I am undoubtedly going in circles here, but it's together with you, so I don't mind. We keep each other company.
lol this whole thread goes in circles
Wish it would just be locked
I am undoubtedly going in circles here, but it's together with you, so I don't mind. We keep each other company.
Now, I don't really care if people take on a meaning of 'birth' to use it as a skillful teaching. And of course I also don't mind if people don't accept rebirth. But to imply that momentary 'birth' it is what the Buddha was on about, no, that doesn't hold. The above sutta should clear that up.
Taken from SN ways of regarding things, page 885 in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation sutta 47"When the uninstructed wordling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance contact, "I am" occurs to him; "I am" this occurs to him...."
It's easy to misinterpret the present tense in Pali as if it is occuring right now. But it can also describe things that occur in a general sense. As an example: "From eating bad food, comes sickness" This is not to say, if I eat bad food now, I get sick immediately. It may be tomorrow, or in a week. So when the suttas say "from A comes B" it is not necessarily in the same moment. It just says that for those craving (holding) there will arise existence (being), and there will arise birth. Not now, but when they die.clw_uk wrote:
Yet here
http://www.vipassana.info/037-culatanha ... tta-e1.htm
Dependent Origination is clearly stated as occurring in moment, every time there is holding to feelings
My Pali is very ridumentary, so somebody should correct me if I'm wrong, but reading the Pali version it does not seem to use the word "jati" (birth), so to imply that here it refers to the birth in dependent origination, is taking a lot of freedom of interpretation... I'd rather trust the definition the suttas give themselves. Which, you have to admit, is quite clearly not about "I am".Yet
..
Which ties into the above post of if there is ignorance, then we grasp which leads to "birth" of a being
The two sutta quotes I have provided clearly show that when there is ignorance, we cling and give a rise to selfIt's easy to misinterpret the present tense in Pali as if it is occuring right now. But it can also describe things that occur in a general sense. As an example: "From eating bad food, comes sickness" This is not to say, if I eat bad food now, I get sick immediately. It may be tomorrow, or in a week. So when the suttas say "from A comes B" it is not necessarily in the same moment. It just says that for those craving (holding) there will arise existence (being), and there will arise birth. Not now, but when they die.
"I am" comes from self view, from ignorance/delusion. To that I agree.clw_uk wrote: I would be interested to hear where you think the sense of "I am" comes from
Of course it does"I am" comes from self view, from ignorance/delusion. To that I agree.
But there are other things arising from delusion. You seem to assume because"I am" arises out of it, so that must mean dependent origination also speaks about that, and so another step you take, every time "birth" is used it is not literal. That's a very quick assumption that doesn't hold if you analyse what dependent origination is about by the very sutta that defines its terms. There is no mention of "I am" or even conceit there at all.
Is that part of the original sutta?"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.
"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent (into the mother's womb), coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
I edited it in, that's why it is bracketed, like [sense] also was edited in by the translator to clarify.clw_uk wrote:Is that part of the original sutta?"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.
"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent (into the mother's womb), coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
And I read here the definition of birth and ageing in all its forms
birth of of the aggregates, birth of "I am" in moments etc
ageing of aggregates, decay of "I am" in moments etc
Now I'm going to guess you wont agree with this reading, however this reading leads away from dukkha so is it not worth reading it that way?
I edited it in, that's why it is bracketed, like [sense] also was edited in by the translator to clarify.
Oh, yes. You made the same arguments and you went through the same denials as you are doing now when it was shown quite clearly that the Buddha taught literal rebirth.clw_uk wrote:I am undoubtedly going in circles here, but it's together with you, so I don't mind. We keep each other company.
lol this whole thread goes in circles
Wish it would just be locked
As do you.clw_uk wrote:I edited it in, that's why it is bracketed, like [sense] also was edited in by the translator to clarify.
So you put your own spin on the sutta
tiltbillings wrote:As do you.clw_uk wrote:I edited it in, that's why it is bracketed, like [sense] also was edited in by the translator to clarify.
So you put your own spin on the sutta
It's just a clarification of a single term, which is clearly bracketed. That's not a spin on the sutta. Also, since it's bracketed, people can leave it aside. So do so if you want to. But to give credit where it is due, it's not mine, it is Ajahn Brahmavamso's clarification which I decided to include, because I think it makes sense in light of the rest of the sutta.clw_uk wrote:I edited it in, that's why it is bracketed, like [sense] also was edited in by the translator to clarify.
So you put your own spin on the sutta
reflection wrote:It's just a clarification of a single term, which is clearly bracketed. That's not a spin on the sutta. Also, since it's bracketed, people can leave it aside. So do so if you want to. But to give credit where it is due, it's not mine, it is Ajahn Brahmavamso's clarification which I decided to include.clw_uk wrote:I edited it in, that's why it is bracketed, like [sense] also was edited in by the translator to clarify.
So you put your own spin on the sutta