It's about DO again

Deshy

OK It's about dependent origination again ...

Is "Mahanidhana sutta" a later addition? If so who says so and why? What is the proof?

Dazzle

Hi Deshy,

You mentioned "Great Discourse on Causation: Mahanidana Sutta and Its Commentaries " by Bhikkhu Bodhi last year here #16 and you said it was really good.

http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4093

Does he perhaps say something about the dating of the sutta somewhere in the book ? It's possible.


Kind wishes,

Dazzle

DhammaDhatu

Deshy wrote: »

OK It's about dependent origination again ...

Is "Mahanidhana sutta" a later addition? If so who says so and why? What is the proof?

Simply compare it to the other numerous discourses in the other Nikayas.

It does not include ignorance and the fabricators (sankhara).

It does not include the sense bases.

It does not define nama-rupa as the mind-body but instead uses the classical Hindu definition of 'name-form' or 'naming'.

It does not define consciousness as the six kinds of sense consciousness.

MatSalted

Deshy wrote: »

OK It's about dependent origination again ...

Is "Mahanidhana sutta" a later addition? If so who says so and why? What is the proof?

I am not sure, but I am not sure the 12 accoutrements were taught by the buddha, they may just be a more elaborate version of the second noble truth?

Deshy

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

Simply compare it to the other numerous discourses in the other Nikayas.

It does not include ignorance and the fabricators (sankhara).

It does not include the sense bases.

It does not define consciousness as the six kinds of sense consciousness.

What bothers me most is that it's talking about a womb

Deshy

Dazzle wrote: »

Hi Deshy,

You mentioned "Great Discourse on Causation: Mahanidana Sutta and Its Commentaries " by Bhikkhu Bodhi last year here #16 and you said it was really good.

http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4093

Does he perhaps say something about the dating of the sutta somewhere in the book ? It's possible.


Kind wishes,

Dazzle

I have read the book Dazz and did not find any reference as such. But maybe I have missed it. I don't feel like reading it again because I found this interpretation of the DO which seems closer to what the Buddha could have taught.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm

DhammaDhatu

Opinion of scholar Bhikkhu Sugato:

Formation of the Nikayas: It seems that usually monks would specialize in studying one or the other of the four Nikayas, so the Nikayas are arranged so that key teachings are found in each Nikaya. Teachings found in only one or two Nikayas, therefore, should not be regarded as central. Each of the four Nikayas, however, has its own flavour. It seems that each was designed to fulfill a certain function within the emerging religion, and this should be seen to reflect the personalities of those who chose to specialize in a particular field. The Digha emphasizes legendary and anti-brahmanical material and was likely used for propoganda and conversion. The Majjhima contains a deep and broad doctrinal range, and probably served as the main monastic syllabus. The Samyutta is more technical and would have been the domain of the intellectuals and doctrinal specialists. The Anguttara is simpler and more lay-orientated, and would have been used for preaching. Each Nikaya also includes much material contrasting with its overall flavour.

Bhikkhu Sujato

Dazzle

Deshy wrote: »

I have read the book Dazz and did not find any reference as such. But maybe I have missed it. I don't feel like reading it again because I found this interpretation of the DO which seems closer to what the Buddha could have taught.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm

An excellent choice,Deshy. Personally I have huge respect for the late Buddhadhasa Bhikkhu and everything I've read by him so far makes a lot of sense to me.


.

DhammaDhatu

Deshy wrote: »

What bothers me most is that it's talking about a womb

As I offerred, this kind of discourse cannot be found elsewhere in the Pali, both in the subject matter and the language used.

It is metaphysics. It is not about how ignorance conditions consciousness to lead to suffering.

The salient teaching in the suttas is about ignorant sense contact.

Deshy

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

The salient teaching in the suttas is about ignorant sense contact.

What do you mean? Isn't the sutta about DO?

Deshy

Deshy wrote: »

The Digha emphasizes legendary and anti-brahmanical material and was likely used for propoganda and conversion

That means the suttas in the DN would have been composed probably to emphasis the anti-brahmanical material in Buddhist teachings. Then why would Mahanidhana sutta talk about a womb? I'm confused

DhammaDhatu

Deshy wrote: »

Then why would Mahanidhana sutta talk about a womb? I'm confused

I am as confused as you. Personally, my view is the Buddha never spoke it. But I cannot prove that.

DhammaDhatu

Deshy wrote: »

What do you mean? Isn't the sutta about DO?

The Mahanidhana Sutta is about DO. But I personally find the discussion in it about consciousness and nama-rupa unhelpful.

It is one thing to say consciousness depends on having a body-mind and the awareness of a body-mind depends on consciousness. That I can accept fully.

The Mahanidhana Sutta states about nama-rupa:

...the qualities, traits, themes & indicators by which there is a description...

OK. Whilst the others suttas do not describe nama-rupa like this, I can accept it for practical purposes. The mind has the capacity to name, describe or perceive things. This is the classic Hindu definition of nama-rupa, literally, 'naming'.

The sutta then states about consciousness:

If consciousness were not to descend into [or develop in] the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"

"No, lord."

"If, after descending into [or developing in] the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"

"No, lord."

"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow and reach maturity?"

"No, lord."

"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."

Now, I have examined the Pali and the word 'womb' is definitely used here.

I ask, what exactly is being said above? Is it other view of creation like the Christian view of creation that contradicts science.

For example, an embryo proabably has a very primitive consciousness, probably like a jelly fish. An embryo is so inseparable from the mother, most of its development is probably physical rather than something mental.

For example, some embryos develop until birth, to a full-size baby, but are still-born without any breathing or consciousness. Whilst I am not a biologist, the development of an embryo seems mostly physical.

Further, as nama-rupa was defined in the Mahanidana Sutta as naming or description, how can an embryo describe or name? The mentality of an embryo is too primitive to be naming & describing experience.

Then how can consciousness depart from a womb? How strange.

Then in a young boy or girl, how exactly is consciousness cut off? For example, if a young boy or girl becomes blind, deaf or comatose, of course they will cease to name or describe things. But the sutta states "would name-and-form ripen, grow and reach maturity?"

On other words, the sutta in talking about "maturity", appears to be inferring the maturity of the body rather than "naming' or "description". Thus, the Mahanidana Sutta appears to be contradicting itself.

To me, unless I am missing something, it makes no sense to me.

Buddha's do not speak in ways that are incomprehensible or illogical.

A Buddha speaks the Dhamma perfectly (svakato bhagavata dhammo).

Kind regards

DDhatu

Dazzle

.
Hi Deshy,


I'm not sure if you'll find this helpful or not, but Bhante Vimalaramsi discusses the Mahanidana Sutta here at the What-Buddha-Taught website:


http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Ven_Vimalaramsi_THE_GREAT_DISCOURSE_ON_ORIGINATION.htm



Kind wishes,

Dazzle

.




.

DhammaDhatu

Dazzle wrote: »

Bhante Vimalaramsi discusses the Mahanidana Sutta

BV does not have much to offer in terms of clarity. He states:

'Or if consciousness, having entered the mother's womb, were to be deflected ……<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P> </O:P>

BV: 'Be deflected?'


DN: ..would mind-and-body come to birth in this life?'<O:P></O:P>


BV: 'Being deflected' means taking birth control, and birth control has been around for thousands of years, contrary to popular belief. And also if body, if a mother's body has a reaction there can be a deflection that way, of --miscarriage.

:-/

BV also vents his frustration, like me:

DN: {By} whatever properties the mind-factor and the body-factor are designated - in their absence is there manifested any grasping at the idea, or {at} sensory reaction?' {'No Lord.'}
<O:P></O:P>

BV: This is a poor translation. I'm going to have to do something about this. I don't care for this translation very much. Because Maurice Walshe was very much an intellectual, not a practicer. So when he's talking about grasping at sensory reactions and ideas, it's out of place. It's not appropriate that this is here.

:-/

Dazzle

Dhamma Dhatu wrote:

BV also vents his frustration, like me:

Yes, oops I didn't read it all ...that's not much help is it !:o


Not sure if this is any help - but I found a comment by Bhikkhu Sujato mentioning the sutta here...

"The Pali canon contains several passages dealing with the process of conception in the womb and the advent of consciousness. The Maha Tanhasankhaya Sutta states that conception is dependent on the coming together of three things: the mother and father come together; the mother is fertile; and the being to be reborn is ready. The term ‘coming together’ means ‘same place, same time’. Thus this passage implies that consciousness appears at the time of conception.

The Maha Nidana Sutta is even clearer. It states that if consciousness does not enter the mother’s womb, mentality & physical form cannot ‘coagulate’ inside the womb. In yet another passage, conception is said to depend on the ‘six elements’, including consciousness. All of these statements occur in discussions of the key doctrine of dependent origination and thus carry great authority. In the monastic Vinaya, too, the appearance of the embryo is equated with the arising of the ‘first mind, the first consciousness’ in the mother’s womb. Thus all of these contexts treat conception as involving a combination of mental and physical factors, with the mental factors primary. This of course reflects the basic philosophy of Buddhism that mind is the forerunner of all things.

from "When Life Begins"

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha328.htm



.

DhammaDhatu

Bhikkhu Sujato is wrong regarding MN 38.

MN 38 mentions the gandhabba. Gandhabba means 'scented seed', as follows:

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, I will teach you about the devas (gods) of the gandhabba order. Listen to that...."
<O:p</O:p
"And what, bhikkhus, are the devas of the gandhabba order? There are, bhikkhus, devas dwelling in the fragrant roots, devas dwelling in the fragrant heartwood, devas dwelling in the fragrant softwood, devas dwelling in fragrant leaves, devas dwelling in fragrant flowers, devas dwelling in fragrant fruits, devas dwelling in fragrant sap and devas dwelling in fragrant scents."

</O:p"These bhikkhus are called the devas of the gandhabba order."

SN 31.1

Commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

The gandhabbas are associated with fragrant substances, no doubt because the word is based on the stem gandha, meaning scent.

Bhikkhu Sujato is implying there is a "being to be born", like a soul or atman.

DhammaDhatu

MN 38 states:

Bhikkhus, the conception of an embryo in a womb takes place through the union of three things. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, but it is not the mother’s season and the gandhabba is not present - in this case there is no conception of an embryo in a womb.

Here, there is the union of the mother and father and it is the mother’s season, but the gandhabba is not present - in this case too there is no conception of an embryo in a womb.

But when there is the union of the mother and father and it is the mother’s season and the gandhabba is present, through the union of these three things the conception of an embryo in a womb takes place.

The mother then carries the embryo in her womb for nine or ten months with much anxiety, as a heavy burden. Then, at the end of nine or ten months, the mother gives birth with much anxiety, as a heavy burden. Then, when the child is born, she nourishes it with her own blood; for the mother’s breast-milk is called blood in the Noble One’s (ariya) training.<O:p</O:p

The gandhabba is seed or sperm.

The term sperm is derived from the Greek word (σπέρμα) sperma (meaning "seed") and refers to the male reproductive cells. ...

Wikipedia

DhammaDhatu

Dazzle wrote: »

from "When Life Begins"...

Dazz

You must have had one of those repressed upbringings.

When I was 8 years old, I recall we all went with our parents in the evening to school and watched reproduction movies, about sperm, ovums and stuff like that.

Dazzle

I wonder if 'gandhabba' could also mean sperm or egg ?





.

Dazzle

Oh we must have been posting at the same time DD !

You must have had one of those repressed upbringings

Yeah, actually I did - with physical and mental abuse thrown in too, as it happens.


.

DhammaDhatu

Good old Patrick Kearney tries here: buddhistelibrary.org/library/download.php?aipath=258

“If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would name-&-form take shape in the womb?” ... “If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-&-form be generated into this present state of being?” ... “If the consciousness of a young
boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-&-form grow up, develop, and reach maturity?”

The inter-relationship between consciousness and name-&-form occurs now, in the immediacy of this already interpreted world; it is synchronic. But it also occurs through time, moving from yesterday through today to tomorrow; it is diachronic. When the Buddha speaks about movement or development through time, he speaks in terms of consciousness as a stream - the vinnàna-sota.

Here he is speaking of the moment of conception followed by the growth and development of a human being, which is a linear process over time, and which implies the process of rebirth. Again we are reminded of the cosmological slant of this sutta. The Buddha selects three instants within this process of the development of identity over time and asks: If consciousness was cut off at this point, would the process continue? He is showing us a cross-section of the process of human development, intersecting the diachronic with the synchronic. When can consciousness cease, and cause name-&-form to cease? At any time; at this time. At this time, we have the arising of consciousness together with name-&-form, which is a person-within-a-world; at this time, we have the cessation of consciousness together with name-&-form, which is a person-within-aworld; then, at this time we have the re-arising of consciousness together with name-&-form, which is a person-within-a-world. So a person within a world is a stream of consciousness together with name-&-form, a complex process of experience and interpretation which arises now, in this moment; and ceases now, in this moment; and then arises now, in this moment; and so on.

DhammaDhatu

Good old Patrick puts in a big effort to account for the absence of the sense spheres in the sutta. Not just the quote below but three whole pages.

This passage doesn’t so much define contact as delineate its location....

However, contact can be abstracted from its context, analysed as a discrete phenomenon: the interaction of sense organ and sense object, and the knowing or cognising of this interaction.

However, I do not find it acceptable because in many places (AN 3.61, MN 115, etc) the Buddha advised the sense spheres are one of his few core teachings.

In AN 3.61, the Buddha states he teaches about the six elements, six sense spheres, eighteen contemplations of feeling and the four noble truths.

In MN 115, the Buddha states a practitioner should be skilled in the elements, sense spheres & dependent origination.

Personally, I cannot think of any reason why the Buddha would leave out the sense spheres in a "great discourse" on dependent origination.

DhammaDhatu

Dazzle wrote: »

Yeah, actually I did - with physical and mental abuse thrown in too, as it happens.

Your parents must have had alot of ignorance or not-knowing.

Deshy

Thanks for clearing up the whole gandhabba thing DD.

I have a question like this. So the whole thing we delusively take as a self is a sequence of consciousness rising and falling based on the six sense bases. This thing seems to happen so fast, many times in a second that we cannot possibly identify this as it is. We feel that it is a constant entity and thus the delusion of a constant self to cling to.

Am I right so far? I guess I am

The question is, does that mean consciousness just ceases to rise at the break of the body? Since consciousness as described by the Buddha is nothing more than the consciousness that arise based on the six sense bases, at the cessation of the six sense bases consciousness should not rise. Doesn't that mean an annihilation at the break of the physical body

Deshy

But what is death? I am not talking about the term death as it is used in the DO. Did the Buddha ever talk about the everyday death we witness? A dead man has no consciousness as far as I know.

DhammaDhatu

Deshy wrote: »

I have a question like this. So the whole thing we delusively take as a self is a sequence of consciousness rising and falling based on the six sense bases. This thing seems to happen so fast, many times in a second that we cannot possibly identify this as it is. We feel that it is a constant entity and thus the delusion of a constant self to cling to.

For me, a moment of consciousness does not rise so fast that it cannot be discerned. Abidhamma talks in a certain way but the Buddha was more towards the middle. A moment of consciousness for our practice arises with one in breath, then arises with one out breath and so forth.

Since consciousness as described by the Buddha is nothing more than the consciousness that arise based on the six sense bases, at the cessation of the six sense bases consciousness should not rise. Doesn't that mean an annihilation at the break of the physical body.

Deshy

You will have to answer that question for yourself.

Indeed, the Buddha did say there is no origin of consciousness without a sense organ.

Kind regards

DDhatu

Deshy

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

A moment of consciousness for our practice arises with one in breath, then arises with one out breath and so forth.

If your mindfulness is strictly on the breath that is

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

Indeed, the Buddha did say there is no origin of consciousness without a sense organ.

So the Buddha never talked about what happens in death at all?

Am I going to get an answer for this from some of the suttas experts pretty pls?