Dependent Origination: The Source of Buddhist Teachings

Floating_Abu

"But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?" "This question is not proper," said the Exalted One (the Buddha). I do not teach that there is one who feels. If, however, the question is put thus: 'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]."

Quote by friend, kowtaaia

Dakini

If, however, the question is put thus: 'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]."

Through conditions,feeling and craving arise...in whom? The Buddha taught there is a practical self that goes through the day, meditates, does chores, etc. That self has the potential to change and evolve. There's no dilemma. Clinging to a static view of self is what's to be avoided.

Floating_Abu

Sounds like theory to me.

Dakini

Evading the "who" question through circumlocutions sounds nonsensical to me. The Buddha said no-self was nihilism. Maybe the original quote was a later addition to the canon. Who knows?

taiyaki

Feeling feels. Just sensation arising an falling.

Arising and falling. No feeler

Dakini

If there were no feeler, there would be no feelings arising and falling. A feeler being present is one of the conditions leading to the arising of feeling.

taiyaki

Processes meeting processes based on causes and conditions

Floating_Abu

Evading the "who" question through circumlocutions sounds nonsensical to me. The Buddha said no-self was nihilism. Maybe the original quote was a later addition to the canon. Who knows?

I am not sure there is evasion but it sounds like you want the answer to be in accordance with your understanding, which is understandable, I guess.

Dakini

This seems to be one of those instances in which there are contradictory teachings in the canon. It needs to be sorted out.

Jeffrey

5 skandas all impermanent.

aMatt

This is one of my favorite quotes of the Buddha. He spoke to some of a self that goes through the day, but this teaching does well to illumine his understanding of no-self. Not "who feels" but "what are the conditions of feeling."

Jeffrey

I used to meditate with a zen group and one of the meditation instructions the teacher gave me was to on the inbreath say "who am I?" and then on the outbreath say "but *that* is not me either?"

taiyaki

Lol who am i?

Don't knowwww

compassionate_warrior

This is one of my favorite quotes of the Buddha. He spoke to some of a self that goes through the day, but this teaching does well to illumine his understanding of no-self. Not "who feels" but "what are the conditions of feeling."

Are you saying that what may appear to be contradictory teachings are, in fact, complimentary? I can see that. Very wise. Instead of either-or, both-and. Win-win. I like that. It works.

upekka

This seems to be one of those instances in which there are contradictory teachings in the canon. It needs to be sorted out.

there is Conventional Truth
in Conventional Truth, 'you', 'I', 'She', ''He' and 'It' exist

there is Absolute Truth
in Absolute Truth there is 'five aggregtes' which are continuously changing
so, five aggregates are not permenant, has no self, if one clings to five aggregates without knowing its' nature one suffers

Dakini

Thanks, upekka. This was helpful. Is this the difference between "mundane" and "supramundane" teachings? Did the Buddha teach there was a "mundane" "I" going about our mundane business, but on a supramundane level, there's no permanent "I"?

On the other hand, why can't the mundane "I" also be the impermanent "I"? Even though it's helpful to divide the principles the way you did, is it necessary? (Just testing this teaching--*poke*, *test*) Can't we entertain the idea of both in one? And wouldn't it still be true that in order for feelings to arise, there needs to be a being doing the feeling present, upon whom the conditions causing the arising of feelings play out? How can feelings arise if there's no feeler? It doesn't make sense.

Jeffrey

The aggregates aren't absolute truth, not liking to be contradicting, but the aggregates themselves are not truth..

The absolute truth is that the self is not any of the aggregates, because each of the aggregates is impermanent, non-self, and dukkha. In a sense the aggregates are the opposite of truth because relying on them is the path to suffering. The path to liberation is dispassion towards the aggregates.

Dakini

Thx for the input, Jeffrey.

Another question comes to mind. I was told the Buddha didn't teach mundane truth and Absolute truth. According to some translators of his work. :scratch: I'm just wondering to what extent this division into "mundane" and "Absolute", or "supramundane" might be comventions someone came up with at some point, as a tool to better understand the teachings.

Jeffrey

Ask buddha Just kidding, I'm not sure Dakini. Its kind of an adventure. Knowing what comes from where and what is true. We are lucky to have this puzzle. Just think if we found a text that explained the origin of mundane and supramundane... how would we know that *that* text was reliable?

But just my thoughts on your question I think mundane versus supramundane I have heard in Theravadan quarters whereas the two truths are mentioned in mahayana quarters, I'm not sure if in zen/chan/nichiren etc? It does stand to reason that Buddha would teach on different levels. Do you agree? I mean when we field questions on this forum we tailor our response to the original poster or if bantering with another post down the line we tailor it to that person.

The problem is that the buddhist teachings are viewed as these big monuments or edifices. They are set down and quoted and unfortunately we have only our own reservoir of wisdom to judge the appropriateness of each discussion.

So for my part I trust the situational input moreso than establishing a hierarchy of mundane/supramundane. When the situation is right for one teaching I apply that. And another another time. At the same time I think it would be cool to digest these traditions and make sense of them. Gampopa did that to the to the vajrayana teaching descending from tilopa and the lam rim kadampa tradition. He sorted these out and presented a text that merged the twain. For my part I don't think I am as smart as gampopa so I just read books meditate and think on this forum.

Dakini

@Jeffrey It makes sense the Buddha would teach on different levels. But when you mention the "two truths", that goes back to my 2 Truths thread, where Batchelor said it was an influence from Hinduism. Anyway, this mundane/supramundane and relative/Absolute is still kinda new to me, so I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it. Even if it's just a tool to help understand the teachings, I must admit that as such, it can be helpful. But I think the concept of Absolute Truth or Morality can be taken too far or misapplied, which is a different issue.

Maybe I should go read a little Gampopa. :scratch: *mumble* (shuffles off...)

aMatt

Thanks, upekka. This was helpful. Is this the difference between "mundane" and "supramundane" teachings? Did the Buddha teach there was a "mundane" "I" going about our mundane business, but on a supramundane level, there's no permanent "I"?

On the other hand, why can't the mundane "I" also be the impermanent "I"? Even though it's helpful to divide the principles the way you did, is it necessary? (Just testing this teaching--*poke*, *test*) Can't we entertain the idea of both in one? And wouldn't it still be true that in order for feelings to arise, there needs to be a being doing the feeling present, upon whom the conditions causing the arising of feelings play out? How can feelings arise if there's no feeler? It doesn't make sense.

Dakini,

I really enjoyed your post and poke test. For me, this made sense when I heard the teaching in Zen: "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is just a mountain."

Said in context "First there is a self, with feelings, clinging and ego. Then there is no-self, with feelings, clinging and illusion of ego. Then there is just a body, with feelings and clingings, ever changing."

It isn't necessary to try to make them all fit in one package, because they represent the relationship our body has with itself as we grow in our practice. There is a body, but it is always in flux, making the "self" an illusion of permanence where none exists.

My teacher was persistent in reminding me that the Buddha taught different things to different people. His teaching was aimed at the audience, to help them move forward in their growth. This made dharma a quality of evolution, rather than a static truth we memorize. As we peel away layers of our clinging, the 'deeper' qualities of dharma become more available... but the 'less deep' qualities of dharma are also respected, because they do their job well at providing a relative ground to evolve from.

With warmth,

Matt

Jeffrey

Gampopa contains a lot of old ideas to us such as that bad breath is caused by lying in former lives hehe but there is a lot of value to his writing as well. My teacher has encouraged her students to extract the meaning from the text (Jewel Ornament of Liberation) and then come up with their own inspiring examples. For example the bad breath example might not work to modern people. Another one is to imagine a sword is above your head and it will cut your head off if you are heedless. For modern people they don't like that soo much so they have to come to their own understanding while trying not to lose the whole value. Just change it.

Jeffrey

The 'lesser' teachings are in a sense greater because the beings needing those teachings are more numerous; highly enlightened beings are quite rare compared to ordinary. Thus from viewing the lesser teachings as helping a greater number of beings we could say that they are greater.

upekka

Even though it's helpful to divide the principles the way you did, is it necessary?

NO
to practice Buddha's Teaching it is not necessary

however, before we go into deeper level of practice
we have to start with 'do good and avoid bad' (sabba papassa akaranam, kusalassa upasampada) which is Morality
we can use 'mundane' or 'conventional' or whatever word we like to use for it

and then
then we have to practice meditation (concentration and insight) (sacitta pariyo dapanam)
still at mundane level

as a result of above

whenever the wisdom of Right View (wisdome of Four Noble Truth) happens
then 'one' is at super mundane level

Can't we entertain the idea of both in one?

yes 'we' can but only if 'we' have the Right View

And wouldn't it still be true that in order for feelings to arise, there needs to be a being doing the feeling present, upon whom the conditions causing the arising of feelings play out?

there is a being, have no doubt about it
however such a being (with Right View with mindfulness)does not suffer from the arisen feeling
because there is the knowledge that such 'arisen feeling changes' (impermanent)

Dakini

Said in context "First there is a self, with feelings, clinging and ego. Then there is no-self, with feelings, clinging and illusion of ego. Then there is just a body, with feelings and clingings, ever changing."

Yes, and hopefully, the body eventually lets go of the clinging.

It isn't necessary to try to make them all fit in one package, because they represent the relationship our body has with itself as we grow in our practice. There is a body, but it is always in flux, making the "self" an illusion of permanence where none exists.

Right, well I wasn't saying the "self" that goes through the day's business, and meditates, and chooses to evolve toward Awakening is a permanent self, it's a changing self. Maybe it's best to refer to it as you did, as a "body" (or like Upekka: a "being") rather than a "self". But there is clearly someone there.

aMatt, Upekka, Jeffrey--thanks so much! It's coming together, it's making sense. Ultimately, there is no dilemma, I think we're agreed on that, but it's a journey getting to the understanding that there's no dilemma. As someone said on another thread, the Two Truths doctrine is a tool (or raft) to help understand the teachings, but once you've got it, you discard the raft. Some teachers teach without the raft, though, they just dive straight in and cut to the chase. Unconventional teaching methods can cause confusion when compared with traditional teaching methods. But I get the full picture now, thanks, all.

Floating_Abu

This seems to be one of those instances in which there are contradictory teachings in the canon. It needs to be sorted out.

Hi @Dakini

In my limited understanding, ALL contradictions can be sorted out. But how? The theory is too tricky, much too subtle, much too fast for our normal eyes and capacity.

I have had the pleasure of working with some real teachers, and helped a lot..The only way that all these (perceived and intellectual) "contradictions" can genuinely be sorted out is only through practice.

And what does practice mean? Practice means insight, it means realisation, it is samadhi and action in action, it is the flowering of truth and the clarity that only the eyes (our true eyes) can see.

It is both beautiful and it also, in my experience, not always easy. But what is the alternative for those of us whom seek truth? There is none as far as I can see.

Perserverance furthers, determination and a genuine heart can lead the way. That, plus good help, at least for myself.

Best wishes,
Abu

Floating_Abu

Lol who am i?

Don't knowwww

My Master never accepted that one :-)

_/\_

compassionate_warrior

What I got out of this discussion is there are no contradictions. If the Buddha's teaching methods are correctly understood, there are no contradictions. It got sorted out.