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.
Karma and Rebirth in Theravada Buddhism by Brian Ruhe (Video)
I still don't see how this passage can be intepreted in a psychological way, and I certainly don't think it was ever intended in this way.
It would be nice if you made, like, an argument or a rebuttal or something. Or we could just go back to "It is not!" "It is so!"
I think I've argued a logical case that the psychological interpretation of dependent origination isn't supported by the suttas, and also that it's unecessary and potentially confusing. And the same applies to moment-to-moment rebirth and the idea of the realms as mind-states. Clearly we're not going to agree on this, but that's OK.
I still don't see how this passage can be intepreted in a psychological way, and I certainly don't think it was ever intended in this way. Similarly for the description for birth ( jati ), which also clearly describes a physical rather than a psychological process. And I still haven't heard a coherent answer to the question I posed earlier, ie what exactly is supposed to be re-born in a psychological sense?
Self-identity view (sakkaya-ditthi), the conceit 'I am' (asmi-mana), mind-moments (cittakkhana), etc.
Furthermore "bhava", as a nidana, is clearly defined as the process of being in the 3 realms, not psychological becoming. And so on. The more one looks at the way the nidanas are actually defined in MN9 and SN12.2, the less convincing is the case for a psychological interpretation of dependent origination. It just looks like wishful thinking to me.
Only if one ignores the rest of the Canon, including the many references we've given above plus the Abhidhamma Pitaka.
I haven't see any convincing references so far in this thread. MN140 doesn't support your argument and you weren't able to provide any specific passages from the Abidhamma. Also I don't see how one can correctly analyse dependent origination without careful consideration of how the nidanas are defined, so MN9 and SN12.2 are the primary references.
I haven't see any convincing references so far in this thread. MN140 doesn't support your argument and you weren't able to provide any specific passages from the Abidhamma.
To be honest, I feel like I'm just wasting my time seeing as how the majority of what I've already said seems to have been ignored, misread, or dismissed out of hand.
None of the references offered in my initial post, for example, have really been addressed yet, even though @fivebells attempted to reintroduce one of them back into the discussion. In addition, I've already provided information about the relevant the section of the Vibhanga dealing with both aspects of dependent co-airing if you're interested in doing a little research on your own (not to mention the opinions of translators and scholars, ancient as well as contemporary, that both interpretations are supported by the Pali Canon).
Beyond that, I still fail to see how the passage from MN 140 regarding the construing or perception of 'I am' isn't referring to the psychological aspect of dependent co-arising that operates within the context the cosmological—a view that's been a part of Theravada since at least the time of Buddhaghosa whether one accepts it or not.
Also I don't see how one can correctly analyse dependent origination without careful consideration of how the nidanas are defined, so MN9 and SN12.2 are the primary references.
I feel like my posts and references aren't being read clearly enough. For example, I agree that certain nidanas are more geared towards the cosmological, but there are also nidanas that are clearly mental/psychological processes operating within that context (and I think this becomes increasing clear when taking the entirety of the Pali Canon into consideration, not simply two suttas).
Our mental states and sense of self aren't static things; and in my opinion, a correct analysis of dependent co-arising includes seeing that the process of their arising and ceasing is the same as that of beings, whether in terms of self-identification regarding the khandhas or cosmological rebirth. The way I see it, the teachings and the practice itself are useless if they don't also point towards where we can observe these processes taking place in the present.
That's just my personal opinion, however, and you're obviously free to take it or leave it as you see fit.
^ Jason, first, you write extremely well, but also in depth...and frankly most people on this forum aren't much into depth. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Second, you are probably -- by far -- the most intellectual of the posters on this forum. That goes over the heads of most, including me...sometimes.
And third, most here just want to express their own opinions. Me included. You, too, to some extent. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I think I've argued a logical case that the psychological interpretation of dependent origination isn't supported by the suttas
It would be great if you could respond to my attempt to translate the suttas your refutation depends on, maybe with some close reading of your own. We can certainly get someone who knows Pali to check my analysis if you like.
Furthermore "bhava", as a nidana, is clearly defined as the process of being in the 3 realms, not psychological becoming.
Could you explain why?
The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation [in a womb], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth.
Note that "precipitation [in a womb]" is only one of the events termed birth. "Manifestation of the aggregates" and "obtaining the bases for contact" are clearly psychological events.
The more one looks at the way the nidanas are actually defined in MN9 and SN12.2, the less convincing is the case for a psychological interpretation of dependent origination. It just looks like wishful thinking to me.
It would be great if you could explain how you come to this conclusion.
...and also that it's unecessary and potentially confusing.
It would be nice if you could respond to my post to Sile above, explaining why it's necessary. I don't see how what you've said so far addresses the issues I've raised there.
Comments
Clearly we're not going to agree on this, but that's OK.
Is there any support for this idea in the suttas?
Also I don't see how one can correctly analyse dependent origination without careful consideration of how the nidanas are defined, so MN9 and SN12.2 are the primary references.
None of the references offered in my initial post, for example, have really been addressed yet, even though @fivebells attempted to reintroduce one of them back into the discussion. In addition, I've already provided information about the relevant the section of the Vibhanga dealing with both aspects of dependent co-airing if you're interested in doing a little research on your own (not to mention the opinions of translators and scholars, ancient as well as contemporary, that both interpretations are supported by the Pali Canon).
Beyond that, I still fail to see how the passage from MN 140 regarding the construing or perception of 'I am' isn't referring to the psychological aspect of dependent co-arising that operates within the context the cosmological—a view that's been a part of Theravada since at least the time of Buddhaghosa whether one accepts it or not. I feel like my posts and references aren't being read clearly enough. For example, I agree that certain nidanas are more geared towards the cosmological, but there are also nidanas that are clearly mental/psychological processes operating within that context (and I think this becomes increasing clear when taking the entirety of the Pali Canon into consideration, not simply two suttas).
Our mental states and sense of self aren't static things; and in my opinion, a correct analysis of dependent co-arising includes seeing that the process of their arising and ceasing is the same as that of beings, whether in terms of self-identification regarding the khandhas or cosmological rebirth. The way I see it, the teachings and the practice itself are useless if they don't also point towards where we can observe these processes taking place in the present.
That's just my personal opinion, however, and you're obviously free to take it or leave it as you see fit.
Second, you are probably -- by far -- the most intellectual of the posters on this forum. That goes over the heads of most, including me...sometimes.
And third, most here just want to express their own opinions. Me included. You, too, to some extent. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Keep up the good work despite the obstacles!