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.
The 12 nidanas- seperated into three lifes or constantly repeating?
The 12 nidanas are said by Nyanatiloka to be seperated into three lifes:
1-2. former life
3-10 current life
11-12 future life
Nyanatiloka writes here :
Against Dr. Paul Dahlke's misconception of the paticcasamuppāda as "one single karmical moment of personal experience," and of the 'simultaneity' of all the 12 links of this formula, I should like to state here distinctly that the interpretation of the p. given here as comprising 3 successive lives not only agrees with all the different schools of Buddhism and all the ancient commentaries, but also is fully identical with the explanations given already in the canonical suttas. Thus, for example, it is said verbatim in Nidāna-Samyutta (S. XII, 51):
"Once ignorance (1) and clinging (9) are extinguished, neither karmically meritorious, nor demeritorious, nor imperturbable karma-formations (2=10) are produced, and thus no consciousness (3=11) will spring up again in a new mother's womb." And further: "For, if consciousness were not to appear in the mother's womb, would in that case mentality and corporeality (4) arise?" Cf. above diagram.
What evidence do those have who claim paticcasamuppāda is "one single karmical moment of personal experience" ?
1-2. former life
3-10 current life
11-12 future life
Nyanatiloka writes here :
Against Dr. Paul Dahlke's misconception of the paticcasamuppāda as "one single karmical moment of personal experience," and of the 'simultaneity' of all the 12 links of this formula, I should like to state here distinctly that the interpretation of the p. given here as comprising 3 successive lives not only agrees with all the different schools of Buddhism and all the ancient commentaries, but also is fully identical with the explanations given already in the canonical suttas. Thus, for example, it is said verbatim in Nidāna-Samyutta (S. XII, 51):
"Once ignorance (1) and clinging (9) are extinguished, neither karmically meritorious, nor demeritorious, nor imperturbable karma-formations (2=10) are produced, and thus no consciousness (3=11) will spring up again in a new mother's womb." And further: "For, if consciousness were not to appear in the mother's womb, would in that case mentality and corporeality (4) arise?" Cf. above diagram.
What evidence do those have who claim paticcasamuppāda is "one single karmical moment of personal experience" ?
0
Comments
This is the first time I've heard someone claim the many-lives interpretation of dependent origination in opposition to the immediate-experience interpretation. Usually, it's claimed that both interpretations hold, because the immediate-experience interpretation is immediately verifiable from, well, immediate experience, and is so well supported scripturally. I have to wonder whether they're serious.
You are reading a very old translation. The sutta does not say what Nyanatiloka says it says. There is no words regarding a 'mother's womb' anywhere in it. The sutta actually states: The sutta ends with the words, refering to the here & now: Evidence comes from meditative insight.
However, regarding your so-called "evidence" from an archiac & inaccurate translation by one single man who chose to leave Europe and go to Ceylon, this is no evidence at all.
The sutta states when there are no sankhara affected by ignorance, the third of which is ignorant perception, there will be no regarding phenomena as "consciousness", "birth", "aging & death", etc, and "just this is the end of suffering".
The sutta starts with the words: "When a person makes a thorough investigation of the many diverse sufferings that arise in the world, headed by aging & death, what is the source of this sufffering?"
The sutta ends with the answer, the source of suffering is regarding phenomena as 'conscious' and ultimately due to craving & attachment, regarding phenomena as subject to 'birth' & 'death'. "Oh, my mother died, I am so sad".
This is because one regards that phenomena as a conscious life form, as being "mine" and as subject to something called "death". But when a mind is free from "I" and "mine", there is no birth & no death.
If you wish to comprehend dependent origination, you must see for yourself the notions, concepts or 'ideas' of 'birth' & 'death' are merely creations of your own mind created by sankharas, namely, the cittasankhara, which is perception, and sankhara khanda, which is ignorance, emotion & thought.
It is up to you to provide evidence. It is not up to us to provide evidence.
The only evidence you can provide are words not by the Buddha and notions that do not accord with verifiable experience.
I do not have to provide evidence since I claimed nothing, I merely asked if Nyanatiloka`claim was right. Thank you both for your contribution in this thread.
It would do good to put this teaching into perspective by mentioning the other two knowledges that arose for the Bodhisatta on the night of enlightenment; 1) recollection of past lives, 2) knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings. Following as it does after these two knowledges, it would be silly to dismiss the "three life" idea as being an impractical interpretation, since it is clearly an extension of these two. It is merely an extrapolation of the knowledge that arises in insight meditation, which of course has nothing to do with past or future lives.
Two cents.
Welcome and well spoken. "Two cents" is an apt summation given by yourself.
The matter is a huge deal. It is so gravely & urgently pressing & essential.
Either one develops a "right view" with asava and connected to becoming & merit or one develops a right view as a factor of the path, supramundane, leading to liberation. (see MN 117)
The suttas state dependent origination arises "when the eye sees the form" and it quenches when "the eye sees the form, the ear hears the sound...etc" (see MN 38).
I would suggest you support your reasoning with actual quotes from suttas on the subject of dependent origination rather than the three knowledges, which was something often taught to Brahmins during debates.
The three knowledges is a different teaching. Further, the supramundane meaning of "past dwellings" ("past lives") is explained in SN 22.79.
Dependent origination states after aging & death comes sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair and the whole mass of suffering.
Now how can something "dead" experience sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair and the whole mass of suffering?
Aging and death is merely any form of impermanence. Birth is merely one's complete self-image or self-concept; all of the things born of identification with and mental aquisition of the five aggregates.
Buddha advised dependent origination is something to be seen by the wise person (paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi). The "seeing" is via discernment or vipassana rather than via divine eye (MN 38).
I would suggest one study Wikipedia regarding the meaning of jati in India. This meaning is also held in Buddhism.
With dhamma
DDhatu
I do not regard it as silly at all.
Whilst each of us is free to hold an opinion, I would respectfully regard what you regard as "silly" as silly.
In my opinion, such a view convolutes the Buddha's Dhamma and hinders the way to liberation.
Buddha said: There is no need for anyone to convolute such a straightforward and core dhamma.
Buddha taught many teachings about rebirth for ordinary people. There is no need to taint Dependent Origination and turn lokuttara dhamma into lokiya dhamma.
These monks give the impression they were not liberated beings given they did not possess the vast gratitude towards Dependent Origination a liberated mind would hold.
Abdhidharma holds two extreme views of Dependent Origination. The first, so momentary & fast that it cannot be discerned. The second, a theory encompassing three life-times. Neither are the middle-way and not objects of contemplation.
In MN 115, the Buddha advised a discerning person is skilled in the elements, skilled in the sense bases and skilled in dependent origination.
Dependent origination is our basic training. Possessing wisdom at sense contact so the mind does not manifest into craving, attachment, becoming, birth and the whole mass of dukkha.
Nothing else can be regarded as so urgent and important.
:buck:
Actually, you didn't ask if his claim was right at all. You threw out a passage from his works -- one with a quite prejudicial slant to it -- and asked what evidence those who do not subscribe to his point of view have to support their understanding of paticcasamuppada.
Nyanatiloka's assumptions are not shared by all, and are being challenged here, along with his poor translation, which is not at all "verbatim" as he has claimed. Other problematic assumptions revealed in the link you provide include -- but are not limited to -- the injection of hindukarma into the definition of sankhara and the reification of vinnana as an entity, as a "something" that feels and experiences, and reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there.
If you do not provide evidence to support these assumptions of the author you have cited, then his claim has been successfully and handily refuted here, and there is nothing more to discuss regarding Nyanatiloka's claim that you cite above.
not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you.
Further, the Buddha never taught paticcasamuppada as a function of "three lives". Had he done so, we would see the words "three lives" over and over again in the many quotes in the Suttas in which the BUddha discusses paticcasamuppada. "Three lives" was a later invention of persons who came to Buddhism and could not let go of their cosmological worldviews.
Nor did the Buddha teach "abhidharma".
"....what seems to suggest....." you say, Venerable? Supported by the single word avijjapaccaya (which means "ignorance conditions..., "conditions being a verb)...? What exactly in "avijjapaccaya..." is supposed to "seem to suggest going further to past lives"?
Text without context, Venerable, is pretext.
The "whole mass of suffering", yes. Respectfully, you have added the word "rebirth" without any support, Sir. Jati means "birth", with all of the same connotations as in English, including those of the "birth" of an idea, of a nation, and, as the Buddha used it in his teaching of paticcasamuppada, of self-view.
How so? Are you conceding here that the Buddha taught paticcasamuppada in the here-and-now, then?
It would do good to examine what each of these knowledges really were. As DD has pointed out above regarding the First Knowledge, [FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica]pubbenivasa[/FONT] means "previous dwellings", not "past lives". Further, the Buddha explained this knowledge very clearly in SN 22.79:
This clearly puts the Buddha's teaching of the "Knowledge of [FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica]Pubbenivasa" [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica]squarely and completely in the [/FONT]realm of lokuttaradhamma, that is, dhamma aimed at the quenching of suffering; rather than speculative views of cosmology or metaphysics.
The Second Knowledge is that of the "[SIZE=+1]origin of repeated birth and passing away of beings in the world[/SIZE]". The Buddha clarifies this in the Loka Sutta, SN ii 12 44(4):
Again, this puts this knowledge squarely within the realm of what we can know and see in the here-and-now, in the realm of the Buddha's lokuttaradhamma.
Following as it does after these two lokuttara knowledges, and as clearly an extention of the two, it would be silly to claim that paticcasamuppada is somehow extended over "three lives", or to claim that it is anything but a here-and-now teaching that can be seen, observed, and experienced in its entirety in the here-and-now. Sir.
Paticcasamuppada can be seen in action at any time in the here-and-now, by anyone who understands it for what it is. We agree, of course, that insight meditation has absolutely nothing at all to do with "past or future lives".
.
I was deeply impressed by your understanding. Possibly you could clarify a question I have.
I understand tradition can be like one blind man holding the hand of another blind man or one relay runner passing on a batton to another relay runner. I understand there is Ajahn so and so, and Sayadaw so and so, and Rinpoche so and so, and Lama so and so, and Master so and so, etc.
But surely these venerables have some understanding.
So my question to you is: "What gives these various sectarians the right they appear to regard themselves to hold so they can convolute the perfectly spoken words of the Tathagata?"
This is a question I hope you can clarify for me.
Kind regards
DDhatu
Not that I necessarily agree with you two 100% (I happen to think that dependent co-arising can work over many lifetimes as well as in the present moment), but H. W. Schumann offers an interesting theory about this in his book, The Historical Buddha, which I thought I'd contribute to the discussion. Even though he accepts that the Buddha taught rebirth, distinguishing five levels of existence in which one can be reborn, and that kamma takes effect not in but as the new being as per SN 12.37, he goes on to state (141-42):
To counter this particular kind of argument, though, it should be noted that even in the shorter chains, the other links can be said to be implicit. For example, Thanissaro Bhikkhu mentions that there are alternative patterns to the traditional twelve links such as where the Buddha starts out at sensory contact, but all the factors are there, e.g., in the one with ten factors, you have consciousness and name-and-form acting as causes and conditions for each other, however, fabrications and ignorance can be included under name.
Jason
Has there been discussion on SN 12.37 in this thread? Could we kindly provide some context to this, please?
What "practical requirements" does Schumann claim here? This business of an "Atta that is not an Atta", in its many variations -- including "re-linking consciousness" -- flies in the face of the Buddha's explicit teaching, for example, in the Maha Tanhasankhaya Sutta, that the six (only) forms of consciousness arise according to their constituent causes and conditions. Postulating any form of consciousness that reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there and continues after death is really just Sati-ism. Which isn't intrisically a Bad Thing, it's just not Buddhism, as the Buddha didn't teach it, and he rebuked Sati in the most humiliating of ways for claiming that He did.
Thanks for the cite. Corroborating evidence coming from one who disagrees with you is strong evidence indeed.
Paticcasamuppada can be compacted and expanded in many ways. Careful attention will reveal such teachings as the Six Sextets and the Five Khandhas and, as noted above, the Arising and Passing Away of Beings in the World, for example, as intrinsic to this model. The Buddha pointed out that it contains everything, all of his teachings, in one way or another.
A very short and highly useful compacted form of paticcasamuppada would go like this:
Ignorance --> Person --> Suffering
Or even
Ignorance --> Suffering
Of it follows that:
Quenching of Ignorance --> Quenching of Suffering
or just
No Ignorance --> No Suffering
Paticcasamuppada doesn't get much simpler than that, folks.
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
No Garbage In, No Garbage Out.
Easy.
It might be useful to to remember that when Ananda proclaimed the simplicity of paticcasamuppada, the Buddha did not refute him or tell him that is was not simple, He told Ananda "Do not put it that way", and pointed out that it was "deep", and difficuilt to see, etc. This was true as well -- especially in the case of persons who were and still are to this day so deeply entrenched in their own speculative worldviews that they cannot let go of them and see paticcasamuppada for what it is. This includes proponents of the "three-lifetime" model -- which, again, the Buddha never, ever taught.
It happened even in the Buddha's own time, with some of his own monks, Friend DDhatu. It would be interesting to see what the Buddha would say if here could be here now, and see what kind of things are being put in His mouth.
Regardless of the number of conditions, it is always the same.
When the Buddha began with sense contact, one is still practising mindfulness & clear comprehension at sense contact to stop ignorance manifesting.
Whether ignorance is mentioned or not (such as it is not mentioned in the Noble Truths), these dhammas are one and the same.
Longest version is dependent origination. Middle version is the noble truths. Shortest version is in MN 22: No need to complicate & convolute it. Just embrace impermanence & free the mind of 'self-view' and that's it!
I thought the context was self-explanatory, but I apologize if I wasn't clear. What I said was said in reference to Schumann's understanding of rebirth that he presents in The Historical Buddha before critiquing the "three-lifetime" model of rebirth, not in reference to anything in this particular discussion. (If you want, I can type out the relevant passages when I have the time.)
While I don't really want to enter into a debate about the validity of rebirth, it seems to me that the Buddha rebukes Sati in MN 38 for his idea that "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another" — i.e., explaining that consciousness arises in dependence on certain causes and condition — but not the idea of rebirth in general. Furthermore, in SN 44.9, the Buddha uses a simile in which, it can be argued, he compares the sustenance of a flame to that of a being at the time of death to illustrate how craving plays a vital role in the renewal of beings and the production of future births.
In addition, I don't think that the views of the Buddha and the ancient commentators such as Buddhaghosa are necessarily mutually exclusive. It is true, for example, that the Pali term "patisandhi-citta" (re-linking consciousness) is only found in the commentarial literature; but one can just as easily argue that such a "re-linking" consciousness is implied in places like SN 44.9, where the Buddha states that, "... when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."
Of course, one can just as easily re-interpret such statements, or to be more precise, translations, in such a way as to support a single-life presentation of dependent co-arising and non-postmortem rebirth (i.e., keeping solely within the framework of what I'd call psychological processes), which I have no problem with personally. That is why I prefer to leave it up to the individual to decide what interpretation or model they find more useful in their approach to the study and practice of the Dhamma.
Jason
I'm working on it.
You know that the SN has several numbering systems, under some of which the same "chapter/verse" citation can point to different suttas, right...?
Easier to copy/paste from the Tipitaka Index at metta.lk than to type it out by hand.
I do not disagree. But the Buddha makes it clear that "consciousness" - vinnana - according to his teachings comes in only six forms, according to the Six Sextets. There is no alaya consciousness, and there is no "re-linking consciousness", in the Buddha's teachings. These were later inventions.
You notice that in SN 44.9 he is speaking with Vacchagotta, a Brahmin, and Vacchagotta is asking him questions that carry underlying assumptions based upon the Brahmin world view. The Buddha answered such questions using the terms and assumptions that his interlocutors understood.
See my above comment -- Vacchagotta is asking Brahmin questions and getting answers tailored to his understanding of the world. One could argue as you say, but one would have to square that argument with the Buddha's adamant assertion of only six forms of consciousness, which arise only when the eye sees a visual form, the ear hears a sound, etc. The idea of a "re-linking" consciousness is a reified entity the sort of which the Buddha rejected in his own teachings, and which does not fall within the confines of the Buddha's six forms of consciousness.
Fine with me, too. And paticcasamuppada is a psychological process, to be sure, however, it is much more than that as well. Psychology doesn't include a moral/ethical code, any sort of what we Buddhists would call Wisdom, a notion of not-self, or one of "emptiness": that nothing is "I" or "mine", a mandate to eliminate greed, anger, and selfishness in all their manifestations, or an intrinsic meditative and contemplative practice. The problem with that label when applied to paticcasamuppada in the here-and-now is that it usually is preceded with the word "just", as if it were being reduced to "just" a psychology. Many times it's also called "just a pop (or "New Age") psychology. Such characterizations are perjorative straw men, and betray a prejudicial refusal to acknowledge that the factors I listed above are included in paticcasamuppada in the here-and-now.
But, that being said, I don't gather that you are calling it "psychological" in such a perjorative way, it seems to me that you are calling it psychological in more-or-less the same way I do. :cool:
Yes, I'm familiar with the various numbering schemes, and I don't mind typing sutta passages by hand as I generally find them to be of better quality than metta.lk, but I was referring to the relevant passages in Schumann's book, The Historical Buddha.
No, I'm not using "psychological" pejoratively, and I'm fairly certain that we're using it in the same way.
Jason
I must concur with your viewpoint. The very nature of this sutta, where Vacchagotta does most of the talking, shows the Buddha is responding in a way to accommodate the pre-existing (non-Buddhist) views of Vacchagotta, yet refining the view so Vacchagotta understands samsaric activity continues on due to craving.
Here, we are at the mercy of translators. The word in this verse is "anupapanno", which is usually rendered "reappearance". It is distinct from the word "upapajjati", which is usually rendered "rebirth", it conformity to its literal rendering.
The word "upapajjati" is generally not found in the middling teachings, such as SN 44.9, and is usually found in the most mundane teachings, such as MN 135. (Of course, that the Buddha even spoke MN 135 is a subject of debate, given MN 135 does not appear in the equivalent Chinese cannon).
The word "kaya" is also useful to understand. It does not necessarily mean the physical body. The word generally used for the physical body is "rupa", such as in "rupa khanda" or "nama-rupa".
In the Anapanasati Sutta, the Buddha states the in breathing and the out breathing are certain bodies (kaya) amongst bodies (kaya). In brief, kaya are those experienced changing states of breath & body. For example, when the breathing is refined, smooth & long, the physical body is relaxed. When the breathing is short, coarse & agitated, the physical body is stressed and tense.
So the Buddha merely states to Vacchagotta that reappearance occurs due to craving; that a new kaya is formed due to craving.
I have no arguement here given the first sankhara in Dependent Origination is the kaya sankhara [in breathing & out breathing]. Due to the craving that has re-perpetuated ignorance, the kaya sankhara is concocted or conditioned again into an agitated kaya sankhara which then conditions consciousness, mind-body, sense organs, etc, and another round of dependent origination.
Indeed, the habits, modes of behaviour and mental proliferations of human beings reappear due to craving. Similarly, their breath body (kaya) and the resultant physical body (rupa) appear and reappear (in this life) in various ways due to craving.
OK, but citing just "SN 12.37" still doesn't mean anything. The whole sutta? Part of the sutta? A single phrase or word....? :skeptical
You said:
-- which in effect asks all here to "accept" along with him (and, it might seem, with you as well) as understood without question or examination the notion "the Buddha 'taught rebirth'" (presumably in the abhidhammic/commentorial sense that tends to be popular today, and presumably with the connotation that such speculative views are inseparable from his transcendent teachings, as is claimed by many "No Rebirth, No Buddhist" hard-liners), with five levels of existence (I assume you are referring to "the realms" as if they were real) in which this rebirth might take place, and that "kamma takes effect not in but as the new being" -- and that something in this SN 12.37 somehow backs the latter claim up. :skeptical
I am not inclined to "accept", buy into, or concede such statements out-of-hand and without examination and discussion, though, and yes, I would like a clear cite and explanation as to what in SN 12.37 is supposed to support the claim that "kamma takes effect not in but as the new being", and how that claim relates to, or is supported by, the rest of the sutta, i.e., in the context of that sutta as a whole. I do have a copy of the CDB to hand, by the way. And of course access to metta.lk and accesstoinsight and a couple of other sources for cross-comparison, as well.
I thought that this was the case.
:uphand::cheer::om:
Apparently Nyanatiloka is responsible for the mistranslation of "sankhara" as "kamma-formations"; he claims to have coined it on the page for that "definition".
I have to also wonder why so many learned monks teach the works of others who have convoluted the perfectly spoken words of the Tathagata, rather than the teachings of the Tathagata Himself?
The Buddha pointed out that his own teachings were transcendent, led to liberation, and were vastly superior to superstition- and speculative view-based moralities and teachings (Maha Cattarisaka Sutta, sammaditthi ariyo anasava lokuttara maggaiga vs. sammaditthi sasava punnabhagiya upadhi-vepakka). Yet for untold centuries it is the superstition- and speculative view-based moralities that have been taught, rather that the perfect, transcendent teachings of the Tathagata.
No wonder so many Buddhists are so confused.
Yes, and the point was that even though Schumann accepts the traditionally held view that the Buddha taught rebirth, distinguishing five levels of existence in which one can be reborn, and that kamma takes effect not in but as the new being as per SN 12.37 (as it is generally understood in Theravada), he goes on to say that he believes the twelve-linked chain of dependent co-arising, comprising three separate existences, was probably the work of early monks. I'm not asking you to "accept" anything besides the fact that this is what he says:
The intentions to act pass on their ethical quality to consciousness.
The consciousness that is thus qualitatively coloured is now the factor that establishes the conditional contact to the next form of existence: it brings about in a woman's womb the development of an embryo. i.e. a new being, without, however, transmigrating into this embryo. The technical term for this new being is nama-ruap, 'name and form', in which 'name' denotes the incorporeal, 'form' the physical component:
'No indeed, Lord,' (replied Ananda). (DN 15.21)
Of course, consciousness is not the only factor conditioning the development of a new being. For a child to come into being there must be, besides the consciousness in search of a womb - in the Canon sometimes called a 'genie' (gandhabba) - there must be a woman in her season, and a man as begetter. Only when thees three come together: mother, begetter and 'genie' (= consciousness), does new life come into exsitence (MN 38.28 Ip.265). The consciousness of the person who died works in the womb of the future mother as the spark that kindles life. It kindles the factors of the mother and the begetter into a flame (the child), but the spark is present in the flame that it conditions sin qua non. In the course of development the child evolves its own consciousness, which is not identical with the consciousness that originated it. When the monk Sati expressed the opinion that consciousness persisted through the chain of rebirth (i.e. as a kind of soul), the Buddha rebuked him sharply (MN 38.6; i, 258).
The process of 'rebirth without a soul' can be graphically displayed thus:
[Unable to reproduce to graph here]
This scheme explains not only the mechanics of rebirth, but also how kamma exercises its influence on the newly-born being. The consciousness that seeks a womb does not choose any womb, but one that corresponds to its own kammic quality. A kammically 'good' consciousness will set in motion the development of an embryo in a mother who guarantees to the child good hereditary qualities and good social circumstances. Kamma takes effect not in but as the new being. The body is 'action of the past, brought about by intention' (SN 12.37).
Practical requirements made it necessary to present this 'rebirth without a soul' in a readily grasped and memorized form. Accordingly, the principle of dependent origination (paticca-samuppada) discovered by the Buddha was converted into the formula of dependent origination. It is not probable that Gotama himself actually formulated this conditional 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 three separate existences in a series of rebirths, but uses different terms to describe each of these existences. Nevertheless, the early monks considered this formula as such an important recognition that in compiling the Pali Canon they attributed it to the Buddha.
What you make of the above is up to you. As I said, I'm not interested in entering into a debate about the validity of rebirth (because, frankly, I don't really care).
Jason
What is clear here is that the process that [edit:Schumann speculates] above postulates a reified "consciousness" entity that clearly falls outside of the Buddha's six forms of consciousness:
The "consciousness" the Buddha speaks of in SN 12.51.12 is clearly mind-consciousness. Mind-consciousness, you know, arises when the mental processes come into contact with an idea or a sensation from the other consciousnesses. This is not a reified entity as Schmann implies in the statement immediately after his quotation of SN 12.51.12.
He then massages the Buddha's words in DN 15.21 to suit his own reified "consciousness" entity and set up his further arguments to support a "soul that is not a soul". What Shumann and all others who use this passage to support the reification of vinnana as an entity conveniently leave out of their arguments is that in the very same breath the Buddha points out that "name-and-form conditions consciousness" -- he is saying that without one, there cannot be the other. There is no person in the absence of either, and they condition each other.
Thre is much controversy over the "gandhabba" business. There was not nearly as much understanding of the reproductive process 2500 years ago as there is now. What was not then understood then is now simple: the egg is fertilized and attaaches to the uterus. But in the discussion of the "gandhabba", Schumann has fully reified his vinnana entity and is now using it to function as a reincarnated "soul":
Then he goes on to claim that SN 12.37 supports the notion that "Kamma takes effect not in but as the new being", lifting the Buddha's statement "The body is 'action of the past, brought about by intention'" out of context and misrepresenting it as if it supported a reified consciousness. It does not. In SN 12.37 -- a very short Sutta -- the Buddha is pointing away from fascination with the body as "self", and toward his principle of paticcasauppada in the here-and-now, which takes up the vast majority of the Sutta. The Buddha is saying, in effect, "do not concern yourself with worldly things like the body, the body is irrelevant. Instead, turn your mind to contemplation of the process by which suffering is created through ignorance here and now. This only is where liberation from suffering can be found."
Although he admits that the conversion of paticcasamuppada from a here-and-now phemnomenological principle to a metaphysical formula was a later invention, he nonetheless buys into and argues for the reification of vinnana into an entity -- the Sati argument of MN 38 -- and declares it in the opening sentences of the passage above and in his arguments misusing the Suttas.
That's what I make of it, anyway. And I don't really care about the validity or non-validity of rebirth speculative views -- I find them irrelevant to the Buddha's teachings. It's just that others -- I'm not saying you, mind you -- don't, and would force those views on everyone else. They know who they are ;-)
In my opinion, you are making too much of this one small sutta. The suttas advise in countless places, as quoted above, dependent origination arises and ceases at sense contract, here & now, just as Nibbana is experienced here & now.
SN 12.37 is quite vague. All it states is this body is not yours or does not belong to others. It is old kamma, generated by volition.
If these words are translated correctly, indeed it is. This body is not mine or not others. It is merely natural elements. It was generated by the volition of my parents, through their sexual activity.
You and Schumann are making something out of nothing, implying something that is not there.
But when the Buddha described dependent origination arises and ceases at sense contract, this is something that is actuality, to be experienced.
The above sutta, SN 12.25 I assume, is merely one sutta that talks in this way. The teaching taught here arises in the context it was given, namely, a discussion about other sectarians about the nature of pain and happiness in general.
However, it appears the pain and happiness discussed here is not vedana per se but the general notion of end process happiness and suffering. Because the sutta starts with the views of other sectarians regarding "are pleasure and pain created by oneself".
The suttas describe sankhara in dependent origination as the kaya, vaca & citta sankharas, namely, the in and out breathing, vitakka & vicara and perception and feeling.
You appear to be grasping at various suttas that do not apply to the basics of dependent origination.
Once again, I've said nothing regarding SN 12.37 myself, and I find the repeated suggestions otherwise by both stuka and yourself offensive.
If you'd bother to take the time and actually read what I've written, you'd see that I've merely presented what Schumann wrote in his book, The Historical Buddha; nothing more, nothing less. In fact, I challenge you to find a single instance in this entire discussion where I've offered my own thoughts on SN 12.37.
As I told stuka, what you make of what he wrote is up to you; and furthermore, I won't bother to continue in a discussion where my word are consistently being misrepresented.
Jason
The buddha is clearly describing a here-and-now mental process in the quote above. Sankhara and vinnana are both mental processes that arise in the present moment. The Buddha is clearly not referring to some "consciousness-entity", or, as Schumann claims, some "next existence" or "next life". This is not a "rebirth" teaching at all.
My post # 26 is commentary on Schumann's position only. Looking back at it, it seems I was not clear on that point. I will edit it using his name to clear that up. My apologies.
By taking offense, your practise here is not in accord to Dependent Origination.
It is best we focus on practise rather than theory. The Buddha advised us as follows friend. It is best we do not grasp the snake incorrectly:
Your taking of offense friends show there is an urgency for your mind to penetrate the reality of Dependent Origination.
In the Pali, the word "way" comes from "patipada", which means "the Path" or "way of walking".
For example, the Fourth Noble Truth in Pali is the Dukkha Nirodha Gamani Patipada.
Thus, when the Buddha uses the words "the right way" in the quote above, he is referring to the Eightfold Path or Magga.
The right way is as instructed to Bahiya: "In the seen, there is merely the seen; in the heard, there is merely the heard...etc. Just this, is the end of suffering".
Jason,
When you say "he accepts that....", there is an underlying semantic implication or connotation of an assumption of mutually-agreed-upon truth of what is being 'accepted":
It is different from if you were to say "he believes that..., and he supports his argument with this line in SN12.37".
Whether you intend it or not, it gives the appearance that you believe the same things, and it also gives the appearance that you assume that everyone else also believes or accepts the same things.
Think of the difference between:
"He accepts that white guys can't dance."
"He believes that white guys can't dance."
See where this can cause confusion or misunderstanding?
Because of this, when you say:
..it gives the appearance that you also accept the truth of what Schumann says, and assume that others here do too.
Perhaps even "...he accepts the traditional stance that the Buddha taught rebirth, distinguishing five levels of existence in which one can be reborn, and that kamma takes effect not in but as the new being as per SN 12.37....." might have been clearer.
Yes, I can see where it can cause some confusion or misunderstandings; however, I've already explained what I meant more than once, especially post #25, so there really shouldn't be any more confusion.
I appreciate your attempts to clarify the issue, but I have no desire to participate in this discussion any further.
Jason
Buddha taught in MN 115 a practitioner is skilled in the elements, skilled in the sense bases and skilled in dependent origination.
This skill is possessing mindfulness & wisdom at sense contact.
This is the right way and the right understanding of dependent origination.
Dependent origination is medicine to remedy suffering.
:buck:
I was just looking up the Pali word puthujjana, which means "worldling", and I was pointed to Nyanatiloka's definition in his so-called "dictionary". Again I am struck by Dhamma Dhatu's question: "What gives these various sectarians the right they appear to regard themselves to hold so they can convolute the perfectly spoken words of the Tathagata?"
Observe:
See anything amiss here?
Nyanatiloka claims that one is a puthujjana right up until one becomes a sotapanna.
What the Buddha says is that one is a puthujjana who is neither 1) a sotapanna or higher (by virtue of ridding oneself of the first three fetters), nor one who is "on the way to ridding oneself of the first three fetters, ".
'Course, I have a good idea why Nyanatiloka is hedging his bet with this gross eisegesis of the perfectly spoken words of the Tathagata. It goes hand-in-hand with the claim we sometimes see being pandered that "Noble Right View that is stainless/without effluents (anasava), transcendent, a Factor of the Path" only applies to sotapannas or higher.
No wonder there are so many Buddhists who are so confused.....
"Say not so, Ananda, say not so. This principle of Dependent Origination is a profound teaching, hard to see. It is through not knowing, not understanding and not thoroughly realizing this teaching that beings are confused like a tangled thread, thrown together like bundles of threads, caught as in a net, and cannot escape hell, the nether worlds and the wheel of samsara." [S.II.92]
Here's another quote:
"Udayi, whosoever can recall the khandhas he has previously occupied in great number, of such a person would it be fitting to question me about past lives, or I could so question him; that person could satisfy me with an answer thereof, or I him. Whosoever sees the passing away of beings and their subsequent arisings, of such a person would it be fitting to ask me about future lives, or I could so question him; that person could satisfy me with an answer thereof, and I him." [M.II.31]
Most are not fit to so discuss.
I'm sorry you can't see the logic of my argument... the Buddha's teaching did not start and end with dependent origination... do I have to bring up the simile of the blind men and the elephant?
<dd>O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim </dd><dd>For preacher and monk the honored name! </dd><dd>For, quarreling, each to his view they cling. </dd><dd>Such folk see only one side of a thing.</dd>
Thank you for the suggestion... I would suggest you loosen up a little; rigid definitions of the Buddha's teaching can get you into arguments.Yes, but do you really think that is what the Buddha meant when he talked about remembering his name, family, etc. in "past dwellings" during the first watch of the night? (MN. 4) That is a pretty literalistic interpretation; you should know that in Pali word order does not necessarily indicate chronological order... Are you seriously saying that aging and death cannot possibly mean:
"And what is aging and death, what is the origin of aging and death, what is the cessation of aging and death, what is the way leading to the cessation of aging and death? The aging of beings in the various orders of beings, their old age, brokenness of teeth, grayness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of life, weakness of faculties — this is called aging. The passing of beings out of the various orders of beings, their passing away, dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body — this is called death. So this aging and this death are what is called aging and death. With the arising of birth there is the arising of aging and death. With the cessation of birth there is the cessation of aging and death. The way leading to the cessation of aging and death is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration.
23. "When a noble disciple has thus understood aging and death, the origin of aging and death, the cessation of aging and death, and the way leading to the cessation of aging and death... he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma." (MN 9)
Again, I advise against such narrow interpretations of buddhadhamma as you seem to hold fast to. yes, and look up karma, dharma, brahma.na, khattiya, ariya, buddha, naama and ruupa while you're at it
"evaṃ bhāvitesu kho, bhikkhu, catūsu iddhipādesu evaṃ bahulīkatesu, anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussarati, seyyathidaṃ ekampi jātiṃ dvepi jātiyo tissopi jātiyo catassopi jātiyo pañcapi jātiyo dasapi jātiyo vīsampi jātiyo tiṃsampi jātiyo cattālīsampi jātiyo paññāsampi jātiyo jātisatampi jātisahassampi jātisatasahassampi anekepi saṃvaṭṭakappe anekepi vivaṭṭakappe anekepi saṃvaṭṭavivaṭṭakappe `amutrāsiṃ evaṃnāmo evaṃgotto evaṃvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṃsukhadukkhappaṭisaṃvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto amutra udapādiṃ; tatrāpāsiṃ evaṃnāmo evaṃgotto evaṃvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṃsukhadukkhappaṭisaṃvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto idhūpapanno'ti. iti sākāraṃ sauddesaṃ anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussarati. (SN 5.7.2.1 pubbasutta)
I hope you'll excuse the Pali, it is a long passage. The important part is:
amutrāsiṃ evaṃnāmo evaṃgotto evaṃvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṃsukhadukkhappaṭisaṃvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto amutra udapādiṃ
Off-the-cuff translation:
"In that [birth=jaati], I was thus named, I had such a clan, I had such a caste, I had such food, I had the experience of such happiness and suffering, I had such an ending of life. From that [birth] departing, I arose there."
And clearly puts you at variance with the passage I quoted above. The fact that we have lived before conception was clearly something the Buddha was aware of, and something he made known. Contrary to what you are proposing, He was not always teaching "squarly and completely" about lokuttaradhamma, just giving what it took to get people closer thereto. And again, I could give a counter-quote... are we going to have to do this all day? I've got meditation to do, etc. Your quote could just as easily be supporting my argument as yours, and I've got a counter-quote to back my position up... you'd need something like, "and everything I've just said only refers to the eye-consciousness (etc.) in this life, not the relinking consciousness which would of course lead to becoming and birth in a conventional sense, which I do not teach." Such a quote is not as yet forthcoming. First of all, you're using the word lokuttara to describe things that are very much lokiya... there are only nine lokuttara dhammas, and knowledge of the arising of suffering is not one of them.
As to the idea that it would be silly "to claim that paticcasamuppada is somehow extended over "three lives"", well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it is hardly silly to explain to people why they are born the way they are, and that the ramifications of their actions do not end at the death of their body. You make the Buddha sound like a computer or something... Yes, we do. And that is what I would consider really important, not whether or not you can manage to hack off the stuff about past and future lives... I think that stuff really helps motivate people.
Please note this forum is for 'advanced ideas'. I think it would be of assistance if you helped investigate the current realities of suffering that afflict human beings.
Hell and samsara are states of mind. Samsara is the mind "circling around the five aggregates". If this cannot perceived and controlled in this life, how will a speculative 'next life' help us or result in our spiritual progress towards real peace?
Venerable. I kindly suggest you make comments regarding yourself only rather than engage in inference about another. If like Buddhaghosa, you wish to declare yourself a puttujhana, you are free to make such a declaration.
However, as for myself, I make no declaration either way as I try to adhere to the discussion rather than concoct personality views.
Please note, often minds in a heavenly realm do not have the opportunity as a mind in a hell realm to discern dependent origination.
Venerable. The impression gained is you are debating between mundane and supramundane language. As I have mentioned, this particular forum is for advanced ideas.
I would suggest adherence to the topic. The Buddha recommended Dhamma discussion often. Arguement and discussion are not necessarily the same thing.
MN 4 is spoken to Brahmins. My opinion is you are stuck in language again. We can quote the suttas in various ways for refutation. One way is "past dwellings" means each time the mind clings to the five aggregates, such as in SN 22.79. Another way is the Susima Sutta, where it is held the 2nd knowledge from the 2nd watch is not required for liberation.
Blind faith is not sanditikko, akaliko, ehipasiko, oppanyiko, paccatum veditabbo vinnuhi.
I consider your point regarding chronological order and birth, aging, illness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair does not warrant a reply.
It is like saying each morning, the Theravadin Bhikkhus such as yourself are chanting in the wrong order.
How can a corpse experience sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair and the whole mass of suffering? I must reply, are you serious?
Buddha said from birth comes aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair and the whole mass of dukkha.
When the mind is 'born' into a state of ego identification by taking up the aggregates as "I" and "mine" then inevitably there will be aging & death and the resultant and associated sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, despair and the whole mass of suffering.
Please note or consider, the Pali word 'nirodha' does not mean 'cessation'. It means 'quenching & liberation'.
Thus what is the path to the liberation (nirodha) from aging & death? It is the Noble Eightfold Path. This I regard as an 'advanced idea'.
Buddha advised in MN 115: "A wise person, who avoids calamities, is skilled in the elements, sense bases and dependent origination".
I sincerely hope this helps.
You appear to be asserting special power is required to penetrate dependent origination. Surely, this is not the case.
Certainly Buddha did not say this in MN 38, where D.O is regarded to be seen for each wise person for themself, here & now, independent of allegience to the teacher.
Similarly, in Susima Sutta: I would suggest your line of reasoning Venerable Sir does not have instrinsic benefit regarding approaching Nibbana.
Also, the 2nd Knowledge of the 2nd Watch is unrelated to D.O. If human beings do not penetrate what D.O really is, there is no release from suffering.
Right comprehension of D.O is so essential. It is heartwood of the Buddha-Dhamma.
Sharing it accurately is the utmost in compassion.
The Buddha taught that we were to drop the world's bait, though there was no "bait" here to "take".
Nothing there to contrast. Both things you quoted are parts of the same teaching. The one quote referenced the mutual conditionality of namarupa and vinnana. There is nothing intrinsic to that relationship supporting a claim that "DO ends in this life", It's a non-sequitur. Nor does the statement "avjjapaccaya...", meaning "ignorance conditions...", support any claim that DO "suggests going further to past lives". It simply does not follow in either case.
There is a Pali word for brahministic "re-birth"/reincarnation. It's not "Jati".
The Buddha said: In MN 117 the Buddha called notions of hindukarma and reincarnation "right view with defilements" (sammaditthi sasava). These are all speculative-view dosctrines of Self. As is the "three lives" eisegesis.
In the Sabbasava Sutta, the Buddha said:
Further, The Buddha said in the Simile of the Snake, MN22:
And he also said in the Brahmajala Sutta:
Please cite an instance in the Suttas of the Buddha demonstrating paticcasamuppada using a "three-lives" framework, ever.
I was under the impression that the Buddha admonished bhikkhus to not laud themselves and disparage others...? Was I mistaken on that point...?
The simile of the elephant was directed toward speculative metaphysical views. The Buddhas transcendent teachings are not speculative views, metaphysical or otherwise.
And where does the word "jaati" appear in this "important part"?:
"amutrāsiṃ evaṃnāmo evaṃgotto evaṃvaṇṇo evamāhāro evaṃsukhadukkhappaṭisaṃvedī evamāyupariyanto, so tato cuto amutra udapādiṃ"
At the same time, The Buddha pointed out that any "vision" of a "past life", whether imagined, hallucinated, or whatever, arises through the sense bases (six sextets) and is perceived in terms of the khandhas, as DD has I think pointed out earlier. This renders such imaginings irrelevent to the transcendent teachings. The Buddha did not mix lokiya teachings in when he presented lokuttara teachings. As such your "counter-quote" is not "from the same body of texts."
Not at all. The Buddha lifted many ideas from others and changed their meanings. Again, lokiya teachings for puttujanas were one thing, and lokuttara teachings another.
The Buddha pointed out that such claims (rather than "facts") were speculative views.
I didn't propose that the Buddha taught transcendent teachings all the time. Obviouisly, just as today, there were many who were unable to grasp them through their clinging to speculative iews, or lack of intelligence, or lack of discernment.
A lokiya "counter-quote", to be sure. Irrelevant.
Actually, no. The Loka Sutta is entirely a here-and-now teaching.
"The" eye consciousness...? You have reified that process into a "thing".
I don't "need" anything of the kind, as the Buddha never taught the "re-linking consciousness" doctrine of Self. The Buddha taught that each of the six forms of consciousness arose dependent upon the eye-base and forms, etc. He severely reprimanded Bhikkhu Sati for claiming that He taught about a "consciousness" such as is proposed in the "re-linking consciousness" eisegesis.
Equivocal. You are using a different and misleading definition of the word "dhamma".
That is deterministic Jainism.
He was quite a bit smarter than a computer.
The reincarnation stuff? It motivates certain kinds of people --the Buddha pointed that out, and said that that was why he gave lokiya teachings to putthujanas -- but it puts off others who know better when it is misrepresented as a lokuttara teaching, or as if it were absolutely necessary to believe in such speculative views.
I concede you that, based upon your arguments here.
That does not follow.
That would be just as much a speculative metaphysical view as "right view = belief in more than one life."
Neither Dhamma Dhatu nor I hold such speculative views. To argue against the straw man as if we did is a waste of everyone's time here.
The Buddha said that it motivates some people, too. That doesn't mean that such beliefs that preceded the Buddha's teachings by a very long time apply to all, or to the Buddha's own (transcendent) teachings.
Another member pointed out the following quite well:
Lokuttara means "world-transcending". The "world" that is transcended is the self-centered inner-and-outer world as it appears to us that the Buddha describes in the Loka Sutta above. One transcends this self-centered worldview, and thus transcends and banishes ignorance-generated selfishness self-centeredness and its children: greed and anger/hatred. That is not lokiya at all. It is the highest thing, the most valuable thing a person can do.
:eek:
Aside from the previously noted equivocation,
You are telling us that you think that knowledge of the arising of suffering, its cause, its quenching, and the way leading to its quenching -- the Four Noble Truths -- are irrelevant to the Paths and Fruits, and to Nibbana, which is by definition the quenching of suffering...?
:eek2:
I just don't know what to say.
I am looking at Bhikkhu Bodhi's Note #114 in the Majjhima Nikaya (MLDB, p. 1184), in which he quotes the Majjhima Nikaya Atthakattha, saying that "Supramundane Right View is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths attained by penetrating to the four paths and fruits of sanctity."
That seems to directly contradict what you are claiming above. Where are you getting this from?
You have certainly been active in your discussion.
What amazes me is the encouragement towards samsara; how the impression gained is one speaks and acts with an intention to keep human beings trapped in the suffering of samsara.
How fortunate is it to find the skillful method for insight and freedom.