Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply

Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

One life model
0
No votes
One life model and moment to moment
6
15%
Two lives model
0
No votes
Three lives model
3
8%
Three lives model and moment to moment
9
23%
Multiple lives model
3
8%
Multiple lives model & moment-to-moment
7
18%
Moment to moment only
1
3%
Timeless/Atemporal/Structural
7
18%
Simultaneous, non-linear
4
10%
 
Total votes: 40

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:25 pm

aflatun wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:08 pm
And not to foist too much onto the categories of a poll, but its important to note that neither Ven. Nanavira (nor Ven. Nanananda as far as I know) reject transmigration, kamma or any of the "supernatural" elements that "secular" Buddhists have trouble with.
Good point.

By virtue of the structural model being without a rebirth aspect - which is such a key feature of the classic three-lives interpretation - it is often assumed to be a rejection of rebirth altogether, but that is not the case. Not only is it not a rejection of rebirth, it isn't a rejection of actual birth and death either (Circle5 is surely to blow a gasket at this assertion). PS/DO is about suffering. It is about how ignorance is the foundation of that suffering -- that whatever arises, arises with ignorance, and thereby pervades the entirety of experience from the most subtle to the most gross aspect. Something like 'birth' implies quite a lot when ignorance is present, but almost nothing when it isn't. And that is precisely why it is jātinirodho for the arahat: 'birth' has ceased to lend itself to the arising of this whole mass of suffering. Same thing with death. It remains an actuality, i.e. the body of the arahat will break up, there will be death, but it is utterly meaningless in terms of suffering, cut off like a palm stump.

User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 898
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Circle5 » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:35 pm

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:25 pm
Good point.

By virtue of the structural model being without a rebirth aspect - which is such a key feature of the classic three-lives interpretation - it is often assumed to be a rejection of rebirth altogether, but that is not the case. Not only is it not a rejection of rebirth, it isn't a rejection of actual birth and death either (Circle5 is surely to blow a gasket at this assertion). PS/DO is about suffering. It is about how ignorance is the foundation of that suffering -- that whatever arises, arises with ignorance, and thereby pervades the entirety of experience from the most subtle to the most gross aspect. Something like 'birth' implies quite a lot when ignorance is present, but almost nothing when it isn't. And that is precisely why it is jātinirodho for the arahat: 'birth' has ceased to lend itself to the arising of this whole mass of suffering. Same thing with death. It remains an actuality, i.e. the body of the arahat will break up, there will be death, but it is utterly meaningless in terms of suffering, cut off like a palm stump.
Why ? Have I ever said that postmodern buddhist reject rebirth ? It is only that they have no explanation for it. They take it on dogmatism without providing any kind of mechanism for it. For them, rebirth happens without a cause.

It is also hard to see how they can interpret these passages as reffering to anything other than physical birth and physical death:
“And what, bhikkhus, is aging-and-death? The aging of the various beings in the various orders of beings, their growing old, brokenness of teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of vitality, degeneration of the faculties: this is called aging. The passing away of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass: this is called death.2 Thus this aging and this death are together called aging-and-death.

“And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent [into the womb], production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth.3
It is one thing to make your own DO and make a new philosophy. There is another thing to claim that the historical Buddha shared your opinion, when he clearly did not. The historical Buddha even provided a long string of synonims to make it impossible for modern gurus to do such a thing. He could not have worded it more clearly than he did in the above passage. Also, this possition of rebirth happening because of volitional formations is of course consistent across all 10.000 pages of sutta pitakka.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:39 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:35 pm

It is also hard to see how they can interpret these passages as reffering to anything other than physical birth and physical death:
Agreed. They see it as physical birth and death. See my above post.

User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 898
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Circle5 » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:46 pm

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:39 pm
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:35 pm

It is also hard to see how they can interpret these passages as reffering to anything other than physical birth and physical death:
Agreed. They see it as physical birth and death. See my above post.
1) This is wrong. Nanavira claims they refer to birth and death is not biological but phychological and depend on the belief in a self. http://nanavira.org/notes-on-dhamma/paticcasamuppada
He claims physical birth and physical death depend on "being a self" not on volitional formations. This is also contradicted by the fact that a stream enterer with no belief in a self also can get reborn up to 7 times. To say nothing about how inconsistent this is with the historical Buddha who claims birth depends on volitional formations.

Sure, as a non-proximate/distant cause, it can be said that birth and death depend on the belief in a self. But to claim this as a proximate cause it's absolutally ridiculous. (by non-proximate/distant cause I mean things like "this car runs like this because it was built like that in a factory 10 years ago. While a proximate cause might be presence of fuel, etc.)

Buddha considered craving + a believe in a self to be the 2 distant causes that keep rebirth happening. The proximate, technical cause being volitional formations.

2)
'birth' has ceased to lend itself to the arising of this whole mass of suffering. Same thing with death. It remains an actuality, i.e. the body of the arahat will break up, there will be death, but it is utterly meaningless in terms of suffering, cut off like a palm stump.
Birth has not ceased "to lend itself to the arising of this whole mass of suffering" - birth has ended in the physical sense for the arahant. There will be no more physical birth for him, no "taking up of another body".

Also, suffering due to old age and death has not ceased for the arahant. For example Buddha suffered from back pains due to old age. Only phychological pain has ended for the arahant, not physical pain.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:54 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:46 pm
1) This is wrong. Nanavira claims they refer to birth and death of phenomenon that happens every moment. He rejects the idea of those passages reffering to physical birth and physical death, hence the non-agreement with 3 life interpretation. http://nanavira.org/notes-on-dhamma/paticcasamuppada
That is not Nanavira's position.
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:46 pm
2)
'birth' has ceased to lend itself to the arising of this whole mass of suffering. Same thing with death. It remains an actuality, i.e. the body of the arahat will break up, there will be death, but it is utterly meaningless in terms of suffering, cut off like a palm stump.
Birth has not ceased "to lend itself to the arising of this whole mass of suffering" - birth has ended in the physical sense for the arahant. There will be no more physical birth for him, no "taking up of another body".
You are taking jati to mean rebirth. That is fine, but doesn't refute what I am saying.
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:46 pm
Also, suffering due to old age and death has not ceased for the arahant. For example Buddha suffered from back pains due to old age.
This classic argument has been taken apart: back discomfort does not imply dukkha. Find that sutta, pull up the Pali. Does the Buddha say, "I am suffering because my back aches, I will rest it" or does he say, "My back aches, I will rest it"?

User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 898
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Circle5 » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:00 pm

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:54 pm
That is not Nanavira's position.
I've edited the post before you answered. Buddha position is that volitional formations is the proximate cause for rebirth. Craving + belief in a self are the 2 distant causes for it. In Nanavira view, belief in a self is the proximate, technical cause of rebirth. This is different from the historical Buddha opinion and also refuted by the fact that a stream enterer also will get reborn up to 7 times.
You are taking jati to mean rebirth. That is fine, but doesn't refute what I am saying.
I am only saying that physical birth has ended for the arahant. There will be no more rebirth for the arahant, no more taking up of another body. Buddha even praises this in that sutta about suicide. Do you not agree that physical birth has ended for the arahant ?
This classic argument has been taken apart: back discomfort does not imply dukkha. Find that sutta, pull up the Pali. Does the Buddha say, "I am suffering because my back aches, I will rest it" or does he say, "My back aches, I will rest it"?
Buddha is asked about this in one sutta. He said that pain does arise. He said it is like a normal person is hit by 2 arrows, while an arahant is hit only by one arrow and is not hit again with a second arrow after that. The fact that an arahant has even commited suicide due to pain + inability to be useful anymore in the world also speaks a lot about weather an arahant feels pain or not.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:08 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:00 pm
In Nanavira view, belief in a self is the proximate, technical cause of rebirth.
This is not his position at all.
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:00 pm
Do you not agree that physical birth has ended for the arahant ?
Of course there will not be another, but that is not what the structural model of PS describes. It is talking about the current birth being part of this whole mass of suffering.
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:00 pm
Buddha is asked about this in one sutta. He said that pain does arise.
Yes, bodily pains do arise. Whether it be an itchy nose or a spear through the eye, there can be discomfort for the arahat, but that does not imply that there is suffering in that grand sense of the first noble truth. That dukkha is no more for the arahat.

User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 898
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Circle5 » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:23 pm

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:08 pm
This is not his position at all.
Really ?
10. Upādānapaccayā bhavo; bhavapaccayā jāti; jātipaccayā jarāmaranam... ('With holding as condition, being; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing-&-death...') The fundamental upādāna or 'holding' is attavāda (see Majjhima ii,1 <M.i,67>), which is holding a belief in 'self'. The puthujjana takes what appears to be his 'self' at its face value; and so long as this goes on he continues to be a 'self', at least in his own eyes (and in those of others like him). This is bhava or 'being'. The puthujjana knows that people are born and die; and since he thinks 'my self exists' so he also thinks 'my self was born' and 'my self will die'. The puthujjana sees a 'self' to whom the words birth and death apply.[d] In contrast to the puthujjana, the arahat has altogether got rid of asmimāna (not to speak of attavāda—see MAMA), and does not even think 'I am'. This is bhavanirodha, cessation of being. And since he does not think 'I am' he also does not think 'I was born' or 'I shall die'. In other words, he sees no 'self' or even 'I' for the words birth and death to apply to. This is jātinirodha and jarāmarananirodha. (See, in Kosala Samy. i,3 <S.i,71>, how the words birth and death are avoided when the arahat is spoken of. Atthi nu kho bhante jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā ti. N'atthi kho mahārāja jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja khattiyamahāsālā... brāhmanamahāsālā... gahapatimahāsālā..., tesam pi jātānam n'atthi aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja bhikkhu arahanto khīnāsavā..., tesam pāyam kāyo bhedanadhammo nikkhepanadhammo ti. ('—For one who is born, lord, is there anything other than ageing-&-death?—For one who is born, great king, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those, great king, who are wealthy warriors... wealthy divines... wealthy householders...,—for them, too, being born, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those monks, great king, who are worthy ones, destroyers of the cankers...,—for them, too, it is the nature of this body to break up, to be laid down.')) The puthujjana, taking his apparent 'self' at face value, does not see that he is a victim of upādāna; he does not see that 'being a self' depends upon 'holding a belief in self' (upādānapaccayā bhavo); and he does not see that birth and death depend upon his 'being a self' (bhavapaccayā jāti, and so on). The ariyasāvaka, on the other hand, does see these things, and he sees also their cessation (even though he may not yet have fully realized it); and his seeing of these things is direct. Quite clearly, the idea of re-birth is totally irrelevant here.
Paragraph nr 10 from here http://nanavira.org/notes-on-dhamma/paticcasamuppada
Of course there will not be another, but that is not what the structural model of PS describes. It is talking about the current birth being part of this whole mass of suffering.
Of course the current birth is part of this whole mass of suffering, same as all other past or future births. PS claims the reason for birth are volitional formations. It's also very clear that it is reffering to physical birth and physical death and not what Nanavira is claiming. To quote B.Bodhi:

"The above definitions, with their strings of synonyms and concrete imagery, clearly indicate that 'birth' refers to biological birth and 'aging-and-death' to biological aging and biological death -- not to the puthujjana's notions "I was born; I will age and die," or "My self was born; my self ages and dies." The textual definitions are perfectly staightforward and unambiguous in meaning, and give no hint that the Buddha had some other idea to convey about the significance of these terms."
Yes, bodily pains do arise. Whether it be an itchy nose or a spear through the eye, there can be discomfort for the arahat, but that does not imply that there is suffering in that grand sense of the first noble truth. That dukkha is no more for the arahat.
If you understand suffering as only consisting of unpleasant feelings born out of mental causes, then indeed there is no unpleasant feeling arising due to mental causes. But when we say "suffering", we include here unpleasant feelings born out of physical causes. Such unpleasant feelings will continue to arise. It is only the reaction that will follow them that will be different. Instead of further unpleasant feelings arising due to a wrong reaction, there will only be the original unpleasant feeling born out of physical causes. http://dhammatalks.net/suttacentral/sc/en/sn36.6.html

The arahant that commited sucide due to unpleasant feelings born out of physical causes also speaks miles about weather arahants suffer or not.

binocular
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by binocular » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:49 pm

aflatun wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:08 pm
Hence for example we find the younger Nanavira actually formulating a sketch for a proof of rebirth
Thank you, I wasn't aware of this!
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:21 pm

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:08 pm
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:00 pm
In Nanavira view, belief in a self is the proximate, technical cause of rebirth.
This is not his position at all.
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:23 pm
Really ?
10. Upādānapaccayā bhavo; bhavapaccayā jāti; jātipaccayā jarāmaranam... ('With holding as condition, being; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing-&-death...') The fundamental upādāna or 'holding' is attavāda (see Majjhima ii,1 <M.i,67>), which is holding a belief in 'self'. The puthujjana takes what appears to be his 'self' at its face value; and so long as this goes on he continues to be a 'self', at least in his own eyes (and in those of others like him). This is bhava or 'being'. The puthujjana knows that people are born and die; and since he thinks 'my self exists' so he also thinks 'my self was born' and 'my self will die'. The puthujjana sees a 'self' to whom the words birth and death apply.[d] In contrast to the puthujjana, the arahat has altogether got rid of asmimāna (not to speak of attavāda—see MAMA), and does not even think 'I am'. This is bhavanirodha, cessation of being. And since he does not think 'I am' he also does not think 'I was born' or 'I shall die'. In other words, he sees no 'self' or even 'I' for the words birth and death to apply to. This is jātinirodha and jarāmarananirodha. (See, in Kosala Samy. i,3 <S.i,71>, how the words birth and death are avoided when the arahat is spoken of. Atthi nu kho bhante jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā ti. N'atthi kho mahārāja jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja khattiyamahāsālā... brāhmanamahāsālā... gahapatimahāsālā..., tesam pi jātānam n'atthi aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja bhikkhu arahanto khīnāsavā..., tesam pāyam kāyo bhedanadhammo nikkhepanadhammo ti. ('—For one who is born, lord, is there anything other than ageing-&-death?—For one who is born, great king, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those, great king, who are wealthy warriors... wealthy divines... wealthy householders...,—for them, too, being born, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those monks, great king, who are worthy ones, destroyers of the cankers...,—for them, too, it is the nature of this body to break up, to be laid down.')) The puthujjana, taking his apparent 'self' at face value, does not see that he is a victim of upādāna; he does not see that 'being a self' depends upon 'holding a belief in self' (upādānapaccayā bhavo); and he does not see that birth and death depend upon his 'being a self' (bhavapaccayā jāti, and so on). The ariyasāvaka, on the other hand, does see these things, and he sees also their cessation (even though he may not yet have fully realized it); and his seeing of these things is direct. Quite clearly, the idea of re-birth is totally irrelevant here.
No, it really isn't his position on rebirth, which is what you said above. This passage is about 'birth', not rebirth. You seem to be interchanging these terms at will.
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:23 pm
The arahant that commited sucide due to unpleasant feelings born out of physical causes also speaks miles about weather arahants suffer or not.
This is an ages old argument that is off topic for this thread, but needless to say the arahat is free from dukkha, it has ceased. Any discomfort that comes is nuisance in comparison to dukkha in the sense of the four noble truths.

User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 898
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Circle5 » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:48 pm

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:21 pm
No, it really isn't his position on rebirth, which is what you said above. This passage is about 'birth', not rebirth. You seem to be interchanging these terms at will.
By deffinition, any physical birth happening happening in the context of buddhism is a rebirth. :coffee:
This is an ages old argument that is off topic for this thread, but needless to say the arahat is free from dukkha, it has ceased. Any discomfort that comes is nuisance in comparison to dukkha in the sense of the four noble truths.
Such a small nisance that one can even decide to commit suicide due to it.
Sure, there might not be dukkha born out of mental causes, but there will still be dukkha born out of physical causes.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:38 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:48 pm
SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:21 pm
No, it really isn't his position on rebirth, which is what you said above. This passage is about 'birth', not rebirth. You seem to be interchanging these terms at will.
By deffinition, any physical birth happening happening in the context of buddhism is a rebirth. :coffee:
That is a bold simplification. It surely isn't an invalid position to take, but I don't believe the Buddha intended suffering to be grasped with so many lives under consideration at one time...just here and now with this "I" as the primary focus.

Nevertheless, Ven. Nanavira does differentiate between the two terms which is all I was trying to point out.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by cappuccino » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:37 pm

What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?
Assu Sutta: Tears
“Life is anxiety”

Dinsdale
Posts: 6082
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:13 am

DNS wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:48 pm
By making DO one life model only or moment-to-moment only; an ulterior motive could be to circumvent rebirth teachings (not saying that all who hold that view do that).
I think it can be a factor, and the interpretation we personally prefer is not necessarily the one which is best supported by what the suttas describe.

There does seem to be quite a lot of "physicality" in the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2 ( eg the physical descriptions of birth, aging and death ), and it is difficult to see how DO can be describing a purely mental or psychological process, as some claim.

PS Could you please add "multiple lives model" to the OP poll?
Last edited by Dinsdale on Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6082
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:17 am

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:58 am
So the idea that Buddha meant momentary arising and death of phenomena instead of physical birth and physical death is pretty ridiculous to any informed buddhist
I wouldn't say "ridiculous", just unsupported by what the suttas actually describe.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cappuccino, Ingle88, JamesTheGiant and 115 guests