Which view on DO resonates with you the most?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

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
dylanj
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:02 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:01 am
dylanj wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:57 am
anyway the problem is that interpreting it sequentially explicitly contradicts line 3 & 4 as it would be equivalent to saying that one link can & does exist while the other does not, or that it can & does not exist while the other does.

if you think that saṅkhārā arises after ignorance & not simultaneously that means there is a moment where there is ignorance but no saṅkhārā. & if you think saṅkhārā ceases after ignorance ceases that means there is a moment where there is no ignorance but there is saṅkhārā

so sequential interpretation is precluded & specifically denied. that's why the buddha said all 4 lines & not just 1 & 3
The Buddha said all 4 lines because there are two ( different ) modes of conditionality in DO.

Tanha arising in dependence upon vedana is an example of No. 2.
sutta support plz
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:02 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:01 am
dylanj wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:57 am
anyway the problem is that interpreting it sequentially explicitly contradicts line 3 & 4 as it would be equivalent to saying that one link can & does exist while the other does not, or that it can & does not exist while the other does.

if you think that saṅkhārā arises after ignorance & not simultaneously that means there is a moment where there is ignorance but no saṅkhārā. & if you think saṅkhārā ceases after ignorance ceases that means there is a moment where there is no ignorance but there is saṅkhārā

so sequential interpretation is precluded & specifically denied. that's why the buddha said all 4 lines & not just 1 & 3
The Buddha said all 4 lines because there are two ( different ) modes of conditionality in DO.

Tanha arising in dependence upon vedana is an example of No. 2.
so you think lines 1 & 3 aren't true? that one link can exist independent (not dependent) of the next?
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:03 am

your sequential translation is not in the actual pāli nor is there any distinction between two modes in the actual pāli
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:10 am

again for emphasis

if idappaccayatā/paṭiccasamuppāda is taken as sequential/linear (which all of the views in the poll fall under, sadly) & not simply representative of a timeless principle, then one link must exist independet of the next, even if just for a moment.

given the view that "saṅkhārā arises after avijjā"
one must also hold the view that "there is avijjā without saṅkhārā"

because one with this view believes that avijjā arises first, then saṅkhārā

so one with this view does not believe "when this exists, this exists" i.e. "imasmiṁ sati idaṁ hoti"

the same goes for the negative/cessation/nonexistence view

furthermore

given the acceptance of "when this is, this is"
one must also accept that the two links exist dependently, together, not independently or apart. they exist at the same time.

if they existed at different times it would be "after this is, that is"

but the buddha says when there is avijjā, there is saṅkhārā
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

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

Post by dylanj » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:12 am

the simultaneity of it is in the actual text, i don't know how it could be more clear

"when this is, this is"
"when this isn't, this isn't"

this does not become false or invalid in the 2nd & 4th lines, it is the same principle applied to arising/ceasing, coming/going, as opposed to existence/nonexistence, enduring & remaining
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20149
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:45 am

Greetings,
dylanj wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:00 am
This existing, this exists;
this arising, this arises;
this not existing, this does not exist;
this ceasing, this ceases’.
:anjali:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

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 » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:34 am

dylanj wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:12 am
the simultaneity of it is in the actual text, i don't know how it could be more clear

"when this is, this is"
"when this isn't, this isn't"

this does not become false or invalid in the 2nd & 4th lines, it is the same principle applied to arising/ceasing, coming/going, as opposed to existence/nonexistence, enduring & remaining
Can physical aging and death of a person at 80 years of age exist without physical birth happening 80 years before that event ?

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 » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:42 am

SDC wrote:
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.
As Cappucino has shown, there are countless suttas where Buddha emphasises the huge suffering experienced in samsara due to countless lives of suffering. There is even a whole subchapter on this called "without discoverable beggining". Whenever he tried to emphasise how big suffering in samsara is, he did it through emphasising the gigantic mass of suffering exprienced in countless lives.

And you've again avoided to answer the question. As both me and B.Bodhi have shown, Nanavira considers that the proximate cause for biological birth is the puthujjana notions "I was born; I will age and die," or "My self was born; my self ages and dies." This is simply false and not supported by the suttas. Again, 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."

I would also add to this the fact that a stream enterer with no such belief also will get reborn 7 times. There is also nothing in the suttas about biological birth happening because of some different reason other than volitional formations for a stream enterer or a non-stream enterer.

How is Nanavira idea that biological birth happens because of puthujjana notions "I was born; I will age and die," or "My self was born; my self ages and dies" compatible with the suttas ? Do you see anything here hinting to that ?:
“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

boundless
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

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

Post by boundless » Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:05 am

Hello all,

I agree with Circle 5 that, according for example SN 12:2, "birth" and " againg and death" refer to physical processes (after all, this is IMO the real "dukkha" that people seek to avoid. Nibbana is the "shelter" above all from these "events"). At least in some cases (maybe not all...) "birth" and "death" clearly refer to physical processes.

If DO is timeless, how can it explain:
1) change? (after all "change" requires time. Sorry for the somewhat trivial question...)
2) that "physical ageing and death" is conditioned by "physical birth"?

Thank you in advance for the answer.

Anyway, I think that it is possible that DO operates at different levels, i.e. that in different contexts different models of DO are valid. I doubt that there is only one "valid" model of DO for all cases. Maybe the "timeless model" of DO is valid in certain cases and not valid in others.

:anjali:

Very interesting discussion, BTW :smile:

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 » Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:17 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:45 am
Greetings,
dylanj wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:00 am
This existing, this exists;
this arising, this arises;
this not existing, this does not exist;
this ceasing, this ceases’.
:anjali:

Metta,
Paul. :)
Are you aware in what context that was said ? :anjali:

Ven. ~Naa.naviira implicitly attempts to marshal support for his non-temporal interpretation of PS by quoting as the epigraph to his Note on Pa.ticcasamuppaada the following excerpt from the Cuu.lasakuludaayi Sutta:
"But, Udaayi, let be the past, let be the future, I shall set you forth the Teaching: 'When there is this, that is; with arising of this, that arises; when there is not this, that is not; with cessation of this, that ceases.'"
Here, apparently, the Buddha proposes the abstract principle of conditionality as an alternative to teachings about temporal matters relating to the past and future. Since in other suttas the statement of the abstract principle is immediately followed by the entire twelve-term formula, the conclusion seems to follow that any application of temporal distinctions to PS, particularly the attempt to see it as extending to the past and future, would be a violation of the Buddha's intention.

This conclusion, however, would be premature, and if we turn to the sutta from which the quotation has been extracted we would see that the conclusion is actually unwarranted. In the sutta the non-Buddhist wanderer Sakuludaayi tells the Buddha that recently one famous teacher had been claiming omniscience, but when he approached this teacher -- who turns out to have been the Jain leader Niga.n.tha Naataputta -- and asked him a question about the past, the teacher had tried to evade the question, to turn the discussion aside, and became angry and resentful. He expresses the trust that the Buddha is skilled in such matters. The Buddha then says: "One who can recollect his previous births back for many aeons might engage with me in a fruitful discussion about matters pertaining to the past, while one who has the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings might engage with me in a fruitful discussion about matters pertaining to the future." Then, since Udaayi has neither such knowledge, at this point the Buddha states: "But, Udaayi, let be the past, let be the future," and he cites the abstract principle of conditionality. Thus the purport of the Buddha's statement, read as a whole, is that without such super-knowledges of the past and the future, there is no point discussing specific empirical factual matters concerning the past and the future. The Buddha's dismissal of these issues by no means implies that the twelvefold formula of PS should not be understood as defining the conditional structure of sa.msaara throughout successive lives. It must also be remembered that this discussion takes place with a non-Buddhist ascetic who has not yet gained confidence in the Buddha. It would thus not have been appropriate for the Buddha to reveal to him profound matters that could be penetrated only by one of mature wisdom.


Ven. ~Naa.naviira tries to buttress his non-temporal interpretation of PS with a brief quotation from the Mahaata.nhaasa"nkhaya Sutta. In that sutta, at the end of a long catechism that explores the twelvefold series of PS in both the order of origination and the order of cessation, the Buddha says to the monks:
"I have presented you, monks, with this Dhamma that is visible (sandi.t.thika), immediate (akaalika), inviting one to come and see, accessible, to be personally realized by the wise."
Ven. ~Naa.naviira supposes that "this Dhamma" refers to pa.ticca-samuppaada, and that the description of it as akaalika must mean that the entire formula defines a non-temporal configuration of factors.
If we turn to the sutta from which the quotation comes, we would find that Ven. ~Naa.naviira's supposition is directly contradicted by the sequel to the statement on which he bases his thesis. In that sequel (MN i,265-70), the Buddha proceeds to illustrate the abstract terms of the PS formula, first with an account of the life process of the blind worldling who is swept up in the forward cycle of origination, and then with an account of the noble disciple, who brings the cycle to a stop. Here temporal succession is in evidence throughout the exposition. The life process begins with conception in the womb (elsewhere expressed as "the descent of consciousness" into the womb and the "taking shape of name-and-form" in the womb -- DN 15/ii,63). After the period of gestation comes birth, emergence from the mother's womb, followed in turn by: the gradual maturation of the sense faculties (=the six sense bases), exposure to the five cords of sensual pleasure (=contact), intoxication with pleasant feelings (=feeling), seeking delight in feelings (=craving). Then come clinging, becoming, birth, and aging and death. Here a sequence of two lives is explicitly defined, while the past life is implied by the gandhabba, cited as one of the conditions for conception of the embryo to occur. The gandhabba or "spirit," other texts indicate (see MN ii,157), is the stream of consciousness of a deceased person coming from the preceding life, and this factor is just as essential to conception as the sexual union of the parents, which it must utilize as its vehicle for entering the womb.

In the contrasting passage on the wise disciple, we see how an individual who has taken birth through the same past causes goes forth as a monk inthe Buddha's dispensation, undertakes the training, and breaks the link between feeling and craving. Thereby he puts an end to the future renewal of the cycle of becoming. By extinguishing "delight in feelings," a manifestation of craving, he terminates clinging, becoming, birth, aging, and death, and thereby arrives at the cessation of the entire mass of suffering. Thus here, in the very sutta from which the description of PS as "timeless" is drawn, we see the sequence of PS factors illustrated in a way that indubitably involves temporal succession.

boundless
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

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

Post by boundless » Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:24 pm

boundless wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:05 am
Hello all,

I agree with Circle 5 that, according for example SN 12:2, "birth" and " againg and death" refer to physical processes (after all, this is IMO the real "dukkha" that people seek to avoid. Nibbana is the "shelter" above all from these "events"). At least in some cases (maybe not all...) "birth" and "death" clearly refer to physical processes.

If DO is timeless, how can it explain:
1) change? (after all "change" requires time. Sorry for the somewhat trivial question...) ...
Just to clarify, I do not deny that "birth" and "death" can have other meanings than "phyisical"/literal birth and death. But, IMO, it would be quite odd that DO, which seems among to be the "central" teachings (or eve the central teaching) of the Buddha, does not refer, in any case, to physical birth, ageing and death. After all MN 26:
"What if I, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, were to seek the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding? What if I, being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, were to seek the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less,, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding?'"...

"Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. ..."
(Ven Thanissaro transl. Unbinding = Nibbana)

Of course the sufferings caused by these "physical" phenomena are not the only "real" sufferings. What I meant is that, when Nibbana is seen as a "shelter", it is seen above all as freed from physical ageing, death, illness etc

Also by the first question I meant that "arising" and "ceasing" are by themselves temporal phenomena and I cannot understand how a structural/timeless interpretation of DO can explain the existence of temporal phenomena themselves. I am aware that this question might be a trivial one...

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11880
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

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

Post by DNS » Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:26 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:13 am
PS Could you please add "multiple lives model" to the OP poll?
That will reset all the numbers back to zero, which is okay, but before I do that, let's here if there are any other options that should be added. So as I see it, we could have the list above plus:

Option 8: Timeless/Atemporal/Structural
Option 9: Multiple lives model
Option 10: Multiple lives model & moment-to-moment

Will that make it complete? Are there any other options missing before I update it?

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

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

Post by aflatun » Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:49 pm

If you include

Timeless/Atemporal/Structural & Multiple Lives

I know a lunatic that would vote for it (me)
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

boundless
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

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

Post by boundless » Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:42 pm

aflatun wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:49 pm
If you include

Timeless/Atemporal/Structural & Multiple Lives

I know a lunatic that would vote for it (me)
Hi aflatun, dindale, DNS,

What is the difference between "multiple lives model" and "three/two lives model"? :anjali:

BTW, I think that DO applies at various level. And in fact I am even open to the possibility that we can have a "multiple life", a "moment to moment" and a "structural" version of DO (well, maybe I am crazy :? ). But clearly, IMO, a "structural-only" interpretation of DO is rejected by SN 12.2 (because "birth" and "ageing and death" are, after all, (at least "also") meant physical/literal).*


It seems to me that if we answer that "only this version of DO is true, all else is not" we risk to fall in the error of the blind men and the elephant ( Udana 6.4) in a different way than those "ascetics".

P.S.

* Not only this, I think that, in fact, DO can apply also to material objects (e.g. to the arising and cessation of flames, bubbles, mountains, planets, stars etc). But here we are restricting ourselves to the 12 links, if I am not wrong.

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

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

Post by binocular » Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:20 pm

aflatun wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:49 pm
If you include

Timeless/Atemporal/Structural & Multiple Lives

I know a lunatic that would vote for it (me)
Count me in, and we'll take over the asylum!
:rolleye:

- - -

But seriously. We should not be making fun of ourselves this way.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: justindesilva, paul, Yahoo [Bot] and 49 guests