical experience of pañcakkhandha, and established paṭiccasamuppāda to reconstruct what is in ignorance taken up as self.
Sylvester wrote:ancientbuddhism wrote:Indeed, the Buddha deconstructed the Upaniṣadic claims of an ātman principle at play in the psychophysical experience of pañcakkhandha, and established paṭiccasamuppāda to reconstruct what is in ignorance taken up as self.
I've not had the time to read every page of the 2 main Upanishads, but do you get the impression that none of them had actually strung together a coherent and systematic causal model like the Buddhist model of causation in paṭiccasamuppāda? If anything, I see the scholarly opinion that some of the Upanishadic cosmogenies are mutually inconsistent. It appears that the Buddha may have lifted disparate Upanishadic concepts, those which He may have thought to be critical to the problem of sakkāya, and put them in 2 coherent sequences to explain the origin of suffering and the cessation of suffering.
ancientbuddhism wrote:[... But I also have to wonder that if there was no accretion of Upaniṣadic ontology at the time of the Nikāyas, that the Buddha would still have identified the same culprit of self-identity to be overcome toward liberation, only of a different name?
taddhedaṁ tarhy avyᾱkṛtam ᾱsīt, tan nᾱma-rῡpᾱbhyᾱm eva vyᾱkriyata, asau nᾱma, ayam idaṁ rῡpa iti, tad idam apy etarhi nᾱma-rῡpᾱbhyᾱm eva vyᾱkriyate, asau nᾱma, ayam idaṁ rῡpa iti. sa eṣa iha praviṣṭa ᾱnakhᾱgrebhyaḥ yathᾱ, kṣuraḥ kṣuradhᾱne' vahitaḥ syᾱt, viśvam-bharo vᾱ viśvam-bhara-kulᾱye, taṁ na paśyanti. a-kṛtsno hi saḥ, prᾱṇann eva prᾱṇo nᾱma bhavati, vadan vᾱk, paśyaṁś cakṣuḥ, śṛṇvan śrotram, manvᾱno manaḥ, tᾱny asyaitᾱni karma-nᾱmᾱny eva. sa yo'ta ekaikam upᾱste, na sa veda, akṛtsno hy eṣo'ta ekaikena bhavati, ᾱtmety evopᾱsīta, atra hi ete sarva ekam bhavanti. tad etat padanīyam asya sarvasya yad ayam ᾱtmᾱ, anena hy etat sarvaṁ veda, yathᾱ ha vai padenᾱnuvindet. evaṁ kīrtiṁ ślokaṁ vindate ya evaṁ veda.
At that time, all of this (the World) was undifferentiated. By means of name and form, it became differentiated - "This has this name, this has this form". And even now, people say, "This is his name, this is his form", distinguishing by means of name and form. He entered in here, right up to the tips of his fingernails, as a razor is hidden in a razor sheath, or fire is inside firewood. People do not see him, for (whatever they see) is incomplete. Whenever one breaths, he becomes breath; whenever one speaks, he is speech; seeing, he is the eye; hearing, the ear; thinking, the mind. These are just the names for his acts. Whoever worships one (aspect) or another does not understand, for he is incomplete in any one or another. Rather, one should worship with the thought, "This is the Self", for all of these become one in that. That by which one can follow in the footsteps of this All, that is the Self, through which this All is known, just as one might track down and find something by a footprint. Whoever knows this finds fame and praise.
BAU 1.4.7, trans Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty