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.
Dependent Origination - application to daily practice
There is no point in you giving sutta quotes from here and there supporting the 3 lives model when you have not answered the questions I have asked you previously. You are most welcome to explain the 3 lives model to me fully as you understand. Then we would have a point for further discussion.
Btw. the womb is not found in all translations of MN 9:
Actually I looked up the pali and from the little I know I do not see a mention of a womb in the sutta. The particular words for womb could be "lingehi" (as mentioned in the mahanidhana sutta) or "gabbhāsaya" or "gabbha". (there could be more) None found.
This could be a better translation:
What is birth, what is the arising of birth, what is the cessation of birth, and what is the path to the cessation of birth? Birth, origin, coming to be, rebirth, the arising of the masses, the gain of mental faculties, in this and other class of beings, is birth. With the arising of being there is the arising of birth; with the cessation of being there is cessation of birth.
This same noble eightfold path is the path to the cessation of birth, such as right view, right thoughts, right speech, right actions, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right cconcentration. When the noble disciple knows, `This is birth, this is the arising of birth, this is the cessation of birth and this is the path to the cessation of birth,' he gives up all latent tendencies to greed, drives out all latent tendencies to aversion and, completely destroying the latent tendency to measure as `I be', dispels ignorance, arouses science, and here and now makes an end of unpleasantness. With this much the view rectified, endowed with unwavering faith in the Teaching, comes to this good Teaching
Friends, there are three [types of] being: [2] being with sensuality, being with matter, and being with the immaterial.
...
These three are the beings: `tayo 'me àvuso bhavà'. Being is the mind's behaviour in sensual thoughts, thinking about material and maintaining the mind in immaterial states.
Porpoise, you could argue that it supports post-mortem rebirth, but no where, not in one single sutta, is "three lives" ever mentioned. Also, other things in this very sutta contradict the Three Lives model: consciousness is explained as it was to Sati who believed consciousness is what survived death and is reborn (as in the Three Lives model), for example. Further, DO is meant to illustrate the arising (and thus ending) of suffering, and the end of this very sutta explains how that comes about: "...he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge hehere and now makes an end of suffering."
Physical aging, death... are perceived as suffering... due to clingingat Contact. It is not inherent in our existence. Reading the sutta in its entirety, along with any other sutta, makes this clear.
In the 3 lives model consciousness arises dependent on the karma formations.
Find me one instance in the suttas where this is stated (either that consciousness ARISES dependant on formations, or where formations is translated from the word kamma.)
I've never come across this idea of tainted consciousness in the suttas, and I don't see how consciousness is something that could be tainted.
Well I have:
It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a heaven named "Contacts Six Fold Base.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue ... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable.
"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life."
... consciousness is explained as it was to Sati who believed consciousness is what survived death and is reborn (as in the Three Lives model), for example.
Find me one instance in the suttas where this is stated (either that consciousness ARISES dependant on formations, or where formations is translated from the word kamma.)
On the first point, Sati's error is thinking that it's the same consciousness that continues - the Buddha puts him straight.
On the second point it is said in DO ( eg in MN38 ) that consciousness arises in dependence on formations. As previously discussed formations" ( sankharas ) has many meanings in the suttas, according to context.
Generally it seems to me that the descriptions of the 12 links given in MN9, the sutta on Right View, completely undermine the psychological version of DO. I think there needs to much more scrutiny of the assumptions made in the psychological model.
Anyway, as I said, I don't find either the 3-lives or the psychological versions of DO all that convincing. My instinct is that neither are correct. It's possible the DO teaching has been corrupted somewhere along the line.
"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a heaven named "Contacts Six Fold Base.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable."
Khana Sutta - SN
This extract appears to be describing a heaven where everything looks nice. Ironically in describing a heaven it appears to supports the 3-lives model of DO. I can't see any relevant connection to the idea of "tainted consciousness".
This whole sutta war is pointless. It is not stated explicitly in the sutras. The idea of the three lifetimes is explained by commentaries, such as Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga. The psychological interpretation is just another interpretation, also not supported by the sutras.
The truth is the 12 nidanas are not explained properly in the pali canon, so why are you people throwing sutras at each other?
The truth is the 12 nidanas are not explained properly in the pali canon, so why are you people throwing sutras at each other?
Who is "throwing"? If you don't enjoy this type of discussion simply don't participate.
This extract appears to be describing a heaven where everything looks nice. Ironically in describing a heaven it appears to supports the 3-lives model of DO. I can't see any relevant connection to the idea of "tainted consciousness".
A boy sees a snake. He's fascinated by it and finds it anything but repulsive. The boy gets bit by the snake. Now the snake scares him, repulses him. Rather than simply registering the snake as a snake, various changing mental stories are attached to it. Consciousness is tainted.
On the first point, Sati's error is thinking that it's the same consciousness that continues - the Buddha puts him straight.
My point was not about what Sati believed. My point was about how the Buddha set him straight. "I have only ever taught consciousness in this way..."
On the second point it is said in DO ( eg in MN38 ) that consciousness arises in dependence on formations.
=/= "A causes B"
As previously discussed formations" ( sankharas ) has many meanings in the suttas, according to context.
Irrelevent. In the context of DO is all that matters. I.e.: "And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications." [SN 12.2] Further elaborated on in MN 44. I.e. not kamma.
Generally it seems to me that the descriptions of the 12 links given in MN9, the sutta on Right View, completely undermine the psychological version of DO. I think there needs to much more scrutiny of the assumptions made in the psychological model.
And the following and other various suttas completely undermine the 3 Lives model and support the psychological model in which birth refers to any aspect of the overall self-concept:
MN 26 describes any conditioned thing as being subject to birth/aging/decay/death.
MN 140:
"'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.
"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Now, monk, you should remember this, my brief analysis of the six properties."
MN 38:
"Bhikkhus, that child grows and his faculties mature and he plays games that children play, such as playing with toy ploughs, turning somersaults, making toy wind mills with palm leaves, making small carts and bows. Bhikkhus, that child grows and his faculties mature [further] and the youth enjoys the five strands of sense pleasures; he lives enticed by pleasing and agreeable forms cognizable by eye consciousness, agreeable sounds cognizable by ear consciousness, agreeable smells cognizable by nose consciousness, agreeable tastes cognizable by tongue consciousness and agreeable touches cognizable by body consciousness.
"On seeing a form with the eye he becomes greedy for a pleasant form, or averse to a disagreeable form. He abides with mindfulness of the body not established and with a limited mind. He does not know the deliverance of mind nor the deliverance through wisdom as it really is, where unwholesome states cease completely. He follows the path of agreeing and disagreeing and experiences whatever feeling that arises - pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Delighted and pleased with those [pleasant] feelings he appropriates them. This arouses interest in those feelings. That interest for feelings is clinging. From clinging, there arises becoming, from becoming arises birth, from birth old age, sickness and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress. Thus arises the complete mass of dukkha.
[same for all other senses]
(so a boy is entranced and attached to a toy, and when they toy is taken away, does dukkha not arise until the next life, or does it arise in that moment?)
Anyway, as I said, I don't find either the 3-lives or the psychological versions of DO all that convincing. My instinct is that neither are correct. It's possible the DO teaching has been corrupted somewhere along the line.
Could you please explain the inadequacies of the psychological model in illustrating the process by which dukkha arises?
Comments
Actually I looked up the pali and from the little I know I do not see a mention of a womb in the sutta. The particular words for womb could be "lingehi" (as mentioned in the mahanidhana sutta) or "gabbhāsaya" or "gabbha". (there could be more) None found.
This could be a better translation:
Nonetheless, I would suggest that you explain the way you understand the DO to begin with so that we can carry on from there
Physical aging, death... are perceived as suffering... due to clinging at Contact. It is not inherent in our existence. Reading the sutta in its entirety, along with any other sutta, makes this clear.
Find me one instance in the suttas where this is stated (either that consciousness ARISES dependant on formations, or where formations is translated from the word kamma.)
Well I have:
On the first point, Sati's error is thinking that it's the same consciousness that continues - the Buddha puts him straight.
On the second point it is said in DO ( eg in MN38 ) that consciousness arises in dependence on formations. As previously discussed formations" ( sankharas ) has many meanings in the suttas, according to context.
Generally it seems to me that the descriptions of the 12 links given in MN9, the sutta on Right View, completely undermine the psychological version of DO. I think there needs to much more scrutiny of the assumptions made in the psychological model.
Anyway, as I said, I don't find either the 3-lives or the psychological versions of DO all that convincing. My instinct is that neither are correct. It's possible the DO teaching has been corrupted somewhere along the line.
P
Khana Sutta - SN
This extract appears to be describing a heaven where everything looks nice. Ironically in describing a heaven it appears to supports the 3-lives model of DO. I can't see any relevant connection to the idea of "tainted consciousness".
P
The truth is the 12 nidanas are not explained properly in the pali canon, so why are you people throwing sutras at each other?
Not really. I think if you read the suttas properly the here and now cessation of suffering is very well explained in the suttas for the most part
A boy sees a snake. He's fascinated by it and finds it anything but repulsive. The boy gets bit by the snake. Now the snake scares him, repulses him. Rather than simply registering the snake as a snake, various changing mental stories are attached to it. Consciousness is tainted.
My point was not about what Sati believed. My point was about how the Buddha set him straight. "I have only ever taught consciousness in this way..."
=/= "A causes B"
Irrelevent. In the context of DO is all that matters. I.e.: "And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications." [SN 12.2] Further elaborated on in MN 44. I.e. not kamma.
And the following and other various suttas completely undermine the 3 Lives model and support the psychological model in which birth refers to any aspect of the overall self-concept:
MN 26 describes any conditioned thing as being subject to birth/aging/decay/death.
MN 140:
MN 38:
(so a boy is entranced and attached to a toy, and when they toy is taken away, does dukkha not arise until the next life, or does it arise in that moment?)
Could you please explain the inadequacies of the psychological model in illustrating the process by which dukkha arises?