Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Paticcasamuppāda
Hello,
I would like to know what role Dependent Origination plays both in your view of Buddhism and practice. For me, it is the most important aspect of Buddhism together with the teaching of anatta. While anatta is an analytic method for me to realize things that are not me, not my Self, dependent arising is a synthetic teaching that explain to me without any missing link how this mass of suffering in the world is brought about. During meditation, I often go thru this chain in mind in order to recall how all phenomena I perceive come into existence, that gives me detachment from them and calmness.
Have you studied dependend origination and is it important to you, e.g. have you included it into your meditation? Are you able to find the 5 skandhas within the chain? What is the first one, what the last, are our body and feelings, or our whole psycho-physical appearance (nama rupa) merely a product of will/karma formations and the conciousness which results from that?
Curious to hear your views.
Regards
I would like to know what role Dependent Origination plays both in your view of Buddhism and practice. For me, it is the most important aspect of Buddhism together with the teaching of anatta. While anatta is an analytic method for me to realize things that are not me, not my Self, dependent arising is a synthetic teaching that explain to me without any missing link how this mass of suffering in the world is brought about. During meditation, I often go thru this chain in mind in order to recall how all phenomena I perceive come into existence, that gives me detachment from them and calmness.
Have you studied dependend origination and is it important to you, e.g. have you included it into your meditation? Are you able to find the 5 skandhas within the chain? What is the first one, what the last, are our body and feelings, or our whole psycho-physical appearance (nama rupa) merely a product of will/karma formations and the conciousness which results from that?
Curious to hear your views.
Regards
0
Comments
Dependent co-arising (paticca-samuppada) is one of the most important of all the Buddha's teachings. It is because of not understanding and not penetrating dependent co-arising that beings wander in samara (DN 15). It seems to me that when it comes to the Buddha's teachings on the formula of dependent co-arising, these twelve links are simply a way to illustrate the arising and passing away of stress and suffering (dukkha) as opposed to a full map of experience. From Nyanatiloka Mahathera:
Essentially, dependent co-arising does not describe any thing abstract or metaphysical. What dependent co-arising does describe are the causes and conditions for the arising and passing away of stress and suffering—that which is unsatisfactory (dukkha), impermanent (anicca), and not-self (anatta). More importantly, it details where the process of suffering can be broken; namely between feeling and craving via dispassion, and ignorance and fabrication via insight into the Four Noble Truths.
Regards,
Jason
On a side note, the Venerable Thanissaro is conducting a day-long class on dependent co-arising May 5th at the Insight Meditation Center in Redwood City, CA; and I am assuming that they will record the majority of the class and make those recordings available online as they usually do.
Sincerely,
Jason
I have a little trouble to agree that Paticcasamuppāda does not describe anything metaphysical, if we take metaphysics to mean simply "about the characteristics of existance", it describes the cause for our existence(past), our situation(present) the results of it (future).
However, I am aware that probably false speculation about it has been made, as Ven. Nyanatiloka Mahathera pointed out when he critized Dahlke and his "simultaneity" of all twelve elements constituting "one karmic moment". (This could lead to the idea of "instant rebirth" I imagine) Ven N. expclicitly rejected it with the comment that Paticcasamuppāda is not for "mental gymnastics" but that the Buddha teached it in order to show us how it could come to our existance and suffering. So basically, for me it is an explanation of my being and the resulting stress/suffering, and I also use it as a hint that our psycho-physical organism is not a product of our body or its functions, but instead is karmically "willed out" thru our past ignorance.
Regards
That is quite alright. In truth, I generally do not agree with much of what I present either after a year or so. My views are as anicca as anything else. Even so, I personally find that dependent co-arising is better understood as an activity or process — one that is observable in the here and now — rather than a concrete description of reality.
Furthermore, implicit in all of these teachings are the means by which we may cease this activity or process of the continual arising and passing away of stress and suffering. For me, this is a pragmatic teaching rather than an abstract or metaphysical one; nevertheless, my views are probably not entirely inline with orthodoxy in this respect.
Regards,
Jason
I guess this depends on the take of the terms such as Jati. If its meant to mean birth of a new entity composed of the five skandhas, i.e.meaning solely a birth originated from the womb or egg, then there is no room for an interpretation of Paticcasamuppāda that would go for instant rebirth of merely the skandhas, e.g. a thought or feeling, but instead really refer to the birth, meaning visual appearance of a new being. As such, Paticcasamuppāda could never be subjectivly experienced as a whole, except one anticipates or "sees" beyond one`s current life, but could at best be observed on other beings that are born and pass away.
Well, at least with me you won`t have a problem because of that, since I am afraid I am rather unorthodox myself and mostly subscribe to Georg Grimm`s views:tonguec:
Nevertheless I don`t know if Ven. Nynatiloka Mahathera`s view of Paticcasamuppāda with the insistance of a distribution of it over three lifes is perceived as orthodox by the Theravada community.
Regards
I do not see dependent co-arising as describing a new entity composed of the five clinging-aggregates being born as much as I see it as just the arising and ceasing of stress and suffering. Birth is simply the appearance of the aggregates (DN 22). In addition, when looking at the five clinging-aggregates, what is it that we are really looking at? We are looking at nothing but stress and suffering.
In SN 56.11, for example, the Buddha summarizes dukkha as, "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." Furthermore, in SN 22.79 the five clinging-aggregates are described in verb form, or in other words, not as things but as activities. Therefore, when looking at the birth of the five clinging-aggregates in this way, we are looking at the birth of [the activity of] stress and suffering.
Regards,
Jason
Love ya'll,
Bobby
Here is an elaboration of my view:
Dependent co-arising (paticca-samuppada) is one of the most important of all the Buddha's teachings. It is because of not understanding and not penetrating dependent co-arising that beings wander in samara (DN 15). It seems to me that when it comes to the Buddha's teachings on the formula of dependent co-arising, these twelve links are more a way to illustrate the arising and passing away of stress and suffering (dukkha) than they are a full map of experience. For me, these are ultimately pragmatic teachings rather than purely abstract or metaphysical ones; nevertheless, my views are probably not entirely inline with orthodoxy in this respect.
Often, the first thing that people usually associate with the teachings on dependent co-arising is the mechanism by which beings are continually reborn. This process of rebirth is generally broken up into three successive lives, namely past, present, and future, with the various links distributed between them. Ignorance and mental fabrications are placed in the past; consciousness, name and form, six-sense media, contact, feeling, craving, and becoming are placed in the present; and birth, and old age and death are placed in the future. As such, these teachings appear to take on an abstract or metaphysical aura; however, when we look at these teachings from a different perspective, they take on a completely new meaning and usage—the practical usage of putting an end to stress and suffering.
Besides seeing dependent co-arising as describing a new entity composed of the five clinging-aggregates being born, we can also see it as the arising and passing away of stress and suffering. Birth, which should be taken literally, is simply the appearance of the aggregates (DN 22). Moreover, when looking at the five clinging-aggregates, what is it that we are really looking at? We are looking at nothing but stress and suffering. In SN 56.11, for example, the Buddha summarizes dukkha as the five clinging-aggregates. Furthermore, in SN 22.79 the five clinging-aggregates are described in verb form, or in other words, not as things but as activities. Therefore, when looking at the birth of the five clinging-aggregates in this way, we are effectively looking at the birth of [the activity of] stress and suffering.
Dependent co-arising does not necessarily describe anything abstract or metaphysical because it can also be understood as an activity or process that is observable in the here and now, or in other words, a visible chain of events. What dependent co-arising describes more than anything are the causes and conditions for the arising and passing away of stress and suffering—that which is unsatisfactory (dukkha), impermanent (anicca), and not-self (anatta). More importantly, it details where the process of suffering can be broken; namely between feeling and craving via dispassion, and ignorance and fabrication via insight into the Four Noble Truths.
I hope that all of this makes sense.
Jason
Birth, which should be taken literally, is simply the appearance of the aggregates
I have read DN22, which like most Suttas from DN, are very long and challenging. Under birth, we find this under "Mental Qualities":
"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
So it`s not simply the appearance of an aggregate or two or more of them, like a thought or emotion. I don`t know if each element in the elaboration can be taken for its own. If we take the whole list as a whole together as mandatory in order to speak of a birth, then something must descend, being born into the world, its aggregates thus appearing and finally, the six-sense sphere must be grasped by it.
A being (satta) is defined in Radhasamyutta (Samyuta Nikaya) as interest/thirst for the five aggregates, which on the other hand, are accessable through the six sense sphere. So, if all "steps" on what is birth are taken together, it is simply the birth process of a new being. Note that this are just some thoughts of me and I have not yet a profound knowledge of DN 22.
Regards
To begin with, I am not quite sure what you mean when you say, "it`s not simply the appearance of an aggregate or two or more of them, like a thought or emotion." Both the quote from myself and the sutta stated that birth is the appearance of the aggregates. What this is referring to is the conventional birth of a child from the womb of its mother. You further go on to say that this is, "simply the birth process of a new being." We are in agreement here, and that is why I said that birth should be taken literally.
When it comes to conception, however, that is an entirely different can of worms. For starters, the Buddha says three conditions are necessary for conception: coitus of the parents, it is the mother’s season, and the gandhabba is present. According to the commentary, gandhabba is the being to be born. As I recall, it is also the name for a type of divine musician. Birth is then defined in the Vinaya by the Buddha as the first moment of vinnana, which would probably be when the embryo develops sense organs.
As for the whole vinnana "descending" business, that is due to a translation of the word okkamati as "descend" in a passage concerning the arising of vinnana. I, however, think that this translation is misleading in this context. For starters, we must remember that the Buddha said that vinnana arises due to the internal and external sense bases. In addition, okkamati can also mean "appear" besides "descend". In regards to the arising of vinnana in the mother's womb, I think it's better translated as "appear".
Jason
I had to look gandhabba up and find various explanations of the word, which puzzle me.
Does this, I wonder, raise more questions than it answers? What is this 'being' and how is it 'fit to be born'?
From the University of New South Wales, admittedly not a Buddhist organisation, we get: The final sentence is interesting.
From Indopedia, we get Interesting to find a pre-Freudian description of the Oedipal realtionship. It still doesn't help much on what, precisely, this gandhabba may be. It even gives the gandhabba some form of volition, doesn't it?
Understanding that this thread is in our "Buddha U." forum, I am still somewhat concerned that this notion of gandhabba as third element of conception is not subject, as are sperm and ovum, to scientific enquiry when we present the Dharma to non-believers.
I suppose that it can raise more questions if one is intent on pinning down the process of rebirth and what exactly is being reborn. It is a complicated process to sift through the vast collection of teachings. The Buddha, however, never went into too much detail in this area unless it was absolutely necessary. For example, in SN 12.35 the question is asked, "Which is the birth, lord, and whose is the birth?" to which the Buddha replies, "Not a valid question. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth."
Here there is no mention of a being. A being, by the way, is defined in SN 23.2 as one who is tied up by desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. There are also many terms that appear in only one or two places in the suttas that are never really defined. There is the term sambhavesi, which can be found in a handful of suttas for example. It literally means "beings seeking rebirth", but the Buddha never really goes into too much detail here either.
Regarding the gandhabba, I am afraid that you are right about it not being subject to scientific enquiry; nevertheless, the process of conception never interested me all that much since I have already been born, and I never really felt the need for confirmation of that fact. (That's a little joke by the way.) Even so, there is a great deal here that I cannot help you with for the simple fact that my knowledge in this area is fairly limited. I think that it would be a subject worth exploring deeper though.
Jason
We connect back, I think, to the long and, ultimately, unsatisfactory debate about an "essence" or "soul".
My interpretation of gandhabba is that it is the jiva, since in Payasi Sutta, a simile is given with a musician that makes music out of a shell, as well as a living spirit/ soul makes a body alive. However, I am not willing to make this thread another anatta debate although I am aware that it goes into that direction the moment one examines what (re)birth is.
Forgive me if I expressed myself too vague. I said that birth in the quote I gave can be read as a sum of the elements listed there, not just "pick one and call it birth", which btw is supported in Nyanatiloka`s Pali Dictionary, since there it is also understood as the process of an embryo. If one wants to really pin down (re)birth, than it is the whole process an embroy "undertakes" and in my reading, it has nothing to do with the arising or appearance of phenomna constantly here and now in every being. Or simply said, I am not constantly reborn. So appearance of the aggregates is not wrong but an incomplete description of (re)birth.
Simon,
that is where Karma comes into play, it is the "quality" of the volition a being that is to be reborn owns .
I think that we would only come back to such a debate if we tried to make the obscure gandhabba, or the conventional being (satta), person (puggala), et cetera into some kind of a permanent, fixed entity. At any rate, the question of whether the life force and the body are the same, or the life force one thing and the body another is one of the questions that the Buddha refused to answer, and also where he gave the famous simile of the arrow (MN 63). That is another reason why I do not believe that self or lack thereof is an issue in the Buddha's teachings towards awakening at all. At any key point in the Pali Canon where he could have definitively said one way or the other, he simply refused to answer.
Jason
Hmm, I don't think that anyone said only one aggregates pops up without the rest. If you are referring to my post about the aggregates being described as activities, I never said that they were popping up and disappearing like in a magic act. However, they do continuously change, and they are things that we do, or keep going. In other words, they are not static entities or nouns as much as they are transient phenomena or verbs. I think that is why when one reaches nibbana, it is called the cessation of [the activity of] suffering.
This means that even when one reaches arahantship, the body doesn't simply vanish, but once the kamma for that life is exhausted, everything grows cold right there. The activity has ceased and runs itself out. In the teachings on dependent co-arising, the Buddha never mentions things such as gandhabba, et cetera. Therefore, when concentrating on this teaching in order to put an end to suffering, such things do not appear to be all that relevant; otherwise I am sure that he would have mentioned something about it.
Jason
Haven`t claimed that, but since appearence requires cognition, there can always "pop up", meaing being recognized, one, more or all.
But that is not the point, the appearance of (all) the aggregates is an insufficient description of birth. Birth is a process, according to said quote, that starts with the gandhabba descending and ends with its acquiring of the six sense sphere, that is how I understand it.
I understand what you are saying; you do not like short-hand descriptions of birth. My apologies. When I used the apearance of the aggregates in my descriptions of birth, I did so as a short-hand description because the full description had no barring on my point regarding my view of the pragmatic usage of paticca-samuppada.
Nevertheless, this brings us to yet another interesting point. In regards to the word used for "beings" in the description of birth that we find in this particular instance, I do not think that it is gandhabba at all. From what I can tell of the Pali version, the word that is used for "being" used here appears to be "satta" rather than "gandhabba".
Jason
One question that might be interesting to ask is whether the term satta is referring to the same things as gandhabba so that they can be used inter-changeably, or whether they have two distinct meanings. To tell you the truth, I am not sure of the answer myself. Coincidentally, I have asked about the gandhabba elsewhere, and if I find anything worthwhile out, I will share it with you here. I must admit that I am a little curious as to what place this "being to be born" plays in the overall process of rebirth.
Jason
Alright, here is what I got so far:
What do you think about this?
Jason
It is clear that the 'laws' of the universe, whether those described in the language of mathematics and physics or that of the suttas and, perhaps, of myth, operate in their own field. They is no requirement to 'personalise' them but human beings do it all the time.
Concerning Buddhagossa`s text, his position did not surprise me since his position can be summed up as "I do not exist, what exists are the aggregates, that is all". Or in other words, the skandhas realize they belong to noone, they are reborn.
Peter Harvey`s Text I have to reread first and look up the references. I want to note though, that life spirit is Atman in Sanskrit, neatly reflecting the indo-german/european root of the word in atmos (greek) and atmen (german), probably rooted in a very early attempt to desribe an immaterial life priniciple (it is quite obvious that the one`s who don`t breath any more can be called dead), shortly, what Harvey describes in 6.35 could be rendered an "Upanishadic" Atman, that later nevertheless is reduced of being anicca, dukha and anatta. There is a lot going in Harveys text.
Regards
The following seems, at least to me, to be more helpful.
Monks, it is on the conjunction of three things that there is conception. If there is here a coitus of the parents, but it is not the mother’s season and the gandhabba is not present—for so long there is not conception. But if, monks, there is a here a coitus of the parents and it is the mother's season and the gandhabba is present, it is on the conjunctions of these three things that there is conception. — M.i.265–266
These may also be helpful to the discussion.
Man, according to the Buddha, is a psycophysical unit (nâmarûpa). This is made up of three components - the sperm and the ovum which go to make up the fertilised ovum or zygote along with the impact of the stream of consciousness of a discarnate spirit (gandhabba) or what is called the re-linking consciousness (patisandhi-viññâna). - The Message of the Buddha by K.N. Jayatilleke page 82
Vasubandhu explains rebirth of the Bardo (antara/intermediate) being:
An intermediate being is produced with a view to going to the place of its realm of rebirth where it should go. It possesses, by virtue of its actions, the divine eye. Even though distant he sees the place of his rebirth. There he sees his father and mother united. His mind is troubled by the effects of sex and hostility. When the intermediate being is male, it is gripped by a male desire with regard to the mother; when it is female, it is gripped by a female desire with regard to the father; and, inversely, it hates either the father, or the mother, whom it regards as either a male or a female rival. As it is said in the Prajñâpti, "Then neither a mind of lust, or a mind of hatred is produced in the Gandharva.” When the mind is thus troubled by these two erroneous thoughts, it attaches itself through the desire for sex to the place where the organs are joined together, imagining that it is he with whom they unite. Then the impurities of semen and blood are found in the womb; the intermediate being, enjoying its pleasures, installs itself there. Then the skandhas harden; the intermediate being perishes; and birth arises that is called "reincarnation" (pratisa.mdhi). — Abhidharmakoshabhasyam 3:15
Love ya'll,
Bobby
regarding the stuff from Peter Harvey:
first, the allegation that was made by Garrett Jones can be easily refuted by pointing to the fact that even advaita who affirm the atman does not consider the atman or highest self to be reincarneted, but instead, the jiva, the lower or individual self, which obviously also is anicca, dukkha and anatta (not True Self). The true self is of course not reborn. Here we see that either postulating an Atman or not is in no way a sufficient criteria to argue that one "both wants to have to cake and eat it" concerning rebirth/reincanration, which Harvey adresses in a more general way later.
A new problem of course arises when one asks where this spiritual being comes from, and there we have the really interesting point. While an affirmer of an atman can always argue that the same is a more subtle thing from which other, less perferct selfs derive, a proponent of anattavada will end up in trying to dissolve those selfs into other factors, when pursued to end, will end up in discarding an intermediate state, as it has been shown by Theravada scholars.
Harvey is troubled when he argues that the gandhabha is an empirical self between births, for that would mean it should be subject to empirical enquiry, meaning observable. The most promising approach to interpret the Ghandhaba, as far as I can see it, is to postulate it as an immaterial being. This in now way contradicts the buddha`s definition of a being, since it is qualified for will / thirst for the aggregates and I could be mistaken, but I see no indication yet that a being needs a body for that, for karmic formations determine the being.
I agree. In addition, Harvey and his ilk seem to possess an extraordinary degree ignorance about modern physics and, in particular, the works of the late N.A. Kozyrev who was an astrophysicist. The immaterial Ghandhaba can be placed in the world of Kozyrev's torsion waves which are immaterial. Another aspect, Harvey would do well to ground himself in wave-genetics which is based on the rersearch of Dr. Peter Gariaev. Harvey is too much in the past.
For some Buddhists to maintain that the three marks of existence is all there is, is quite astonishing, to say the least. It bespeaks more of their own personal wish to promote materialism, than to be precise in respect to what the Buddha actually said.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
There are;
1) 5 links - missing ignorance, activities, consciousness, name and material form, six sense spheres, contact, and feeling. (SA 283: T2. SN 12:57).
2) 8 links - missing ignorance, activities, consciousness, name and material form. (SA 327:T2. SN 12.12)
3) 9 links - missing ignorance, activities and consciousness. (SA 284: T2. SN 12.58, 59)
4) 10 links - missing ignorance and activities. (SA 288: T2. SN 12.67)
5) 11 links - ignorance. (SA 367: T2. SN 12.84)
The usual twelve are of course;
1) Ignorance
2) Activities
3) consciousness
4) Name and material form
5) Six sense spheres
6) Contact.
7) Feeling
8) Craving
9) Attachment
10) Becoming
11) Birth
12) Aging and death.
Broadly speaking, this is the cycle of Samsara. In the latter '12' link version, 'ignorance' is cited as the 'prime' mover of the other '11' links. But the further back one investigates in the Pali Nikayas and the Chinese Agamas, one finds that ignorance was not cited at all, as a prime mover. Even in the '11' link version, ignorance is missing.
(Please see The Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism: By Choong Mun-Keat, Page 18-19for a more indepth analysis of the above).
And here is a quote to clarify how the '12' link version may have originated;
'Practical requirements made it necessary to present this "re-birth without a soul" in a readily grasped and memorised form. Accordingly, the principle of dependent origination (paticca-samappada) discovered by the Buddha was converted into the formula of dependent origination. It is not probable that the Gotama himself actually formulated this conditioned nexus of twelve links: it is more probably the work of early monks. As material they used three separate short chains of conditionality which the Master had used in sermons, and joined them up, irrespective of the fact that the twelve-linked chain thus created comprises of three separate existances in a series of rebirths, but uses different terms to describe each of these existances. Nevertheless, the early monks considered this formula as such an important recognition that in compiling the Pali cannon they attributed it to the Buddha.'
(The Historical Buddha: By HW Schmann, Page 142-143)
Schumann clearly identifies the first birth as comprising links 1, 2, 3 & 4. The second birth as comprising links 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9. And the third birth as comprising links 10, 11, & 12. This last birth is probably the easiest to discern: becoming, birth, death and decay, etc.
The earlier versions of the chains of dependent origination, did not contain 'ignorance' as the basis of the chain. This is interesting. And I suspect that 'ignorance' should not really be part of the chain today, at least from a philosophcal perspective. The reason for this is subtle: ignorance lies with the dull mind, and not with the chain, which is considered 'natural' and how the world functions. Even when the chain is fully 'cognised', we are still subject to its effect 'physically', even if our Minds have been purified and nolonger create suffering (i.e. 'ignorance').
In short, the chain still exists, even when one's 'ignorance' about it, nolonger exists.
Indeed, in the SN 12, 20 and SA 296, it is stated that dependent origination is not made by the Buddha Himself or by others: whether or not a Buddha arises in the world, this is the status of dharma, the certainty of dharma, the fact of causal connection - or the element (nature) of dharma. Dependent Origination is an act of nature. We are ignorant of nature, but nature is not ignorant of itself - hence 'ignorance' as a concept, is Man made, and lies outside the scope the 'nature'.
Where does this leave us? It is simple really. We discard 'ignorance' through training our Minds, when this has been done, we perceive things as they really are - free of ignorance. Ignorance was probably added to the chain as a 'upaya', or 'skillful means' exercise.
Thank you.
Indeed I have wondered what remains as motive for any activity if one has removed ignorance completely. These are just my thoughts about it:
It follows, that not only bad actons, but also good actions are conditioned by ignorance. Ven. Nyanatiloka Mahathera explains it by stating that bad actions also have hatred and greed as a condition, good actions only ignorance. It is quite logical since when somebody has achieved all there is to achieve, there remains nothing for him to do, so until he is there, his effort to gain enlihgtenment is also conditioned by ignorance or not knowing, which he is removing with the help of the dhammma. Still, for an enligthend being, there would remain nothing to do, except maybe help others out of compassion
It is just my opinion, but I seriously doubt that avijja (ignorance) was a later addition to the teachings. Ignorance of the Four Noble Truths plays an integral part in the Buddha's teachings, whether dealing with teachings on dependent co-arising or the teachings on the Four Noble Truths themselves. There are as many suttas that contain teachings about ignorance as there are suttas without teachings on ignorance.
Just because ignorance was not included in ever list throughout the Canon does not mean that it was a later addition. Some lists, for example, simply focus on a select few in order to make a specific point, while other times the remaining links are implicit. I do not think that ignorance is focused on because it is a prime mover as much as it is one of the places where the chain of dependent co-arising can be broken.
Jason
'Two Aspects of Nirvana
This was said by the Blessed One, spoken by the Holy One, thus I have heard:
There are, O monks, two aspects of Nibbana: the Nibbana-element with the groups of existence still remaining, and the Nibbana-element with no groups remaining.
What is now the Nibbana-element with the groups of existence still remaining? In that case, O monks, a monk is an Arhat: he is taint-free, has fulfilled the holy life, accomplished his task, thrown off the burden, attained his goal, cast off the fetters of existence and is liberated through right wisdom. But there still remain with him (until his death) the five sense-organs that have not yet disappeared and through which he still experiences what is pleasant and unpleasant, as well as bodily ease and pain. The extinction of greed, hatred and delusion in him. this is called the Nibbana-element with the groups of existence still remaining.
And when is the Nibbana-element with no groups of existence remaining? In that case, O monks, a monk is an Arhat....liberated through right wisdom. In him, all those feelings, no longer relished, will even here (at his death) come to extinction. This is called Nibbana-element with no groups of existance remaining.'
Iti: 44, page 146.
What do you think about this?
Thank you.
I am not sure exactly what you mean. In general, I think that this passage describes two things. The first thing that it describes is an arahant that has achieved the goal of the holy life and is still experiencing the results of past kamma (i.e. the aggregates as described in SN 35.145). The second thing that it describes is an arahant that has achieved the goal of the holy life and is not experiencing the results of past kamma (i.e. an arahant that has passed away). In relation to ignorance, this means that neither type of arahant is ignorant of the Four Noble Truths, or the duties to be done in regards to each Truth (i.e. comprehend suffering, abandon its cause, realize its cessation, and develop the path to that cessation).
Jason
Ignorance was not a later addition to the 'teachings' (i.e. Dhamma), you are correct. The work of HW Schumann, quoted above, does not say that 'ignorance' was a later edition to the 'teachings' (i.e. Dhamma). He makes clear, with scriptural reference that 'ignorance' did not appear in the various chains of Dependent Origination, until the '12' link version was fully formed.
It probably wasn't included in the earlier (and lesser linked chains), because IT WAS such an obvious teaching, that it was taken for granted. Whatever the case, the various, lesser linked chains are referenced above, for you to inspect.
Your assessment of the written Dhamma assumes that it has always existed in its current form. Fully expanded and modernised from the beginning. Even a cursory examination of the texts, will show that the Dhamma developed over hundreds of years. As a consequence of this knowledge, we know through contextual analysis, that the portions of thw written Dhamma are older than those sections containing the '12' linked version.
As there were at least 18 schools at one time, we may assume that variations of interpretation separated these schools. An example of this difference that lies within similarity, can be seen between the Pali Nikayas, and the Chinese Agamas, etc.
However, merely to 'realise' the chain, does not 'release' one from it;
''Two Aspects of Nirvana
This was said by the Blessed One, spoken by the Holy One, thus I have heard:
There are, O monks, two aspects of Nibbana: the Nibbana-element with the groups of existence still remaining, and the Nibbana-element with no groups remaining.
What is now the Nibbana-element with the groups of existence still remaining? In that case, O monks, a monk is an Arhat: he is taint-free, has fulfilled the holy life, accomplished his task, thrown off the burden, attained his goal, cast off the fetters of existence and is liberated through right wisdom. But there still remain with him (until his death) the five sense-organs that have not yet disappeared and through which he still experiences what is pleasant and unpleasant, as well as bodily ease and pain. The extinction of greed, hatred and delusion in him. this is called the Nibbana-element with the groups of existence still remaining.
And when is the Nibbana-element with no groups of existence remaining? In that case, O monks, a monk is an Arhat....liberated through right wisdom. In him, all those feelings, no longer relished, will even here (at his death) come to extinction. This is called Nibbana-element with no groups of existance remaining.'
Iti: 44, page 146.'
From this text in the Pali Cannon - full release only occurs upon the death of the physical body of the Arhat.
And as I pointed out above, 'ignorace' exists in our Minds, but the conditioned world exists regardless of whether we are 'ignorant' of it or not.
'Indeed, in the SN 12, 20 and SA 296, it is stated that dependent origination is not made by the Buddha Himself or by others: whether or not a Buddha arises in the world, this is the status of dharma, the certainty of dharma, the fact of causal connection - or the element (nature) of dharma. Dependent Origination is an act of nature. We are ignorant of nature, but nature is not ignorant of itself - hence 'ignorance' as a concept, is Man made, and lies outside the scope the 'nature'.'
If we expanded the debate to include the Mahayana and the Vajrayana schools, there would be a plethora of concepts that did not exist (in the Pali Cannon) the way they are now being used today in the Mahayana sutras. Within which, 'emptiness' and its 'perception' has been developed to a greater philosophical depth.
The Pali Cannon speaks of 'emptiness' of Mind, but not of 'emptiness' of 'world'. The world is only 'empty' of 'self'. It is not 'empty' in itself. However, generally speaking, the Mahayana viewpoint is that 'all' is empty. And that realising 'emptiness' is enlightenment. This would be considered pre-eminant, and beyond the mere 'understanding' of dependent origination, as the chain, regardless of how many links it contains, would be 'empty' from the very beginning.
Thank you, I appreciate your viewpoint in this matter. Please let me know what you think.
I am not surprised, that post was in response to fofoo's post.
I only saw your post at a later time.
Thank you.
I wonder how what I said brought you to the conclusion that I assume these texts have always existed in their current forms. Not only is such a statement incorrect, but it is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is easy to see the importance of certain teachings throughout the Pali Canon, and the importance of ignorance (of the Four Noble Truths) is readily apparent. I do not think that I have to go through sutta after sutta to prove that. In addition, there are many descriptions of dependent co-arising that do include ignorance among the links, and I do not think that there is any conclusive way to prove that all of these were later additions. At any rate, we do not know that any one portion is older than another, we simply have evidence to suggest the possibility that some are of a later date.
While I agree that there was some editing over the years, I do not agree that ignorance should be taken out of dependent co-arising. Essentially, ignorance does not mean ignorance of everything, or ignorance of the twelve links of dependent co-arising. Ignorance is in reference to ignorance of the Four Noble Truth and the duties to be done in regards to each Truth (i.e. comprehend suffering, abandon its cause, realize its cessation, and develop the path to that cessation). What this means is that when one has gained direct insight into these Four Truths and preformed the duties to be done in regards to each Truth, then they cycle of suffering is broken. So, ignorance is in regards to ignorance of the Four Noble Truths, not to ignorance of the existence of these twelve links as it appears you are suggesting.
As for Iti 44, I think that this passage describes two things. The first thing that it describes is an arahant that has achieved the goal of the holy life and is still experiencing the results of past kamma (i.e. the aggregates as described in SN 35.145). The second thing that it describes is an arahant that has achieved the goal of the holy life and is not experiencing the results of past kamma (i.e. an arahant that has passed away). In relation to ignorance, this means that neither type of arahant is ignorant of the Four Noble Truths, or the duties to be done in regards to each Truth. I do not believe that this suggests anything contrary to what I have said concerning ignorance and its place in dependent co-arising. As for expanding the debate, I prefer to keep to the Pali Canon as that is what I am most familiar with.
Jason
I apologize for the misunderstanding regarding Iti 44.
Jason
Jason
The last quote is especially important because it not only defines ignorance in terms of the Four Noble Truths, but it defines ignorance in relation to the twleve links of dependent co-arising as well.
Jason
P.S. I apologize for the shortness (i.e. abrupt or curt) of my replies. I have had less than four hours of sleep today, and I probably should not be replying to anything until after I have taken a nap.
essentially, I think that It44 say that the arhant produces no new karma, because he attained perfect wisdom (removed all ignorance), yet he experiences his past karma. It strongly points to something totally passive. This leads me to the idea that we should look closer at the term you gave as "action", the second part of the chain of dependend co-arising. I know it also as "karma-formations" or "volitional activities". I have to admit that I am "prejudiced" towards the strong emphasis of volition, since i came from Schopenhauer to Buddhism, alas, he interprets Nirvana as desireless state, where all volition towards worldy things vanished, the fire gone out being the will. I am aware that there was some "evolution" of the term Nirvana/Nibbana and that I now distract the topic a bit, but I felt I had to say it so you maybe can understand me better.
Maybe I think too simplistic, but something perfect cannot be better,hence every change would either be no improvment or even something worse. What I tell my Christian friends sometimes is, without ill will, that God´s first mistake was to do something, since he already was perferct
I will reread your posts and reply if I think I have something of value to say.
Thank you very much for your insightful posts you made so far (on the whole site)
Thank you for your input.
Here are points I have made in my initial post above:
1) The '12' link chain of dependent origination, is/was not the original 'chain' conveyed within the sutras.
2) I have never said that 'ignorance 'does not' exist as a philosophical concept within Buddhism - indeed, it is a central factor, without which there could be no 'Sambodhi'.
3) Through the use of academic and scriptural reference, it can be clearly seen that chains of fewer links exist.
Now, none of this undermines the usefulness of the dependent origination theory. Nor does it infer a 'redundancy' of the theory in anyway. What it does show, is that the theory of dependent origination 'did' exist in one form or another, as far back as is academically observable. Such research also shows that 'ignorance' was not placed at the front of the chain - according to HW Schumann. He is of the opinion that the '12' links are comprised of of at least 3 shorter chains. Choong Mun-Keat on the other hand, clearly references in his work, at least five other versions of the chain, and according to his research (an academic thesis), ignorance does not appear at the beginning of the chain, until the '12' linked version came into being.
This does not mean that;
1) Ignorance does not exist within Buddhism.
2) Neither should it serve to grant licence, to project the meaning that ignorance does not exist in Buddhism, either upon my post, or the work of Schumann and Choong.
Exercising the right to 'disagree', does not make a statement 'off topic' or 'irrelevant'. If you disagree with the work of Schumann, Choong, and my post conveying it, then that is your right as a Buddhist.
Thank you for your post(s)
Yes - fofoo! One breaks the causal nexus of karma, and as a consequence makes no more. But at the sametime, has to cary the physical body until it falls away, experiencing within the body, any past karma that has not been nullified or diminished into nothing.
This is the 'way-in' to the centre of the chain, that begins the breakthrough in meditation. The chain is dissolved within the Mind. No new karma is formed, but the body (i.e. the physical structure) 'is' karma incarnate. It must live-out its exitence upon the karmic wave that created it. Insight penetrates the chain and the emptiness of 'no-self' is attained. And as the Buddha says, his teachings are a raft; when the job is done, and the journey complete, they should not be carried about. Perhaps when the Mind attains 'non-self' wisdom, the chain dissolves?
Let me know what you think.
Thank you
I continue to find it a strange post-modern attitude that the only 'authenticity' resides in words actually spoken by a founder. Each school of thought has grown and built, whether religious, philosophical, psychological,e tutti quanti. As Einstein pointed out: we stand on the shoulders of giants - but, when we do so, we may see even further than the giant!
You might then, find this even stranger;
''The paradox of tradition is that once it has been spoken the tradition is no more what its spokesmen claim it to be. Tradition is invoked for the authority of its silence; a silence that neither needs nor brooks argument and which render all all arguments superfluous, pretensious and impotent. Yet in order to yield its authority (that is, to be of that use whose prospect had seduced the speaker in the first place), tradition needs to be argumentatively established; its silence must be broken. But once it has been broken, its authority becomes of a kind altogether different from the now lost, virginal, unthinking allure. It is now but an authority of choice and declared loyalty; of a choice among choices, a loyalty among loyalties. The noun 'tradition' moves now, verb-like, from the past to the future tense, from the rhetoric of the forever-given to the rhetoric of the perpetually uncertain. It is no more the self=assured silence, but the anxious continuity of speech that makes tradition possible, though it is exactly the opposite which, when speaking of tradition, the speech speaks about. Tradition vanishes in the self-same discourse which purports to make its presence tangible.
The discourse itself is the sign of this dissolution. It is said that human conditions do not exist until they are named; but they are not named until they are noticed, and they are hardly ever noticed until their existance becomes a matter of concern, of active search and creative/defensive efforts. Orthodoxy does not know itself until kicked into shape by heresy. To be seen, named and talked about, tradition must first be challenged by noveltry. It is the noveltry that conjures up the tradition as its other, as something it is not, something it is up against, or something it lacks and misses - as nostalgia for an old home rather than the longing for a home yet unbuilt. It has been said that the remarkable thing about community is that it always has been. Tradition lives only posthumously. in the experience of detraditionalisation. Tradition is the upstart novelty's dream of a dignified sedateness...'
Zygmunt Bauman: Detraditionalisation (in the post-modern age).
Thank you
Indeed, brother. And the trick is in discernment. When we 'break open the myth' or unpick the tradition, we must take care that we do not destroy or discard what is useful. At the same time, the holders of traditions need to be open to the new insights and understandings. Dialogue between these two, in honest respect for each other's best intentions, can be most fruitful. For many of us, HHDL gives example of how a holder of traditions can engage in productive dialogue and uncover common language and intentions.
I understand that, and I have disagreed with this point. I can name many suttas which reference all twelve links. In fact, in my last post the Sammaditthi Sutta (MN 9) mentions them all. What about the Paticcasamuppada Sutta (SN 12.2)? Simply to say that these are later additions merely because they do not agree with your conclusions does not prove anything in and of itself. Therefore the burden of proof lies on those who posit that these are later additions. If you wish to convince me of this, I ask that you please share more evidence that supports this conclusion.
I never said you did either. But that you did say was that ignorance was not originally in the teachings on paticca-samuppada and that ignorance in dependenet co-arising was in reference to the existence of the chains (i.e. "merely to 'realise' the chain, does not 'release' one from it."). I do not understand what the purpose of such an argument is, but I do not agree with it. I have argued on my part that not only is ignorance mentioned in various teachings dealing with dependent co-arising, but that ignorance itself is specifically in relation to the Four Noble Truths themselves.
Of course, there are many suttas in which only a few of the links as we have come to know them are referenced. That was never in question. What was in question was does this prove that the other link were slowly added over time, or were they not mentioned in certain situations because they did not apply to the specific context of that particular sutta? I imagine that Schumann is a very dedicated and hard working man, but I am hesitant to take the word of one man over 2,600 years of tradition. I need more evidence that his opinion to sway me otherwise.
Perhaps you have misunderstood what I have said in this regard. I agree that all of us here have a right to disagree with whatever we wish as long as it is done in a civil manner; nevertheless, I have never once said that your posts were off topic. I said that your statement that my assessment of the written Dhamma assumes that it has always existed in its current form was incorrect, and furthermore, that such statements are irrelevant to the topic at hand. My personal opinions have nothing to do with scriptural references or academic evidence whatsoever.
Jason
I agree that the teachings on dependent co-arising are useful; nevertheless, it can undermine their practical usage when we remove integral aspects. One point that is not as important to the overall discussion but that needs to be mentioned nonetheless is the fact that ignorance is never said to be at the "front" of the chain. The chain of dependent co-arising is not portrayed as linear process with a discernible beginning and end. The chain itself is a cyclic, non-linear process which has no discernible beginning or end, but does have links between which the chain of dependent co-arising can be broken. There are places, for example, where the Buddha begins with ageing and death rather than ignorance, or where the fermentations/taints are mentioned before ignorance, et cetera.
Jason
'Buddhism postulates that Sorrow (Dukkha) exists in all life-process and that the religion of the Lord is the only means of its elimination. The rise of the problem in the Lord's mind had been set forth in dramatic concreteness in the "Legends of the Four Signs", and its final solution must needs, in the logical course, be embodied in the "Enlightenment Legend". Hence Sambodhi is identified with the discovery of that doctrine which is the foundation of Buddhist thought and philosophy - the Chain of Causation (Paticca-samuppada), expounding the origin of Sorrow and the cessation thereof. But it is purely a monkish figment - this interpretation of Sambodhi in terms of doctrine - as Dr Thomas has shown by a collation of various legendary versions of the event.'
(The Buddha and Five After Centuries: By Sukumar Dutt - Page 40.)
On the face of it, it is fairly obvious why 'ignorance' does not have to be at the beginning of the Chain of Dependence. Before the Lord Buddha 'realised' enlightenment, he did not see the Chain of Dependence - 'ignorance', the natural state of humanity, obscured the Chain of Dependence. The Chain of Dependence was still there of course, as ignorance of it, does mean that the Chain of Dependence does not exist.
We may conclude from this, that regardless of the presence or absence of 'ignorance', the Chain of Dependency exists in an independent manner.
When enlightenment is attained, we may say that the obscuring 'ignorance' is removed, and the Chain of Dependency is fully perceivable.
Enlightenment does not 'create' the Chain of Dependency, it merely 'removes' that which obscures it. Conversely, the state of 'ignorance' does not 'negate' the Chain of Dependency, it merely serves to obscure it from obvious view.
Ignorance then, as a distinct and separate state, neither 'adds' to, or 'diminishes' anything from the Chain of Dependency.
As ignorance DOES NOT create the Chain of Dependency, there is no logical reason for it to appear in the Chain of Dependency, and certainly not at the beginning. Ignorance does not 'create' or 'destroy' the Chain of Dependency, and has no reason to be placed first in the list.
Given the academic evidence, it is doubtful that 'ignorance' appeared in the earliest Chains of Dependency. Even if one were to assert that Chains of Dependency of '12' existed in the earliest texts (again doubtful and not supported by research), it would also have to be admitted that other, lesser linked Chains existed, that DID NOT have 'ignorance' as there prime-mover. '
'In the formula of "Dependent Origination" (paticca-samuppada) by which the Buddha shows the conditoned "arising of this whole mass of suffering", Sense Impression is said to be the principal condition of Feeling (phassa-paccaya vedana), while Feeling, on its part, is the potential condition of Craving, and. subsequently, of, more intense, Clinging (vedana-paccaya tanha, tanha-paccaya upadanam).
This, therefore, is a crucial point in the condition of origination of Suffering, because it is at this point that Feeling may give rise to passionate emotion of various types, and it is, therefore, here that one may be able to break that fatuous concatenation. If, in receiving a sense impression, one is able to pause and stop at the phase of Feeling, and make it, in its very first stage of manifestation, the object of Bare Attention, Feeling will not be able to originate Craving or other passions. It will stop at the bare statements of "pleasant", "unpleasant" or "different", giving Clear Comprehension time to enter and to decide about the attitude or action to be taken.'
(The Heart of Buddhist Meditation: By Nyanaponika Thera, Page 68-69.)
Thank you
I think that this statement right here shows that you might not fully understand what ignorance means in relation to dependent co-arising. Ignorance is one of the links because ignorance is the cause of sankhara (fabrication), and fabrication is the cause of consciousness, et cetera. With the remainderless fading and cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness, et cetera (SN 12.11).
What evidence? I would also like to say once more that ignorance is never said to be the "prime mover". The chain of dependent co-arising is not portrayed as linear process with a discernible beginning and end. The chain of dependent co-arising itself is a cyclic, non-linear process; a process with links between which the chain can be broken—namely between feeling and craving via dispassion, and ignorance and fabrication via insight into the Four Noble Truths.
Regards,
Jason
This again leads me to question the translation of "sankhāra". I did not ask without a purpose for the five skandhas in the beginning of this thread: Here we have the first: sankhara skandha. Is every volitional activity really a product of ignorance? Or ist the more apropriate translation even "mental formations"? In combination with what I said earlier here about Nyanatilokas interpretation, namely that all sankhara are a product of ignorance, wheter good or bad, this pretty much reminds me of the term "Vedanta", the end of knowledge (or is there knowledge that is nor a "mental formation"?).
Regards
I completely agree. That is precisely what I have been saying this entire time.
Sankhara as a link in dependent co-arising is not the same as the aggregate of the same name. In fact, sankhara can refer to at least three of four different things depending on the context. As you are probably aware, for example, sankharakhanda refers to the aggregate of thought formations, whether those belong to kamma forming consciousness or not. In the dependent co-arising, I think this would be included under name and form (the union of mentality and materiality that constitute the five aggregates).
Sankhara can also mean forming or having been formed (i.e. as with all conditioned things), and as such, it seems to act as both a verb and a noun without any real doctrinal significance. In the same vein, sankhara can specifically represent anything formed or conditioned. In this general sense you have phrases such as, "Sabbe sankhara anicca" (All conditioned things are impermanent).
Finally, in reference to the chain of dependent co-arising, sankhara specifically refers to fabrications in the sense of kamma formations—actions of body, speech, and mind that constitutes as cetana (volition). In this context, we are told in the Pali Canon that ignorance is the cause or condition for kammic-formations, but not the thinking process in general. Essentially, it should be distinguished that not all thought formations are kamma producing, otherwise arahants would be unable to think once they achieved nibbana.
Regards,
Jason