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
13%
Two lives model
0
No votes
Three lives model
4
9%
Three lives model and moment to moment
10
22%
Multiple lives model
3
7%
Multiple lives model & moment-to-moment
7
16%
Moment to moment only
1
2%
Timeless/Atemporal/Structural
10
22%
Simultaneous, non-linear
4
9%
 
Total votes: 45

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:14 am
SDC wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:19 am (Use whatever translation you like, it doesn't alter my point whatsoever.)
I am aware of his absolutally brutal mistranslation of the word sankhara. ..
I said you could use whatever rendering you like. Use "volitional formations", it doesn't make a bit of difference about what SN 22.55 has to say about dependency. Don't try to drown out my point by going in a different direction.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Dinsdale wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:21 am
Dinsdale wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:21 am Can anyone explain simply and clearly what "timeless" means when applied to DO, and give a practical example?
Anyone?
It always, almost immediately, goes back to you (re)expounding about what you insist are "definitions", so what's the point? Is that what I should expect if I venture an answer?
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

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

Post by bodom »

Dinsdale wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:18 am
bodom wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:02 pm DO as observed in the present moment:
“In the same way, Māgaṇḍiya, if I were to teach you the Dhamma—‘This is that freedom from Disease; this is that unbinding’—and you on your part were to know that freedom from Disease and see that unbinding, then together with the arising of your eyesight you would abandon whatever passion & delight you felt with regard for the five clinging-aggregates. And it would occur to you, ‘My gosh, how long have I been fooled, cheated, & deceived by this mind! For in clinging, it was just form that I was clinging to… it was just feeling… just perception… just fabrications… just consciousness that I was clinging to. With my clinging as a requisite condition, there arises becoming… birth… aging & death… sorrow, lamentation, pains, distresses, & despairs. And thus is the origin of this entire mass of stress.’”

- MN 75
:namaste:
This passage seems to describe an insight into how DO works, but I don't see how it supports the idea of moment-to-moment DO, where the whole process is supposed to take place in a moment.
It wasn't my intention to show any momentary Notion of DO, only that it is visible in this present life and doesn't require the 3 lifetime model.

:namaste:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

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

Post by User1249x »

I think it would be very good if it was specified dependent origination of what exactly this thread is about.

If it is about the 2nd Noble Truth in general in relation to the 1st then a definition of what is the 1st truth required because one will get a lot of different answers if one goes with confining 1st NT to birth-life-death, a certain experience, a specific phenomena or just saying Sabbe Sankhara (all formations) in general.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Hi boundless,

Lots of points to address, but I'll start with this.
boundless wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:42 am
Regarding these questions of SDC,
How do see 'arising' or 'ceasing'? From what position? Does 'arising' and 'ceasing' happen in front of you? Behind you? In your field of vision? In your mind? Somewhere else? Is that view of 'arising' and 'ceasing' also part of that arising and ceasing?
I think that “arising”, “changing” and “ceasing” do not require a “perspective”. In fact, I think that the point is to see that despite awareness/consciousness there is no need to posit a "self". In fact, I think that "arising" is cognized by consciousness but is not "dependent" on it (just like flames, bubbles etc arise and cease even if no cosciousness is aware of them).

In fact, they require simply a cognition. (in the Bahiya Sutta, for example, we have “in the seen only the seen…”…). I thinh that "arising" and "ceasing" is what is seen by the Arahant, without any subtle "I am" "tendency" in it.

Then also, there is SN 12.2 where “birth” and “death” are physical events. i wonder how the "timeless-only" model explain this Sutta.

This is why I find the view of Ven. Nagarjuna/MMK much more complete (as far as I understand it). In fact I think that Ven. Nanavira is wrong when he says that DO does not "include" rebirth.

Thank you in advance for the answer. And sorry for possible mistakes (I wrote this message in a hurry).

:anjali:

Edited for clarification
So yes, I agree there is no need for a source of that direction of view, but how can a thing's arising be discerned at all unless it does so against a background which is present with it? What I mean is, in order for the concept of movement to be discerned, there has to be that which is moving less, changing less in relation to it.

The more you read Ven. Nv you will start to recognize the degree to which he discusses wrong view, but in the landscape of what he believes to be right view. With that he is going to thoroughly address the plight of the puthujjana and not just try and speak exclusively - for lack of a better phrase - in that ultimate sense. It gets easier to distinguish the difference in his writing.

As far as 'birth' and 'death' are concerned, you have to be open to the idea that PS/DO is not a blueprint of one's life but of one's suffering. With the former you are bound sequence and linear causality, as has been shown, but with the latter, these "physical events" are described by showing that upon which they depend in terms of "the arising of this whole mass of suffering". So yes, they are physical events, but in DO/PS it is all about how those events contribute to suffering, not how they contribute to one another. Remember all they do is depend on each other - lean together like the reeds in SN 12.67.

I have a busy weekend, so I'll do my best to address your other points as soon as possible.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

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

Post by Mkoll »

Which view on DO resonates with you the most?
The one that conduces to avoiding embroilment in arguments about it.

:coffee:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
boundless
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

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

Post by boundless »

Hello SDC,

thank you for the answer.
SDC wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:14 pm So yes, I agree there is no need for a source of that direction of view, but how can a thing's arising be discerned at all unless it does so against a background which is present with it? What I mean is, in order for the concept of movement to be discerned, there has to be that which is moving less, changing less in relation to it.
On this I think it is better to "split" the argument in two parts.
To simply "discern" the arising-alteration-ceasing the only necessary thing is consciousness, but not a "self". A self is "posited" to explain the continuity of experience, not experience (e.g. of "arising" etc).

On the other hand you make a very interesting point. If that awareness changes too, how can "it" be aware of change? How it is possible to speak of "arising, ceasing" etc if the reference frame itself changes? This is a very interesting point.
However it can be said that what awareness "sees" is the result of change. For example, if I watch the arising-alteration-ceasing of a flame, while my consciosness changes during the "watch" it can still be aware that there was an arising of a flame etc (maybe due to some subtle form of memory, but not because clinging). This does not mean that we need to "assume" a "self" that is "behind the scenes" in order to describe the change in the experience.

After all, if the Buddha and Arahants were unaware of change how could they speak, be aware of the progress of their disciples etc? I still think that they are aware of arising and ceasing in their "everyday" experience. They are still aware of change.
Hence, I disagree that "cessation of consciousness" refers to the "everyday" consciousness of the Arahants (which Ven. Nanavira apparently equates to "vinanna anidassana" of DN 11). That would in fact imply the IMO very awkward position that there are two "cessation of consciousness, cessation of feelings etc". The first would be the "cessation of consciousness, cessation of feelings etc" that corresponds to the "ceased consciousness, ceased feelings..." (i.e. a "structural change" in consciousness, feelings...) whereas the second would be the "cessation of ceased consciousness, cessation of ceased feelings...".

IMO, It is not that "Nibbana with reaminder" is a form of "changed consciousness" and "Nibbana without remainder" is when even that "changed consciousness" vanishes (as I think Ven. Nanavira says). Whatever is it, Nibbana/Unconditioned is one, not two. *


SDC wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:14 pm
The more you read Ven. Nv you will start to recognize the degree to which he discusses wrong view, but in the landscape of what he believes to be right view. With that he is going to thoroughly address the plight of the puthujjana and not just try and speak exclusively - for lack of a better phrase - in that ultimate sense. It gets easier to distinguish the difference in his writing.

As far as 'birth' and 'death' are concerned, you have to be open to the idea that PS/DO is not a blueprint of one's life but of one's suffering. With the former you are bound sequence and linear causality, as has been shown, but with the latter, these "physical events" are described by showing that upon which they depend in terms of "the arising of this whole mass of suffering". So yes, they are physical events, but in DO/PS it is all about how those events contribute to suffering, not how they contribute to one another. Remember all they do is depend on each other - lean together like the reeds in SN 12.67.

Thanks for this suggestion. I will keep it in mind. But my problem is when DO is taken to be only as "structural" (as if "DO is only structural, all other models are worthless"...). Anyway, I still think that Arahants are still subject to some inevitable suffering. At the same time, however their mind is structurally different and therefore they are not subject to some types of suffering. For example, "normally" contact is followed by craving and clinging whereas in the case of an Arahant there is still contact but not craving and clinging.
SDC wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:14 pm I have a busy weekend, so I'll do my best to address your other points as soon as possible.
Well, I will maybe have a busy week, so take all the time you need :heart:

:anjali:

Note, possibly O.T.
*Well,as far as I understand and know, some interpreters suggest that Nibbana is one and is a "kind" of consciosuness (that "vinnana anidassana" taken to mean "non-manifest consciousness"), like professor Peter Harvey and some monks in the Thai Forest Tradition. But according to them this "consciousness" is not the "everyday consciousness" of the Arahant. But it is not the Classical Theravada position which does not take "vinnana anidassana" as a kind of consciousness. Ven Nagarjuna position differs form both but even according to him Nibbana is one (in Mahayana is called "abiding", in the non-abiding Nirvana The liberated does not abide neither in Samsara nor in Nirvana) AFAIK.
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 »

boundless wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:42 am Then also, there is SN 12.2 where “birth” and “death” are physical events. i wonder how the "timeless-only" model explain this Sutta.
You might decide that a timeless model cannot account for this. But if you want to try, my advice would be a start backwards. Is an Arahant subject to death?
Ven. Nv wrote:Actually and in truth (saccato thetato, which incidentally has nothing to do with paramattha sacca, 'truth in the highest [or absolute] sense', a fallacious notion much used in the traditional exegesis—see PARAMATTHA SACCA) there is, even in this very life, no arahat to be found (e.g. Avyākata Samy. 2 <S.iv,384>—see PARAMATTHA SACCA §4 [a]); and though there is certainly consciousness and so on, there is no apparent 'self' for whom there is consciousness. Yena viññānena Tathāgatam paññāpayamāno paññāpeyya, tam viññānam Tathāgatassa pahīnam ucchinnamūlam tālāvatthukatam anabhāvakatam āyatim anuppādadhammam; viññānasankhāya vimutto kho mahārāja Tathāgato... ('That consciousness by which the Tathāgata might be manifested has been eliminated by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, dug up, made non-existent, it is incapable of future arising; the Tathāgata, great king, is free from reckoning as consciousness...') (Avyākata Samy. 1 <S.iv,379>)
A NOTE ON PAṬICCASAMUPPĀDA 22
Ven. Nv wrote:[a] The question discussed here, whether saccato thetato a 'self' is to be found, must be kept clearly distinct from another question, discussed in A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPĀDA §22, viz whether saccato thetato the Tathāgata (or an arahat) is to be found (ditth'eva dhamme saccato thetato Tathāgate anupalabbhamāne... ('since here and now the Tathāgata actually and in truth is not to be found...') Avyākata Samy. 2 <S.iv,384>). The reason why the Tathāgata is not to be found (even here and now) is that he is rūpa-, vedanā-, saññā-, sankhāra-, and viññāna-sankhāya vimutto (ibid. 1 <S.iv,378-9>), i.e. free from reckoning as matter, feeling, perception, determinations, or consciousness. This is precisely not the case with the puthujjana, who, in this sense, actually and in truth is to be found.
PARAMATTHA SACCA

Hence the tetralemma as we find it in the Pali texts.
boundless wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:42 am This is why I find the view of Ven. Nagarjuna/MMK much more complete (as far as I understand it).

It could be, but on this point there is no disagreement at all! 8-)
Ven. Nagarjuna wrote: One seized by the dense fixation
That the Thus-Gone exists
Will think that, upon his transcendence,
The Thus-Gone no longer exists. [XXII.13]

As for a Buddha empty of nature,
To declare that, upon transcendence,
He exists or does not exist
Would not make any sense. [XII.14]

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. [XXII.15]
Nagarjuna , Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
"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: 76
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

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

Post by boundless »

aflatun wrote: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:06 pm
You might decide that a timeless model cannot account for this. But if you want to try, my advice would be a start backwards. Is an Arahant subject to death?
Hi,

well, you are right. Better start backwards :thumbsup:

Ok, I will try to make a decent answer, saying how I see it now.

My answer is "two-fold":
1) ultimately, the answer is "it does not apply" (tetralemma etc). The doctrine of anatta is crystal clear on it. "Non-liberated" people instead see a self in what is not-self.
2) Conventionally, yes. Just like, conventionally, we speak of birth and death of other beings.

As I understand it, according to the "structural" view of DO, "avijja", ignorance, is the necessary "condition" of all other links.
Now, it is due that:
1) avijja is the condition for craving and clinging;
2) avijja is the condition for seeing "birth" and "death" as "birth" and "death" of a self;
3) without avijja anatta is understood.
4) craving & clinging stop, so there is no more fuel for "bhava".

At the same time, however:

1) "consciousness", "contact" and "feeling" are still there;
2) the body of the Arahant is subject to "ageing and death" (like the arising and cessation of a flame or a bubble etc).
3) the same is true for other aggregates (as SN 12.2 says).

So, "structural" DO is true in so far we notice the "change" of the "structure of the mind" (i.e. "how mind works"). An Arahant is completely free of the conceit "I am". So simply, he does not "see" death as is normally seen.

"Structural-only" DO, however does not address the fact that there are two truths. Indeed, the Arahant, conventionally, dies. And ideed his/her "physical death" has his/her "physical birth" as a condition. This is true for both the puthujjana and the Arahant. The fact that the Arahant does not "see" a "self" does not affect the fact that all "khandas are impermanent". Since (physical) "birth" is due to craving, and since "birth" in SN 12.2 is defined as "physical birth", then DO, at least in some contexts also refers to physical processes. Hence "structural-only" DO fails, IMO. While "death" does not apply to the Arahant and the Arahant does not "see" death as is normally seen, remains the fact that the conventional truth is valid.

Also, as I said in my response to SDC, there is the problem that, if "structural-only" interpretation of DO is true, then "cessation of feelings, consciousness etc" must have two meanings. Ven. Nanavira himself says that consciousness of the living Arahant is "ceased". So at the "death" of the Arahant, when all aggregates stop, also this "ceased consciousness" ceases (I find it very odd). The same goes for "contact". The Arahant still has contact. So, while of course the mind-stream of the Arahant experiences feelings and contact in a completely different way than others, it is also true that s/he has still contact and feelings. They are not "ceased feelings, contact" etc (I would say they are "untainted").

Ven. Nagarjuna's version is much more satisfying because he has also a version of DO that takes into account "physical birth, ageing and death" (and the arising and cessation of conditioned phenomena like flames, bubbles etc) and does not have the awkwardness of the double meaning of "cessation".

But, of course maybe I am misunderstanding. So, I will read again Ven. Nanavira's work. Unfortunately for some days I will not be able to write again.

See you soon :hello:

:anjali:
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

boundless wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:42 am If “ignorance” ceases then, if the "structural/timeless-only" version of DO is correct, all the “links” must cease. Among the links we have “consciousness” (vinnana), “contact” (phassa) and “feeling” (vedana). Problem is that, as Ven Nanavira acknowledges that the Arahant still lives and therefore “feels” and is conscious. But the Venerable says that, for example, the consciousness of the Arahant, “vinnana anidassana”, is “a ceased/stopped” consciousness. Of course, an Arahant does not have ignorance and conceit (“I am”) so his consciousness must be “qualitatively” different from “normal consciousness”. But in the definition of “contact” above lies a problem: contact, AFAIK, is defined as the “coming together” of the sense sphere, sense objects and sense-consciousness: I do not remember a passage that says that contact depends on a “belief” in a self (or on the tendency "I am" for that matter).
Just to use 'feeling' as an example, let's take a look something like SN 22.88, where it seems quite clear the verse is in reference to the arahat:
“Therefore … Seeing thus … He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’...

...If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached.
So I am happy you raised this point because there are often a lot of questions about how it plays into a "timeless" interpretation. Clearly this sutta is incompatible with cessation in terms of cessation of experience, but if it isn't cessation of experience, what is it cessation of? Again, I'm going to posit the idea that 'cessation' in terms of DO/PS must have exclusively to do with "...the cessation of this mass of suffering" and not cessation of arising in general. I hope I am not being too cavalier with this point. Things must continue to arise, but they do not arise with ignorance and therefore do not arise as "this is mine, this I am". Prior to arahantship, when arisen things were "mine", when they were "the five-clinging-aggregates", the pairs of DO/PS were one's suffering. Why? Because one did not decide for things to be mine: they arose as mine. That "I" arose as "me". When that ignorance is removed, those things no longer stand together as suffering. I also posit that they still stand together, but looking at SN 22.88 above, there is a detachment, there is opening where that dependency once meant suffering, but now means nothing. I posted the below in another thread where this came up. Perhaps it is of relevance.
SDC wrote:I think both monks, in choosing their words, are quite careful to emphasize that there is no correlation (no direct route) between the "respective intensities" of experience and the teleological/intentional nature common to both the arahat and puthujjana; but only that, while things remain teleological for the arahat, they are no longer mine, i.e. no longer significant "to me".
The arahat's experience, as stated above, is teleological, as is the puthujjana's; but with the arahat things no longer have the particular significance of being 'mine'. This special significance, dependent upon avijjā, is not of the same kind as a thing's simple intentional or teleological significances, but is, as it were, a parasite upon them. - Ven. Nv, ANICCA
Thus the hierarchy of signifying things continues to arise (cease and change-while-standing) but it no longer grows; it is “cut off at the root, made like a palm stump”. Its root was ignorance in itself and with its absence everything founded upon it comes to an end—one is free. In other words the respective experiences of the puthujjana and arahant alike, share the same fundamental nature of impermanence (arising and ceasing) but the respective intensities of those experiences are changed; for the arahant feeling none of it and for the puthujjana dependant on the amount of ignorance being present. More ignorance, more ‘intensity’, things appear as more ‘pressing’ and one is easily prone to giving in to desire-and-lust. - Ven. NN, Papañca-Saññā-Sankhā
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

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

Post by Circle5 »

SDC wrote: Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:40 pm So I am happy you raised this point because there are often a lot of questions about how it plays into a "timeless" interpretation. Clearly this sutta is incompatible with cessation in terms of cessation of experience, but if it isn't cessation of experience, what is it cessation of? Again, I'm going to posit the idea that 'cessation' in terms of DO/PS must have exclusively to do with "...the cessation of this mass of suffering" and not cessation of arising in general. I hope I am not being too cavalier with this point. Things must continue to arise, but they do not arise with ignorance and therefore do not arise as "this is mine, this I am". Prior to arahantship, when arisen things were "mine", when they were "the five-clinging-aggregates", the pairs of DO/PS were one's suffering. Why? Because one did not decide for things to be mine: they arose as mine. That "I" arose as "me". When that ignorance is removed, those things no longer stand together as suffering. I also posit that they still stand together, but looking at SN 22.88 above, there is a detachment, there is opening where that dependency once meant suffering, but now means nothing. I posted the below in another thread where this came up. Perhaps it is of relevance.
1) This does not answer the problem of the 5 aggregates dissapearing at 22:57 if ignorance disappears at 22:57 in a "structural, non-temporal, happening in every moment DO". The sutta you quoted only supports the normal interpretation that only craving ceases in the case of an arahant, not the 5 aggregates.

2) There are also unpleasant feelings (suffering) arising in an arahant too, a thing that is also explained in the suttas. Unpleasant feelings do not cease to arise in the case of an arahant.

3) Another problem Nanavira theories and your above post has is the fact that there is no belief in a self in the case of children below age 2 and all except 5-10 animals. All these ideas about belief in a self being a proximate cause for this and that (instead of a distant, general cause as claimed in normal interpretation) are refuted by the simple fact that not all being has a belief in a self at all points of their existence. Not to mention one might even lose this due to stream entry and then have it again in one of the next births that he still has to go.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

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

Post by SDC »

Circle5 wrote: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:07 am
SDC wrote: Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:40 pm So I am happy you raised this point because there are often a lot of questions about how it plays into a "timeless" interpretation. Clearly this sutta is incompatible with cessation in terms of cessation of experience, but if it isn't cessation of experience, what is it cessation of? Again, I'm going to posit the idea that 'cessation' in terms of DO/PS must have exclusively to do with "...the cessation of this mass of suffering" and not cessation of arising in general. I hope I am not being too cavalier with this point. Things must continue to arise, but they do not arise with ignorance and therefore do not arise as "this is mine, this I am". Prior to arahantship, when arisen things were "mine", when they were "the five-clinging-aggregates", the pairs of DO/PS were one's suffering. Why? Because one did not decide for things to be mine: they arose as mine. That "I" arose as "me". When that ignorance is removed, those things no longer stand together as suffering. I also posit that they still stand together, but looking at SN 22.88 above, there is a detachment, there is opening where that dependency once meant suffering, but now means nothing. I posted the below in another thread where this came up. Perhaps it is of relevance.
1) This does not answer the problem of the 5 aggregates dissapearing at 22:57 if ignorance disappears at 22:57 in a "structural, non-temporal, happening in every moment DO". The sutta you quoted only supports the normal interpretation that only craving ceases in the case of an arahant, not the 5 aggregates.

2) There are also unpleasant feelings (suffering) arising in an arahant too, a thing that is also explained in the suttas. Unpleasant feelings do not cease to arise in the case of an arahant.

3) Another problem Nanavira theories and your above post has is the fact that there is no belief in a self in the case of children below age 2 and all except 5-10 animals. All these ideas about belief in a self being a proximate cause for this and that (instead of a distant, general cause as claimed in normal interpretation) are refuted by the simple fact that not all being has a belief in a self at all points of their existence. Not to mention one might even lose this due to stream entry and then have it again in one of the next births that he still has to go.
1) I think you need to read my post more carefully. Literally the entire point was that the aggregates do not cease. I don't get what you are trying to say.

2) Again, that was the entire point of quoting that sutta. I never said unpleasant feeling is gone. Read it again. But you need to show me where the suttas equate "unpleasant feeling" with "suffering" for the arahat. And don't quote the back ache scenario again, because that isn't an example of what I am asking - that line is about bodily discomfort and there no mention of vedana or dukkha as far as I can recall.

3)Why do you continue to push this misrepresentation? I have clearly shown that this is not his view. Why do you keep falling back on it?
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10171
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

bodom wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:44 pm
Dinsdale wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:18 am
bodom wrote: Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:02 pm DO as observed in the present moment:



:namaste:
This passage seems to describe an insight into how DO works, but I don't see how it supports the idea of moment-to-moment DO, where the whole process is supposed to take place in a moment.
It wasn't my intention to show any momentary Notion of DO, only that it is visible in this present life and doesn't require the 3 lifetime model.

:namaste:
Fair enough, though IMO the inclusion of "birth" in the passage above suggests multiple lives.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10171
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

Mkoll wrote: Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:40 am
Which view on DO resonates with you the most?
The one that conduces to avoiding embroilment in arguments about it.
:coffee:
I'm not sure I agree with that. :tongue:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10171
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Spiny Norman »

boundless wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:42 am Also if "time" is related to change, then "without alteration/change" also means "atemporal/timeless" (i.e. the "unconditioned dhamma" is timeless - or "dhammas" if there is more than one "unconditioned dhamma" as some schools held...)
I agree, and it appears that Nibbana is the only "timeless" or unchanging dhamma. The nidanas are all sankharas, and therefore subject to anicca.

"Sabbe sankhara anicca".

I would still like to see a clear, practical explanation of what "timeless/atemporal" actually means when applied to DO, and it puzzles me that apparently nobody here is able to provide this.

I assume "timeless/atemporal" doesn't mean contemporaneous, ie present or occurring at the same time. That would be the first mode of conditionality in DO, ie "When this is, that is." Actually I think this mode would be better expressed as "While this is, that is."
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply