the great rebirth debate

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

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Sylvester »

Spiny Norman wrote:
Sylvester wrote: The "when" in the formula is a causative when, such as "When I add yeast to the dough, it rises".
So does this reasoning also apply to "when this arises, that arises"?
Sorry for the late reply. You're referring to the 2nd limb of the formula -
imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati
Unlike the first limb, which is framed in the locative absolute (imasmiṃ sati), the imassa in the 2nd limb is either a dative or genitive of ayaṃ (this). Ven T seems to take it as a genitive, when he translates it as "From the arising of this comes the arising of that" - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
BB also translates it in its genitive sense "With the arising of this, that arises" : see his translation of SN 12.21.

Since this is not framed in the genitive absolute, no simultaneity is implied. Ven T explains this limb as exemplifying the linear principle (separated by time), while he explains the 1st limb as being synchronic (ie simultaneous) - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... index.html

I think Ven T, in interpreting the 1st limb as importing simultaneity, is relying on the possibility offered by the grammar that L.As formed with a present participle (sati = locative of santo; santo = pres p of atthi) can import simultaneity. BUT, that possibility only seems to be true of adverbial sentences (ie 2 clauses in one sentence, each clause with an action verb). The grammars don't extend this option to nominal clauses such as those whose predicate/verb is atthi or hoti (there is, is).

Edit - you can find an expanded explanation of the above here - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 58#p252658
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

Sylvester wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
Sylvester wrote: The "when" in the formula is a causative when, such as "When I add yeast to the dough, it rises".
So does this reasoning also apply to "when this arises, that arises"?
Sorry for the late reply. You're referring to the 2nd limb of the formula -
imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati
Unlike the first limb, which is framed in the locative absolute (imasmiṃ sati), the imassa in the 2nd limb is either a dative or genitive of ayaṃ (this). Ven T seems to take it as a genitive, when he translates it as "From the arising of this comes the arising of that" - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
BB also translates it in its genitive sense "With the arising of this, that arises" : see his translation of SN 12.21.

Since this is not framed in the genitive absolute, no simultaneity is implied. Ven T explains this limb as exemplifying the linear principle (separated by time), while he explains the 1st limb as being synchronic (ie simultaneous) - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... index.html

I think Ven T, in interpreting the 1st limb as importing simultaneity, is relying on the possibility offered by the grammar that L.As formed with a present participle (sati = locative of santo; santo = pres p of atthi) can import simultaneity. BUT, that possibility only seems to be true of adverbial sentences (ie 2 clauses in one sentence, each clause with an action verb). The grammars don't extend this option to nominal clauses such as those whose predicate/verb is atthi or hoti (there is, is).

Edit - you can find an expanded explanation of the above here - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 58#p252658
Thanks, I will try to digest this. I wish I knew more Pali.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by BlackBird »

clw_uk wrote:
BlackBird wrote:Out of interest - If the Buddha was here today, is there anyone here that would not bow at his feet thrice, submit and be admonished by him as to their practice and way of life?

Buddha didn't die 2500 years ago. Arahants are around today as they were then.

They understand the same dhamma as the Buddha and their teachings are there to find :)

We don't need to keep returning to the first recoreded arahant all the time and tbh I think it's more skilful for western ears to refer to the teachings of contemporary arahants (since we use the same language etc)
This I take great problem with. The Buddha is not merely an arahant. And furthermore how can you prove any teacher today is one. They don't have a great big sign pointing to them. You only have your faith, and even then that might be widely misplaced.

"We don't need to keep returning to the first recorded arahant" <- Yes we do, he's the only perfectly enlightened being, and the only one who can represent the teachings correctly beyond a shadow of a doubt - The Buddha and his immediate disciples that is.

"I think it's more skillful for western ears to refer to the teachings of contemporary arahants" <- Fallacious notion, and frankly very very unskillful thing to say. To discourage anyone from seeking out the Buddha's own words - That is not a skillful thing to do. To assume that contemporary teachers know the Dhamma just as well as the Buddha did is shoddy thinking. As I have already mentioned, you seem to take it for granted that there are teachers who are arahants today and that they're common enough that you can refer your western friends to a random teacher and there's a good enough chance he'll be an arahant that they're better off listening to him than reading the Buddha's own words.

I happen to think Stream enterers are very rare to say nothing of arahants. But either way, neither view can be proven, so this is one area where a healthy skepticism is not just worthwhile, but necessary. We cannot prove anyone's an arahant, but we can take the Buddha at his word as being the Buddha, which means he possessed qualities arahants did not. Sariputta was among disciples, the foremost in understanding of doctrine, Mogallana? The best at supernormal powers. Ananda - The best at remembering the teachings. Maha Kassapa? The best at Kammathana and forest dwelling. Which proves that arahants are not created equally. The Buddha was miles above everyone in every factor and quality.

Honestly, no offence man, but you speak so casually as if 'why bother with the Buddha's teachings when you've got arahants of today's time' - I just think that's really disrespectful to the Buddha. Sorry if thats not what you intended by it, but that's the way it comes off.

Go to the source, get the message from the horse's mouth - It will never serve you wrong people.

I'm done here.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
Vern Stevens
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Vern Stevens »

BlackBird wrote: Fallacious notion, and frankly very very unskillful thing to say. To discourage anyone from seeking out the Buddha's own words - That is not a skillful thing to do. To assume that contemporary teachers know the Dhamma just as well as the Buddha did is shoddy thinking.
What if a person needs a more western interpretation first because they don't "get" the words of the Buddha on reading them? It's not necessarily a matter of whether contemporary teachers understand the Dhamma better than the Buddha. Rather, it may simply be a matter if a teacher can start someone down a path to understanding the Buddha's words better. Yes, ultimately one should read the Buddha's words, but then we also have to "trust" translation unless we learn Pali. Note, I'm not suggesting that any contemporary teachers are actually arahants... I have no idea if they are or not. For some folks, the path cannot be as straight as it can be for others. If you only knew the curvy road that's brought me here.... :)

Kind regards.
“What we think, we become.“ - The Buddha
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Vern Stevens wrote:
BlackBird wrote: Fallacious notion, and frankly very very unskillful thing to say. To discourage anyone from seeking out the Buddha's own words - That is not a skillful thing to do. To assume that contemporary teachers know the Dhamma just as well as the Buddha did is shoddy thinking.
What if a person needs a more western interpretation first because they don't "get" the words of the Buddha on reading them? It's not necessarily a matter of whether contemporary teachers understand the Dhamma better than the Buddha. Rather, it may simply be a matter if a teacher can start someone down a path to understanding the Buddha's words better.
Yes, what you have said is timely and reasoned, Vern. Speaking as someone qualified as a schoolteacher for 11 to 18 year olds, its clear that adults, after leaving school, as well as teenagers. benefit from further discussion and explanation in connection with subject areas which they find difficult. There's no reason why trying to understand some of the suttas should be any different, or why it could be wrong to receive help and advice from living Dhamma teachers who have dedicated their lives to the Buddha and his teachings.


:anjali:
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by binocular »

BlackBird wrote:Go to the source, get the message from the horse's mouth
When there is uncertainty about how adequately the Pali Canon (and even more so if one has to read it only in translations) represents the teachings of the Buddha, one cannot simply take it on unquestionable faith that the Pali Canon is the teachings of the Buddha.
This kind of uncertainty comes up for many people, and it can manifest in many forms. One cannot just ignore one has this uncertainty, pretending that everything is fine.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Hello all. Returning (after long absence) to the party.
reflection wrote: So what could get us more back on is this, from a sutta quoted earlier:
[The Buddha:] "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It's because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
So understanding dependent origination makes one go beyond the bad destinations. Or in other words, one with right view won't be reborn in lower realms, as stated in various suttas. Of course, somebody could say that a momentary dependent origination somehow prevents one from being reborn there, but isn't it far more logical that actually understanding the process of rebirth has something to do with it?
There is more than one way to look at what the Buddha said there. He could well have meant that this generation does not get beyond transmigration, planes of deprivation,woe and bad destinations in their thinking. This would be logical since it is the way we think about things that is at the heart of our problems. So the Buddha is suggesting that folks are stuck in their thinking, because those are the views they cling to: transmigration, planes of deprivation, etc. He may be saying here that dependent arising, when understood, takes one beyond that sort of thinking.

:namaste:
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

clw_uk wrote:
"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.
Is that part of the original sutta?

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
In SN 12.2, where the Buddha gives that detailed analysis of each link, "into the mother's womb" isn't in the Pali, but (as noted well after the post I quoted here) it does appear in DN 15, albeit there it is back in the third link, when "consciousness descends into the mother's womb" (which is in the Pali: mātukucchismiṃ okkamitvā, with the latter defined briefly as "having entered; having fallen into; having come on" but PED has a very nice discussion of okkamati as representing an internal change -- in the same sort of way "going to sleep" doesn't involve going anywhere). At any rate, I have no problem with having the definition above include literal birth.

In my understanding of Dependent Arising (DA) that doesn't make the link *about* literal birth, however tempting it is to see it that way. There is another way to understand what's going on in these links, as I've argued before, and that is to recognize that they aren't definitions in the way we define things now, they aren't telling us "what" is, but "where" it is. DA, being an object of meditation, is telling us the field we need to pay attention to in order to see what is going on in each link, and it is describing a condition that has to be present in order for what's going on to happen, but it isn't actually explaining what's happening.

This is why consciousness at #3 is fine being explained as something that "descends into the womb" (or however we want to use the word, whether from a rebirth perspective or a modern science perspective) it is that consciousness that comes into being through conception, pregnancy, and birth. It is within that consciousness that something is going on that we need to see to locate the problem. So when the Buddha says to Ananda in DN 15 that if there were no consciousness there could be no name-and-form, that's quite true: the field we are talking about (consciousness) does indeed depend on name-and-form.
reflection wrote: Birth of aggregates is literal birth. For one thing, because one of the aggregates, it doesn't arise all the time: "this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more." (SN 12.61). And about "acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings", you are suggesting "I am" arises in various groups of beings? As in, animals, humans etc.

Likewise, the part about death, it's even more clear: "decline of life-force, completion of time, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty ".. don't you think it is all very obvious? Now how would the 'birth' "I am" logically lead to this literal death? It doesn't.
The same is the case for the last step as aging-and-death. The field in which what we're looking for is taking place is in that decline of life, and the casting off of the body -- effectively in impermanence. The literal description is the field -- the nutriment, really -- for what is being pointed out: dukkha. We experience dukkha in the field of sickness, aging and death.

We experience what goes on in "birth" in the field of our continued existence (as opposed to the transitory experience of bhava, which comes before). If there were no birth, of any being of any kind anywhere, would we ever move on to experience dukkha? Of course not! So, yes, jati, "birth" is describing birth in ways that people of the day would understand it literally, but not because "birth" is what is being described, but because it is the field that is required for our visible actions in the world to take place.

This is why, when Sariputta describes Right View in MN 9, shortly before he sets off doing each of the links, he includes the nutriments: we need to understand the place of nutriments to understand DA -- because it is described in terms of nutriments (or fields, or "where") not in terms of "what".

:namaste:
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Sylvester »

nowheat wrote:Hello all. Returning (after long absence) to the party.
reflection wrote: So what could get us more back on is this, from a sutta quoted earlier:
[The Buddha:] "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It's because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
So understanding dependent origination makes one go beyond the bad destinations. Or in other words, one with right view won't be reborn in lower realms, as stated in various suttas. Of course, somebody could say that a momentary dependent origination somehow prevents one from being reborn there, but isn't it far more logical that actually understanding the process of rebirth has something to do with it?
There is more than one way to look at what the Buddha said there. He could well have meant that this generation does not get beyond transmigration, planes of deprivation,woe and bad destinations in their thinking. This would be logical since it is the way we think about things that is at the heart of our problems. So the Buddha is suggesting that folks are stuck in their thinking, because those are the views they cling to: transmigration, planes of deprivation, etc. He may be saying here that dependent arising, when understood, takes one beyond that sort of thinking.

:namaste:
Hi hi.

It might be possible to read it as such (ie one cannot escape thinking in terms of x, y or z).

But is the term ativattati ever actually used in the context of escaping a framework/world-view, or does it only ever pop up in terms of escaping from the real stuff (instead of the mere conceptualisations)? You get the same formula used in AN 4.199 -
Taṇhaṃ vo bhikkhave desissāmi jāliniṃ saritaṃ visaṭaṃ visattikaṃ, yāya ayaṃ loko uddhasto pariyonaddho tantākulakajāto gulāguṇḍikajāto muñjababbajabhūto apāyaṃ duggatiṃ vinipātaṃ saṃsāraṃ nātivattati.

Monks, I will teach you craving: the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations.
DN 15 says that the generation does not escape saṃsāra, while AN 4.199 says the same for the world. DN 15 says the cause is ananubodhā appaṭivedhā (not understanding and not penetrating), while AN 4.199 identifies the cause as craving. Can saṃsāraṃ nātivattati (does not escape the round) in AN 4.199 lend itself to a mere conceptual grip, or a yoke to the saṃsāra?

:anjali:
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Sylvester wrote: But is the term ativattati ever actually used in the context of escaping a framework/world-view, or does it only ever pop up in terms of escaping from the real stuff (instead of the mere conceptualisations)?
...
DN 15 says that the generation does not escape saṃsāra, while AN 4.199 says the same for the world. DN 15 says the cause is ananubodhā appaṭivedhā (not understanding and not penetrating), while AN 4.199 identifies the cause as craving. Can saṃsāraṃ nātivattati (does not escape the round) in AN 4.199 lend itself to a mere conceptual grip, or a yoke to the saṃsāra?
Given that what I am arguing (in a small way above, but in a much larger framework elsewhere) is that the Buddha tends to be saying, most of the time, something deep and profound by saying something that can easily be taken just literally, then, yes, even if ativattati always appears to be literal in context, he is very likely pointing out something else he wants us to see. This is what I am saying, too, with the literal description of birth. It makes perfect sense that that definition of birth is literal -- it is, I agree, literal -- but you have to understand the context (in that case, the underlying structure of DA) to get that it is pointing out something much more profound.

Adding on to the double-leveled vocabulary, I will point out that the Buddha was arguing against (among many other views) the view that self and the world are one and the same, so when he speaks of "the world" in phrases like the one you mentioned "escape from the world" it is quite logical to see that as a clever way of suggesting that one needs to escape from the self. This same set up is used in the famous sutta where he is asked if one can escape by walking to the end of the world; all the word-play in there in which he says you can't but you must revolves around the two ways of perceiving what is meant by "the world".

Even in the last snippet you quoted, where "the world" is described as smothered in craving -- the physical world doesn't give a whit about craving; it is not caught by any human cravings, and it is certainly not what does not go beyond transmigration -- it is people, and more particularly what passes for a self that folks understand as being smothered in and held back by craving.

:namaste:
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Sylvester »

Thanks nowheat!

I think you will not find me disagreeing on the varied meanings of the "world" in the suttas.

Yet, I continue to have some difficulty with your "double levelled vocabulary" analysis, insofar as it suggests that either the self or the conceptualisation of self needs to be transcended. I hope I have not misunderstood you?

My concern is largely driven by the anusaya model in the suttas, those pre-verbal defilements that are craving at its most basic. MN 64 suggests that when craving operates at this level, it seems to be on a "subconscious" or "pre-verbal" stage (where even the thought/idea of "personality" does not exist - sakkāyotipi na hoti.) And yet, this type of defilement, according to SN 12.38, is a support for the establishment of consciousness ( ārammaṇametaṃ ... viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā).

Won't the double entendre reading of DN 15's saṃsāraṃ nātivattati be unduly restrictive, to the extent that it may not account for the subconscious anusayas that drive the establishment of consciousness/rebirth?

BTW, I enjoyed your earlier post, especially this bit -
DA, being an object of meditation, is telling us the field we need to pay attention to in order to see what is going on in each link, and it is describing a condition that has to be present in order for what's going on to happen, but it isn't actually explaining what's happening.
Could you expand a bit on the distinction you draw between the field/"where" and the "what"? I certainly follow the position that the grammatical structure of the DO formula leads one to think of it as a principle of necessary conditions; I was just curious to see how that would differ in terms of a "where" versus a "what".

:anjali:
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by chownah »

Sylvester wrote:
I think you will not find me disagreeing on the varied meanings of the "world" in the suttas.
Sylvester,
Can you mention the various places in the suttas where the varied meanings of the "world" are found?
chownah
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Sylvester »

Hi chownah

Try a word search for "world" on ATI using Google and limit it to the "suttas". The suttas generally use loka/world in these senses -

1. as the literal world into which beings are reborn : AN 4.235, see also the standard listing of Wrong View eg MN 117
2. as a synonym for dukkha : SN 12.44 implying loka = 5 Clinging Aggregates
3. as a designation for contact and feeling : SN 35.82

Loka also features prominently in the satipaṭṭhānā suttas' formulaic "giving up covetousness and sorrow with reference to the world" (vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ).
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mikenz66 »

nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Sylvester wrote:I continue to have some difficulty with your "double levelled vocabulary" analysis, insofar as it suggests that either the self or the conceptualisation of self needs to be transcended. I hope I have not misunderstood you?

My concern is largely driven by the anusaya model in the suttas, those pre-verbal defilements that are craving at its most basic. MN 64 suggests that when craving operates at this level, it seems to be on a "subconscious" or "pre-verbal" stage (where even the thought/idea of "personality" does not exist - sakkāyotipi na hoti.) And yet, this type of defilement, according to SN 12.38, is a support for the establishment of consciousness ( ārammaṇametaṃ ... viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā).

Won't the double entendre reading of DN 15's saṃsāraṃ nātivattati be unduly restrictive, to the extent that it may not account for the subconscious anusayas that drive the establishment of consciousness/rebirth?
Well, no, but it's understandable that you'd not see that since so far I'm describing a significantly different way of looking at DA in just bits and pieces -- hard to see the big picture this way.

MN 64 says that we are born with an underlying tendency to develop identity view, and I agree because, in a sense at least, that's what sankhara is: that underlying tendency. At the moment my preferred translation of sankhara is as a drive (a particular kind of drive, not all drives) or as what is created as a result of that drive (i.e. "that which is driven"). It is the drive that fosters in us an over-the-top craving for existence -- a desire to have a self, see that self, know that self, which results in us ultimately creating the sense that we have a certain kind of self (whatever kind we end up believing in). That's not something we are doing on a conscious level, but it does cause the creation of a certain kind of consciousness (see below).
Could you expand a bit on the distinction you draw between the field/"where" and the "what"? I certainly follow the position that the grammatical structure of the DO formula leads one to think of it as a principle of necessary conditions; I was just curious to see how that would differ in terms of a "where" versus a "what".
If each link is taken as a "what", then consciousness is, pretty much, consciousness as we define it nowadays with the popular element of "a soul" thrown in; name-and-form is our body and mind (or the way we think), contact is just contact, feeling is just feeling (and so on), birth is just birth, aging-and-death is just aging and death. In that case, to break the cycle, we have to end consciousness, end the body-mind, end all contact, end all feeling -- which makes a kind of sense if DA is describing rebirth and the escape from its cycle. If each link is a definition of "what" then it does seem fairly clear we're talking about at least two lives because we have a birth represented with consciousness and name-and-form, and then we get another birth with jati.

But if, instead, what's being defined is "where" (to look) then we are looking for a particular sort of consciousness that is "in what goes on in our awareness and perception". It is not the whole of consciousness, but something contained in consciousness (or -- as they seemed to see it back then -- a particular sort of consciousness, a subset of total consciousness). In this way of looking at it, the senses are not simply there as the passively used equipment that came along with birth into name-and-form, but are an active field being driven by what came before, a field we can study to see how they are driven, and what sort of use they are being put to (not all uses are problems). Contact is a field we can study to try to identify *which* contacts are a problem -- and this is true of all of them really -- because if we're talking "where" not "what" then it's not that we have to do away with all consciousness to interrupt the process, it's only a certain kind of consciousness.

This is why we have to look at the field: to see whether what's growing at any given moment is weeds or something good for us.

Feelings, too: if feelings are defined as "what" then *all* feelings are the problem (even equanimity? compassion?) but if we're looking at a field of feelings to identify the problem, then it's only certain feelings, and we need to try to see which are causing the problems out of the larger field of "all feelings" (the where).

This is actually the nature of causal chains (DA is, of course, one). The field narrows at each step, so it can't be all consciousness, only consciousness driven by sankhara; not all contacts, not all feelings. Out of any given field, *which* bit of what's growing in the field is the problem is defined by the limitation of all the causes in earlier links.

:namaste:
Post Reply