Here is Paṭisambhidāmagga I.275 from Nanamoli's translation, which is here: https://tipitaka.fandom.com/wiki/Patisambhidamagga
This discusses past and future lives, along the same lines as the Visuddhimagga, e.g. XVII.34, XVII.58, XVII.287.

Mike
Yes, I'm aware of this passage from Vibhanga. But the links here are a bit different from the classical ones: it talks about nāma, instead of nāma-rūpa, and it has only the 6th sense base, not all 6 sense bases. If we talk about classical structure I don't see how we can make one or many lives out of it.mikenz66 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:54 pmHere is the Vibhaṅga section:Edit: See next post for the relevant section from the Paṭisambhidāmagga (which is in the Sutta Pitaka) that references multiple lives.What are unwholesome thoughts? At whatever time an unwholesome mind has arisen, connected with happiness, associated with the resort to (wrong) view, a form object, or a sound object, or a smell object, or a taste object, or a tangible object, or a thought object, or referring to whatever (thought), at that time with ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) process, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, with consciousness as condition: mind, with mind as condition: the sixth sense sphere, with the sixth sense sphere as condition: contact, with contact as condition: feeling, with feeling as condition: craving, with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole mass of suffering.
https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs248
Yes, I must admit it's a little obscure, and I don't quite see how to read it. Maybe I didn't find quite the right passage.Volo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 4:20 amYes, I'm aware of this passage from Vibhanga. But the links here are a bit different from the classical ones: it talks about nāma, instead of nāma-rūpa, and it has only the 6th sense base, not all 6 sense bases. If we talk about classical structure I don't see how we can make one or many lives out of it.
Exactly. Unless we can ask The Buddha himself, we will never all agree.Dinsdale wrote: ↑Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:01 amThe DO suttas are somewhat ambiguous, and it's all a matter of interpretation. There is no consensus here, just a lot of competing theories - multiple lives, single life, multiple moments, etc.
I would be sceptical about anyone claiming to have the "right" answer, or anyone proselytising a particular interpretation.
Genes?Viachh wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:34 amWhat if we consider ignorance as genes (gene level), which determine the remaining links (levels)? Such a (level) model is suitable both for instant (vertical) interpretation and for hybrid (vertical-horizontal) one. The vertical interpretation as a level sweep is obvious. Vertical-horizontal: after all, genes (micro level) as a legacy of the past determine both the current (at the cellular level) moment and the future (at the macro level) one.
Unfortunately that won't stop people coming up with new interpretations of DO, and having long-winded arguments about them.one_awakening wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:39 amExactly. Unless we can ask The Buddha himself, we will never all agree.Dinsdale wrote: ↑ The DO suttas are somewhat ambiguous, and it's all a matter of interpretation. There is no consensus here, just a lot of competing theories - multiple lives, single life, multiple moments, etc.
I would be sceptical about anyone claiming to have the "right" answer, or anyone proselytising a particular interpretation.
So you appear to be saying it is pointless to have interpretations of DO that actually lead to actual knowable liberation?
Any example does not describe the phenomenon he illustrates 100% (otherwise it would not be an example, but the phenomenon itself). In this case, genes only indicate the proto level. (You can take instead of them, for example, atoms (atomic level). This is not important.)Volo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:02 amGenes?Viachh wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:34 amWhat if we consider ignorance as genes (gene level), which determine the remaining links (levels)? Such a (level) model is suitable both for instant (vertical) interpretation and for hybrid (vertical-horizontal) one. The vertical interpretation as a level sweep is obvious. Vertical-horizontal: after all, genes (micro level) as a legacy of the past determine both the current (at the cellular level) moment and the future (at the macro level) one.Then one would have to get gene mutation in order to become enlightened? Did the above geno-cellular interpretation makes more sense to you and seems to be more close to what the Buddha meant than classical three lives explanation?
You can have a new interpretation, just be wary of posting it here. You'll probably get condemned for it.
People more often get "condemned" here for "old" interpretations. The more contemporary interpretations seem to be much more fashionable.one_awakening wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:28 amYou can have a new interpretation, just be wary of posting it here. You'll probably get condemned for it.
Whether it is genes or atoms it would still be only rūpa. This interpretation seems to ignore the role of nāma.Viachh wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:22 amAny example does not describe the phenomenon he illustrates 100% (otherwise it would not be an example, but the phenomenon itself). In this case, genes only indicate the proto level. (You can take instead of them, for example, atoms (atomic level). This is not important.)
Any example does not describe the phenomenon it illustrates 100% (otherwise it would not be an example, but the phenomenon itself).Volo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:33 amWhether it is genes or atoms it would still be only rūpa. This interpretation seems to ignore the role of nāma.Viachh wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:22 amAny example does not describe the phenomenon he illustrates 100% (otherwise it would not be an example, but the phenomenon itself). In this case, genes only indicate the proto level. (You can take instead of them, for example, atoms (atomic level). This is not important.)
I don’t care about old or new explanations: if only these explanations would fulfill their function: to explain. (Otherwise, you can fall into dogmatism: a sort of Buddhist Taliban.)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests