Understanding Dependent Origination

[Michel]

Jhananda, you made an interesting comment in your essay "Understanding Dependent Origination", and that was, " If we were to consider that the Four Noble Truths were the Buddha's master's thesis, then we could extend that metaphor to say that Dependent Origination was the Buddha's Dissertation on the same subject".

See Jhananda's essay here: http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm

So, I am trying to arrive at an intellectual understanding of dependent origination. The sutta I like best on the topic is The Maha-nidana sutta: The Great Discourse  on Causation  (DN 15).  Here the Buddha taught the law of causality in a forwards and backwards sequence of factors.

See Jhananda's translation of this sutta here: http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/pali/Phala_Nikaya/mahanidanasutta.htm

The sequence of factors in forward order relate to each other as: "with (x) as condition, (y) comes to be" - i.e., with craving as condition, clinging comes to be, etc.

Using Jhananda's terminology, in his tranlslation, the sequence in forward order is:

cognition  < >  concepts and appearances  >  sensory stimulation  >  sensation  >  craving  >  clinging  >  becoming  >  birth  >  aging and death

Note:  'cognition' and 'concepts and ideas' are conditioned upon each other, as is the case in the sutta. - i.e., with 'cognition' as condition, 'concepts and ideas' come to be; and with 'concepts and ideas' as condition, 'cognition' comes to be. That is why I used the  < >  arrows pointing in both directions.

The factors of the law of causality in reverse order relate to each other as: 'the requisite condition for (x) is (y).' - i.e., the requisite condition for sensation is sensory stimulation, etc.

Thus the sequence of factors in reverse order is:

aging and death  >  birth  >  becoming  > clinging  > craving  > sensation  >  sensory stimulation  >  concepts and appearances  < >  cognition

Other translations use various terms for 'concepts an ideas.' The most common ones I've noticed are: mind & body (or psycho soma, Jhananda also uses this one), the five aggregates, name and form, mentality-materiality, to name but a few that I've come across.

So to begin, I need to understand why you chose the term 'concepts an ideas' in the sequence? What do you mean by it?

[Jhanananda]

Jhananda, you made an interesting comment in your essay "Understanding Dependent Origination", and that was, " If we were to consider that the Four Noble Truths were the Buddha's master's thesis, then we could extend that metaphor to say that Dependent Origination was the Buddha's Dissertation on the same subject".

See Jhananda's essay here: http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm

So, I am trying to arrive at an intellectual understanding of dependent origination. The sutta I like best on the topic is The Maha-nidana sutta: The Great Discourse  on Causation  (DN 15).  Here the Buddha taught the law of causality in a forwards and backwards sequence of factors.

See Jhananda's translation of this sutta here: http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/pali/Phala_Nikaya/mahanidanasutta.htm

The sequence of factors in forward order relate to each other as: "with (x) as condition, (y) comes to be" - i.e., with craving as condition, clinging comes to be, etc.

Using Jhananda's terminology, in his tranlslation, the sequence in forward order is:

cognition  < >  concepts and appearances  >  sensory stimulation  >  sensation  >  craving  >  clinging  >  becoming  >  birth  >  aging and death

Note:  'cognition' and 'concepts and ideas' are conditioned upon each other, as is the case in the sutta. - i.e., with 'cognition' as condition, 'concepts and ideas' come to be; and with 'concepts and ideas' as condition, 'cognition' comes to be. That is why I used the  < >  arrows pointing in both directions.

The factors of the law of causality in reverse order relate to each other as: 'the requisite condition for (x) is (y).' - i.e., the requisite condition for sensation is sensory stimulation, etc.

Thus the sequence of factors in reverse order is:

aging and death  >  birth  >  becoming  > clinging  > craving  > sensation  >  sensory stimulation  >  concepts and appearances  < >  cognition

It is good to see, Michel, that you are taking your study of the dhamma deeper. Getting at Sidharta Gotama’s philosophy of Dependent Origination I believe requires realizing that the Buddha and his people were really working from a different world-view than that of the contemporary Western world-view, thus it is rather difficult to simply translate the words of the Buddha literally and end up with something cogent at the other end.

A literal translation in the hands of someone who does not either understand Dependent Origination or the Western world-view typically produces unsuccessful compound terms, such as " mentality materiality," “sense contact” and “eye consciousness,” which produces a lot of the Dependent Origination double talk and Pali speak that seems to pervade the Buddha’s discourse in English translation.

When one reads clumsy compound English terms, such as mentioned above, we can conclude the person is either not familiar with the Western language of cognition and/or does not understand the Buddha’s philosophy on Dependent Origination.  It is clear to this contemplative that one must understand both to be able to clearly articulate Dependent Origination to the Western people.

[/b]Other translations use various terms for 'concepts an ideas.' The most common ones I've noticed are: mind & body (or psycho soma, Jhananda also uses this one), the five aggregates, name and form, mentality-materiality, to name but a few that I've come across.

So to begin, I need to understand why you chose the term 'concepts an ideas' in the sequence? What do you mean by it?

In his exposition of Dependent Origination Sidharta Gotama relied heavily upon the Vedic concept of nama-rupa.  nama-rupa in that system is a way of describing the Universe in a dualistic world-view of a material universe verses a spiritual one.  And, in the yogas one was to traverse both domains to end up beyond both nama-and rupa in a non-dualist domain of union with Brahma.

The actual Sanskrit/Pali terms being used are 'nama' and 'rupa'.  The Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' are used throughout the sutta, and are applied in various ways, which are difficult to translate into a single English term for all applications.  Most translators unsuccessfully try to do this, and they end up with terms like: 'mentality-materiality,' and 'mind & body,' which suggests these translators were simply clueless.

The way in which the Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' are used throughout Indic literature suggests four prominent uses.

1] The Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' are used in Indic literature in the way western psychiatry uses the phrase 'psycho-somatic,' which is recognizing that there is a relationship of social, psychological, and behavioral factors on bodily processes and quality of life in humans and animals.

2] The Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' are also used in Indic literature in the way western languages also recognize intellectually a difference between abstract concepts and concrete objects.

Abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether a term describes an object with a physical referent or one with no physical referents. They are most commonly used in philosophy and semantics. Abstract objects are sometimes called abstracta (sing. abstractum) and concrete objects are sometimes called concreta (sing. concretum). An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing, i.e. an idea, or abstraction.[1] The term 'abstract object' is said to have been coined by Willard Van Orman Quine.[2] The study of abstract objects is called abstract object theory.

3] The Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' are also used in the sense of a mind, and a body.  Nama is the mind, and rupa is the body.

In the case of Dependent Origination it is closely tied to Siddhartha Gautama's concept of the Five Clinging Aggregates.

The Five Clinging Aggregates or heaps of Cognition,
(khanda, S. skhanda)
1   Body, matter, physical form    rupa
2   Sensation   vedana
3   Perception    sañña
4   Mental formations, structures, beliefs or projections   sañkhara
5   Cognition, or volition   viññana

Here rupa forms the first 2 aggregates, and nama forms the last 3 aggregates.

4]  The Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' are also used in the sense that nama represents non-physical universe, verses rupa represents the physical universe.

So, as you can see the many uses of the Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' in Indic literature can make understanding Dependent Origination very difficult.  I hope this has helped.

[Michel]

Thank-you for your very detailed response. I really appreciate it. I like how you've gone into such depth. There's a mountain of material here, so it will take a while to digest it.

[Jhanananda]

You are welcome.  See also my Nama-Rupa essay.

[Jhanananda]

Thanks to Michel's inquiry the web page for Nama-Rupa has been updated.  I hope the writing is more clear.

[Michel]

Thank-you for updating the essay on nama-rupa. I've read everything and thought it all over.

It is good to see, Michel, that you are taking your study of the dhamma deeper. Getting at Sidharta Gotama’s philosophy of Dependent Origination I believe requires realizing that the Buddha and his people were really working from a different world-view than that of the contemporary Western world-view, thus it is rather difficult to simply translate the words of the Buddha literally and end up with something cogent at the other end.
A literal translation in the hands of someone who does not either understand Dependent Origination or the Western world-view typically produces unsuccessful compound terms, such as " mentality materiality," “sense contact” and “eye consciousness,” which produces a lot of the Dependent Origination double talk and Pali speak that seems to pervade the Buddha’s discourse in English translation.
When one reads clumsy compound English terms, such as mentioned above, we can conclude the person is either not familiar with the Western language of cognition and/or does not understand the Buddha’s philosophy on Dependent Origination.  It is clear to this contemplative that one must understand both to be able to clearly articulate Dependent Origination to the Western people.

I bet the Buddha had a simple way to explain Dependent Originaion. Somehow the various translations as they exist today do not seem to provide us with something that can be easily understood.  Now I mean understood intellectually, and not the realization of Dependent Origination that one attains through jhana. The terminology used by the various translators is ambiguous at best.

In his exposition of Dependent Origination Sidharta Gotama relied heavily upon the Vedic concept of nama-rupa.  Nama-rupa in that system is a way of describing the Universe in a dualistic world-view of a material universe verses a spiritual one.  And, in the yogas one was to traverse both domains to end up beyond both nama-and rupa in a non-dualist domain of union with Brahma.
The actual Sanskrit/Pali terms being used are 'nama' and 'rupa'.  The Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' are used throughout the sutta, and are applied in various ways, which are difficult to translate into a single English term for all applications.  Most translators unsuccessfully try to do this, and they end up with terms like: 'mentality-materiality,' and 'mind & body,' which suggests these translators were simply clueless.

  No wonder there's so much disagreement and misunderstanding.

The way in which the Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' are used throughout Indic literature suggests four prominent uses.
1] The Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' are used in Indic literature in the way western psychiatry uses the phrase 'psycho-somatic,' which is recognizing that there is a relationship of social, psychological, and behavioral factors on bodily processes and quality of life in humans and animals.
2] The Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' are also used in Indic literature in the way western languages also recognize intellectually a difference between abstract concepts and concrete objects.

Abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether a term describes an object with a physical referent or one with no physical referents. They are most commonly used in philosophy and semantics. Abstract objects are sometimes called abstracta (sing. abstractum) and concrete objects are sometimes called concreta (sing. concretum). An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing, i.e. an idea, or abstraction.[1] The term 'abstract object' is said to have been coined by Willard Van Orman Quine.[2] The study of abstract objects is called abstract object theory.

3] The Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' are also used in the sense of a mind, and a body.  Nama is the mind, and rupa is the body.
In the case of Dependent Origination it is closely tied to Siddhartha Gautama's concept of the Five Clinging Aggregates.
The Five Clinging Aggregates or heaps of Cognition,
(khanda, S. skhanda)
1   Body, matter, physical form    rupa
2   Sensation   vedana
3   Perception    sañña
4   Mental formations, structures, beliefs or projections   sañkhara
5   Cognition, or volition   viññana
Here rupa forms the first 2 aggregates, and nama forms the last 3 aggregates.

4]  The Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' are also used in the sense that nama represents non-physical universe, verses rupa represents the physical universe.
So, as you can see the many uses of the Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' in Indic literature can make understanding Dependent Origination very difficult.  I hope this has helped.

So we have four different uses of the Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' throughout Indic literature. And as you say, in the case of Dependent Origination the terms are closely tied to Siddhartha Gautama's concept of the Five Clinging Aggregates. This being so, and perhaps I'm as thick as a brick, why don't we simply use the Five aggregates to signify  'nama-rupa'?

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you for updating the essay on nama-rupa. I've read everything and thought it all over.

I bet the Buddha had a simple way to explain Dependent Originaion. Somehow the various translations as they exist today do not seem to provide us with something that can be easily understood.  Now I mean understood intellectually, and not the realization of Dependent Origination that one attains through jhana. The terminology used by the various translators is ambiguous at best.

So we have four different uses of the Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' throughout Indic literature. And as you say, in the case of Dependent Origination the terms are closely tied to Siddhartha Gautama's concept of the Five Clinging Aggregates. This being so, and perhaps I'm as thick as a brick, why don't we simply use the Five aggregates to signify  'nama-rupa'?

Good question.  The world view of the people who Siddhartha Gautama was teaching was heavily invested in concepts like: nama-rupa, the 5 elements, 12 signs of the zodiac, etc.  So, for them he was speaking their language.  For us, it is a bazaar philosophy to grasp.

[Michel]

Thank-you for updating the essay on nama-rupa. I've read everything and thought it all over.

I bet the Buddha had a simple way to explain Dependent Origination. Somehow the various translations as they exist today do not seem to provide us with something that can be easily understood.  Now I mean understood intellectually, and not the realization of Dependent Origination that one attains through jhana. The terminology used by the various translators is ambiguous at best.

So we have four different uses of the Sanskrit/Pali terms 'nama' and 'rupa' throughout Indic literature. And as you say, in the case of Dependent Origination the terms are closely tied to Siddhartha Gautama's concept of the Five Clinging Aggregates. This being so, and perhaps I'm as thick as a brick, why don't we simply use the Five aggregates to signify  'nama-rupa'?

Good question.  The world view of the people who Siddhartha Gautama was teaching was heavily invested in concepts like: nama-rupa, the 5 elements, 12 signs of the zodiac, etc.  So, for them he was speaking their language.  For us, it is a bazaar philosophy to grasp.

I want to understand what the Buddha was referring to when he used the term 'nama-rupa' in the context of Dependent Origination (DO). You may understand what it refers to, and it seems very complex. If you are an arahant, then you have supramundane knowledge of DO, and thus you know what 'nama-rupa' refers to. Is this not so?

In order for me to figure out what the Buddha was referring to when he used the compound term 'nama-rupa', I'm going to do a little bit of reverse engineering. Buddha described a sequenced process of co-dependent factors that leads an individual to suffering. This suffering is  simply brought about by desire. This desire leads to aging, death and suffering, followed by rebirth. Due to ignorance of this fact, which implies ignorance of the Four Noble Truths, the cycle of rebirth in Samsara continues for as long as there is desire for material or immaterial birth.  One can break the cycle of rebirths by putting an end to desire, and that's what the Noble Eightfold Path is all about. This is my simple understanding.

Now what is it that craves, has sensations, that is born, that undergoes aging, sickness and death, and is reborn? It points to one time, and that is a sentient being. (see wiki quote below on sentient being). The Buddha described a sentient being to be a composite of the 5 Aggregates of Clinging. Today we can go into far greater detail in our description of what constitutes a sentient being with modern science. But does that matter? I don't think so. Understanding the Five Aggregates should be good enough I think. It was good enough in the Buddha's time, and humans are the same today as they were then. So what do you want to call 'nama-rupa'?  Whatever you want, as long as you're referring to a sentient human being.

I'm sure my argument is full of flaws, but it does represent my understanding so far.

Sentient beings is a technical term in Buddhist discourse. Broadly speaking, it denotes beings with consciousness or sentience or, in some contexts, life itself.[1] Specifically, it denotes the presence of the five aggregates, or skandhas.[2] While distinctions in usage and potential subdivisions or classes of sentient beings vary from one school, teacher, or thinker to another—and there is debate within some Buddhist schools as to what exactly constitutes sentience and how it is to be recognized[citation needed]—it principally refers to beings in contrast with buddhahood. That is, sentient beings are characteristically not enlightened, and are thus confined to the death, rebirth, and suffering characteristic of Saṃsāra.

Getz, Daniel (2004: p. 760) provides a generalist Western Buddhist encyclopedic definition:

Sentient beings is a term used to designate the totality of living, conscious beings that constitute the object and audience of Buddhist teaching. Translating various Sanskrit terms (jantu, bahu jana, jagat, sattva), sentient beings conventionally refers to the mass of living things subject to illusion, suffering, and rebirth (Saṃsāra).

[Jhanananda]

I want to understand what the Buddha meant by 'nama-rupa' in the context of Dependent Origination (DO). You may understand what it means, and it seems very complex. If you are an arahant, then you have supramundane knowledge of DO, and thus you know what 'nama-rupa' is. Is this not so?

I am sorry, I thought that I had explained it to you clearly.  Now I know that I have not.

In order for me to figure out what the Buddha was getting at when he used the compound term 'nama-rupa', I'm going to do a little bit of reverse engineering. Buddha described a sequenced process of co-dependent factors that leads an individual to suffering. This suffering is  simply brought about by desire.

I believe tanha is better translated as 'craving' and it is more commonly translated as craving.  Craving (tanha) is the driving causal force behind the suffering (dukkha) of the Four Noble Truths; therefore giving up craving leads to freedom from suffering, and following a contemplative life, which is what the Noble Eightfold Path describes, will lead to giving up craving.  Giving up craving is what the liberation that is the focus of the Noble Eightfold Path is all about; and the first 7 of the 8 liberations are the upper 7 stages of the religious experience (samadhi).

But, perhaps we should start with an understanding of craving, and not within a doctrinal context, but in our own real life experience of it. In everyday life we have some desire, as you put it, or craving, for life to be different in someway.  It is this craving for life to be different that is what leads to dissatisfaction, or suffering (dukkha).

Now, let us put this suffering and craving into the context of recent dialog here.  There are a number of people here who are reporting regular access to fairly deep religious experiences (samadhi).  However, they still report that life sucks.  The lesson here is, just because those who find the bliss, joy and ecstasy of the religious experiences (samadhi) every day, does not mean that life has stopped to suck.  In fact if anyone goes public on their religious experiences, as I have done, then I am an example of someone for whom life is going to suck even more, because people are going to go out of their way to make my life suck more, just as Jesus was nailed to a cross, and most mystics were either martyred or at least marginalized. 

And, we can also use my life, and the life of others on this forum, to show that there is no benevolent creator god who is going to bestow name, fame, power or wealth upon anyone just because they have developed the religious experiences (samadhi).  In conclusion life is going to continue to suck regardless of how blissed out one becomes; however, those who find the bliss, joy and ecstasy of the religious experiences (samadhi) every day at least have a lot more consolation and fulfillment than the rest of the herd, even if life sucks more for them.

This desire leads to aging, death and suffering, followed by rebirth. Due to ignorance of this fact, which implies ignorance of the Four Noble Truths, the cycle of rebirth in Samsara continues for as long as there is desire for material or immaterial birth.  One can break the cycle of rebirths by putting an end to desire, and that's what the Noble Eightfold Path is all about. This is my simple understanding.

Alright, so we are going to have to fix something here, and I see where you got with it, which is from the suttas, and it is actually an unfortunate consequence of the way the suttas are written, so good reflexive thinking.  That is, no matter how enlightened anyone gets, they are going to still be born, get sick, have injuries, age, die and otherwise suffer, and the Buddha's story is proof of this, so is my story, and the story of everyone else on this forum who has reported their religious experiences (samadhi). 

Nonetheless, those who learn to rely upon the religious experiences (samadhi) will still find far more fulfillment in life, even if it sucks, than anyone else, and they are going to tend toward freedom from addictive behavior, because people tend to make life suck even more for themselves, because they are in mad pursuit of the 7 deadly sins (10 fetters); and not getting one's craving for the 7 deadly sins (10 fetters) leads to disappointment, dissatisfaction, or otherwise suffering (dukkha).

Now what is it that craves, has sensations, that is born, that undergoes aging, sickness and death, and is reborn? It points to one time. That is a sentient being. (see wiki quote below). Describe what a sentient being was thought to be back in Buddha's time, and you have the 5 Aggregates of Clinging. Today we can go into far greater detail in our description of what constitutes a sentient being with modern science. But does that matter? I don't think so. Understanding the Five Aggregates should be good enough I think. It was good enough in the Buddha's time, and humans are the same today as they were then. So what do you want to call 'nama-rupa'?  Whatever you want, as long as you're referring to a sentient human being.

Sentient beings is a technical term in Buddhist discourse. Broadly speaking, it denotes beings with consciousness or sentience or, in some contexts, life itself.[1] Specifically, it denotes the presence of the five aggregates, or skandhas.[2] While distinctions in usage and potential subdivisions or classes of sentient beings vary from one school, teacher, or thinker to another—and there is debate within some Buddhist schools as to what exactly constitutes sentience and how it is to be recognized[citation needed]—it principally refers to beings in contrast with buddhahood. That is, sentient beings are characteristically not enlightened, and are thus confined to the death, rebirth, and suffering characteristic of Saṃsāra.

Alright, so I can see where more confusion is coming for you.  It is due to a serious translation error that propels many mistranslations of the suttas, which is in sentience = consciousness.  Sentience is defined in the suttas in terms of the five aggregates (skandhas); however, none of those aggregates are consciousness, but one of them (viññana) has been commonly misinterpreted to be so.  Viññana should be translated as 'Cognition,' or 'volition,' otherwise the Buddha dhamma makes no sense, because it would imply the enlightenment is an unconscious states.

[Michel]

I want to understand what the Buddha meant by 'nama-rupa' in the context of Dependent Origination (DO). You may understand what it means, and it seems very complex. If you are an arahant, then you have supramundane knowledge of DO, and thus you know what 'nama-rupa' is. Is this not so?

I am sorry, I thought that I had explained it to you clearly.  Now I know that I have not.

You've explained the term 'nama-rupa' very well.  I understand what you wrote. What I meant was what 'entity' was the Buddha referring to when he used the term 'nama-rupa'.  And I tried to extrapolate to what he was referring to. You didn't catch my latest edit of my post above.

... So, in everyday life we have some desire, as you put it, or craving, for life to be different in someway.  It is this craving for life to be different that is what leads to dissatisfaction, or suffering (dukkha)...

I like the way you define craving.

Nonetheless, those who learn to rely upon the religious experiences (samadhi) will still find far more fulfillment in life, even if it sucks, than anyone else, and they are going to tend toward freedom from addictive behavior, because people tend to make life suck even more for themselves, because they are in mad pursuit of the 7 deadly sins (10 fetters); and not getting one's craving for the 7 deadly sins (10 fetters) leads to disappointment, dissatisfaction, or otherwise suffering (dukkha).

There is a belief going around that arahants are always in a state of perfect equanimity and peace in the face of life's turmoil. They suffer pain but it doesn't disturb them. This must be a myth, since in your case there are many things that piss you off. Where does this idea come from?

Alright, so I can see where more confusion is coming for you.  It due to a serious translation error that propels many mistranslations of the suttas it is in sentience = consciousness.  Sentience is defined in the suttas in terms of the five aggregates (skandhas); however, none of those aggregates are consciousness, but one of them (viññana) has been commonly misinterpreted to be so.  Viññana should be translated as 'Cognition,' or 'volition,' otherwise the Buddha dhamma makes no sense, because it would imply the enlightenment is an unconscious states.

I conclude from what you are saying that consciousness is something apart from the Five Aggregates. Would you define consciousness as spirit?  We already discussed 'consciousness.' See below.

The term "altered states of consciousness" has been used for the above subjective experiences.  So, the phrase recognizes that they are states of consciousness.

There is also a term "bare awareness" that appears in some contemplative literature.  What is bare awareness?  Bare awareness is an altered state of consciousness that occurs during meditation where the subject is not aware of anything, but is nonetheless aware.

So, what I am arguing here is consciousness does not need an object, nor does it need the senses, nor the mental processes.  But, do the dictionaries, or professors of consciousness studies, recognize this?  No.

So, in conclusion, I believe the Pali/Sanskrit term that best fits this use of the English term 'consciousness' would be 'Budhi.'

GWV dictionary: bodhi (from verbal root budhi, to awaken, to understand): awakenment, enlightenment, supreme knowledge. "(Through Bodhi) one awakens from the

slumber or stupor (inflicted upon the mind) by the defilements (kilesa, q.v.) and comprehends the Four Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.)" (Com. to M.

[rougeleader115]

Now, let is put this suffering and craving into the context of recent dialog here.  There are a number of people here who are reporting regular access to fairly deep religious experiences (samadhi).  However, they still report that life sucks.  The lesson here is, just because those who find the bliss, joy and ecstasy of the religious experiences (samadhi) every day, does not mean that life has stopped to suck.  In fact if anyone goes public on their religious experiences, as I have done, then I am an example of someone for whom life is going to suck even more, because people are going to go out of their way to make my life suck more, just as Jesus was nailed to a cross, and most mystics were either martyred or at least marginalized. 

And, we can also use my life, and the life of others on this forum, to show that there is no benevolent creator god who is going to bestow name, fame, power or wealth upon anyone just because they have developed the religious experiences (samadhi).  In conclusion life is going to continue to suck regardless of how blissed out one becomes; however, those who find the bliss, joy and ecstasy of the religious experiences (samadhi) every day at least have a lot more consolation and fulfillment than the rest of the herd, even if life sucks more for them.

This is sad to read, but it helps to know that it is not always a punishment for craving something that life sucks, it just will suck on its own sometimes . This gets rid of my expectation that life will just lose its unpleasant aspect as I go deeper into the religious experience. But thank you for giving me hope that I will at least find some consolation and fulfillment on this path.

... So, in everyday life we have some desire, as you put it, or craving, for life to be different in someway.  It is this craving for life to be different that is what leads to dissatisfaction, or suffering (dukkha)...

I like the way you define craving.

As do I, nice and simple.

There is a belief going around that arahants are always in a state of perfect equanimity and peace in the face of life's turmoil. They suffer pain but it doesn't disturb them. This must be a myth, since in your case there are many things that piss you off. Where does this idea come from?

Thank you Michel for bringing this up. I was curious too because if an arahant is able to suffer pain and not be disturbed, why would there be cases of arahants commiting suicide due to painful illness or injury? Does this mean we should be prepared to suffer intense pain as well, regardless of our level of bliss?

Alright, so I can see where more confusion is coming for you.  It due to a serious translation error that propels many mistranslations of the suttas it is in sentience = consciousness.  Sentience is defined in the suttas in terms of the five aggregates (skandhas); however, none of those aggregates are consciousness, but one of them (viññana) has been commonly misinterpreted to be so.  Viññana should be translated as 'Cognition,' or 'volition,' otherwise the Buddha dhamma makes no sense, because it would imply the enlightenment is an unconscious states.

I conclude from what you are saying that consciousness is something apart from the Five Aggregates. Would you define consciousness as spirit?  We already discussed 'consciousness.' See below.

The term "altered states of consciousness" has been used for the above subjective experiences.  So, the phrase recognizes that they are states of consciousness.

There is also a term "bare awareness" that appears in some contemplative literature.  What is bare awareness?  Bare awareness is an altered state of consciousness that occurs during meditation where the subject is not aware of anything, but is nonetheless aware.

So, what I am arguing here is consciousness does not need an object, nor does it need the senses, nor the mental processes.  But, do the dictionaries, or professors of consciousness studies, recognize this?  No.

So, in conclusion, I believe the Pali/Sanskrit term that best fits this use of the English term 'consciousness' would be 'Budhi.'

GWV dictionary: bodhi (from verbal root budhi, to awaken, to understand): awakenment, enlightenment, supreme knowledge. "(Through Bodhi) one awakens from the

slumber or stupor (inflicted upon the mind) by the defilements (kilesa, q.v.) and comprehends the Four Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.)" (Com. to M.

This is something I struggled to understand myself because with a name like cessation and descriptions like "blowing out a candle", it is very easy to think that enlightenment is an unconscious state. It seemed strange that the Buddha would just describe a path that leads to unconsciousness, so thank you for clearing that up. What is the relationship between bare-awareness and consciousness? From this description it seems that bare-awareness does not require an object to be aware of in the same way that consciousness does not. Are they the same thing?

[Michel]

... So, in everyday life we have some desire, as you put it, or craving, for life to be different in someway.  It is this craving for life to be different that is what leads to dissatisfaction, or suffering (dukkha)...

I like the way you define craving.

As do I, nice and simple.

J. Krishnamurti put it nicely when he said: "Do you want to know what my secret is? I don’t mind what happens.” But I wonder if this was true in his case. There's evidence that he could have been a fraud.

There is a belief going around that arahants are always in a state of perfect equanimity and peace in the face of life's turmoil. They suffer pain but it doesn't disturb them. This must be a myth, since in your case there are many things that piss you off. Where does this idea come from?

Thank you Michel for bringing this up. I was curious too because if an arahant is able to suffer pain and not be disturbed, why would there be cases of arahants commiting suicide due to painful illness or injury? Does this mean we should be prepared to suffer intense pain as well, regardless of our level of bliss?

You're welcome rougeleader. But good question. Jesus and some other mystics did. Jesus knew that he was going to be crucified, yet he chose to go through with it. So why not us? Some mystics decided to call it quits when there was no point in going on.  Jhananda could have committed suicide a long time ago but he chooses to stay for now and help other mystics. That's why enlightened mystics put up with all the suffering is my guess.

Alright, so I can see where more confusion is coming for you.  It due to a serious translation error that propels many mistranslations of the suttas it is in sentience = consciousness.  Sentience is defined in the suttas in terms of the five aggregates (skandhas); however, none of those aggregates are consciousness, but one of them (viññana) has been commonly misinterpreted to be so.  Viññana should be translated as 'Cognition,' or 'volition,' otherwise the Buddha dhamma makes no sense, because it would imply the enlightenment is an unconscious states.

I conclude from what you are saying that consciousness is something apart from the Five Aggregates. Would you define consciousness as spirit?  We already discussed 'consciousness.' See below.

The term "altered states of consciousness" has been used for the above subjective experiences.  So, the phrase recognizes that they are states of consciousness.

There is also a term "bare awareness" that appears in some contemplative literature.  What is bare awareness?  Bare awareness is an altered state of consciousness that occurs during meditation where the subject is not aware of anything, but is nonetheless aware.

So, what I am arguing here is consciousness does not need an object, nor does it need the senses, nor the mental processes.  But, do the dictionaries, or professors of consciousness studies, recognize this?  No.

So, in conclusion, I believe the Pali/Sanskrit term that best fits this use of the English term 'consciousness' would be 'Budhi.'

GWV dictionary: bodhi (from verbal root budhi, to awaken, to understand): awakenment, enlightenment, supreme knowledge. "(Through Bodhi) one awakens from the

slumber or stupor (inflicted upon the mind) by the defilements (kilesa, q.v.) and comprehends the Four Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.)" (Com. to M.

This is something I struggled to understand myself because with a name like cessation and descriptions like "blowing out a candle", it is very easy to think that enlightenment is an unconscious state. It seemed strange that the Buddha would just describe a path that leads to unconsciousness, so thank you for clearing that up. What is the relationship between bare-awareness and consciousness? From this description it seems that bare-awareness does not require an object to be aware of in the same way that consciousness does not. Are they the same thing?

I'll let Jhananda answer this question. But my guess is that consciousness and bare-awareness are the same thing.

[Jhanananda]

I want to understand what the Buddha was referring to when he used the term 'nama-rupa' in the context of Dependent Origination (DO). You may understand what it refers to, and it seems very complex. If you are an arahant, then you have supramundane knowledge of DO, and thus you know what 'nama-rupa' refers to. Is this not so?

In order for me to figure out what the Buddha was referring to when he used the compound term 'nama-rupa', I'm going to do a little bit of reverse engineering. Buddha described a sequenced process of co-dependent factors that leads an individual to suffering. This suffering is  simply brought about by desire. This desire leads to aging, death and suffering, followed by rebirth. Due to ignorance of this fact, which implies ignorance of the Four Noble Truths, the cycle of rebirth in Samsara continues for as long as there is desire for material or immaterial birth.  One can break the cycle of rebirths by putting an end to desire, and that's what the Noble Eightfold Path is all about. This is my simple understanding.

Now what is it that craves, has sensations, that is born, that undergoes aging, sickness and death, and is reborn? It points to one time, and that is a sentient being. (see wiki quote below on sentient being).

You've explained the term 'nama-rupa' very well.  I understand what you wrote. What I meant was what 'entity' was the Buddha referring to when he used the term 'nama-rupa'.  And I tried to extrapolate to what he was referring to. You didn't catch my latest edit of my post above.

The five aggregates define identity.  Identity is what craves. Identity is ego.

There is a belief going around that arahants are always in a state of perfect equanimity and peace in the face of life's turmoil. They suffer pain but it doesn't disturb them. This must be a myth, since in your case there are many things that piss you off. Where does this idea come from?

Some enlightened masters are meek.  Some do not put up with any BS.

I conclude from what you are saying that consciousness is something apart from the Five Aggregates. Would you define consciousness as spirit?  We already discussed 'consciousness.' See below.

This is something I struggled to understand myself because with a name like cessation and descriptions like "blowing out a candle", it is very easy to think that enlightenment is an unconscious state. It seemed strange that the Buddha would just describe a path that leads to unconsciousness, so thank you for clearing that up. What is the relationship between bare-awareness and consciousness? From this description it seems that bare-awareness does not require an object to be aware of in the same way that consciousness does not. Are they the same thing?

I'll let Jhananda answer this question. But my guess is that consciousness and bare-awareness are the same thing.

Bare awareness is consciousness, which is spirit, which is bodhi.

This is sad to read, but it helps to know that it is not always a punishment for craving something that life sucks, it just will suck on its own sometimes . This gets rid of my expectation that life will just lose its unpleasant aspect as I go deeper into the religious experience. But thank you for giving me hope that I will at least find some consolation and fulfillment on this path.

Thank you Michel for bringing this up. I was curious too because if an arahant is able to suffer pain and not be disturbed, why would there be cases of arahants commiting suicide due to painful illness or injury? Does this mean we should be prepared to suffer intense pain as well, regardless of our level of bliss?

You're welcome rougeleader. But good question. Jesus and some other mystics did. Jesus knew that he was going to be crucified, yet he chose to go through with it. So why not us? Some mystics decided to call it quits when there was no point in going on.  Jhananda could have committed suicide a long time ago but he chooses to stay for now and help other mystics. That's why enlightened mystics put up with all the suffering is my guess.

OK so some arahants committed suicide, Siddhartha Gautama intentionally eating poinsoned food sounds like suicide; and the story in the Gospels suggests that Jesus and John the Baptist and other mystics intentionally got themselves martyred.  There are various reasons why mystics commit suicide, or suicide by soldier. 

In the case of some of the arahants in suttas committing suicide, it was most often due to being too ill to survive, and not having anyone to care for them, or not wanting to be a burden, so they killed themselves instead of drawing out the pain of injury, sickness, or snake bite.  It all boils down to, if you have no attachment to the body, then there is no point in extending life, if that life is going to only be intense suffering which will not help others.  Also, if martyrdom will serve the purpose of bringing your mission to the attention of seekers, then so be it.

[Michel]

The five aggregates define identity.  Identity is what craves. Identity is ego.

Would it be right to say that what makes up an individual's identity is their five aggregates and their spiritual consciousness (bodhi)?  The first fetter is 'belief in a self', where self refers to the five aggregates, which is not what a being is, which is wrong view. Then what is self? 

Some enlightened masters are meek.  Some do not put up with any BS.

Regardless of whether a master is meek or not there is a belief among many people that an enlightened master is in a state of perpetual equanimity. Where this belief comes from, I really don't know. However I do know that  Jesus could be angry when he whipped the money lenders. According to Ananda, the Buddha could be angry. His anger would not linger, he'd return to a state of equanimity quickly.

Bare awareness is consciousness, which is spirit, which is bodhi.

Now we're getting somewhere. I'm really happy!

OK so some arahants committed suicide, Siddhartha Gautama intentionally eating poisoned food sounds like suicide; and the story in the Gospels suggests that Jesus and John the Baptist and other mystics intentionally got themselves martyred.  There are various reasons why mystics commit suicide, or suicide by soldier. 

In the case of some of the arahants in suttas committing suicide, it was most often due to being too ill to survive, and not having anyone to care for them, or not wanting to be a burden, so they killed themselves instead of drawing out the pain of injury, sickness, or snake bite.  It all boils down to, if you have no attachment to the body, then there is no point in extending life, if that life is going to only be intense suffering which will not help others.  Also, if martyrdom will serve the purpose of bringing your mission to the attention of seekers, then so be it.

Do you think that I should commit suicide? Only joking. Seriously, under what conditions should a non-arahant choose to take his or her own life? Is there a universal moral law operating here, where it's really bad karma? Let's say if I were to be faced with a painful and prolonged death, would that warrant suicide?

[Jhanananda]

Would it be right to say that what makes up an individual's identity is their five aggregates

Correct

and their spiritual consciousness (bodhi)? 

Correct

The first fetter is 'belief in a self', where self refers to the five aggregates, which is not what a being is, which is wrong view. Then what is self? 

Identity, which is formed by the five aggregates, is what people most often think of as "self."  Meditating deeply into the 8 stages of the religious experience (samadhi), sheds the identity, which is formed by the five aggregates, and brings one to pure consciousness, which is spirit or soul, or bodhi, or whatever term you like.

Regardless of whether a master is meek or not there is a belief among many people that an enlightened master is in a state of perpetual equanimity. Where this belief comes from, I really don't know.

Yes, and many people think enlightened masters levitate, born of a virgin, walk on water, part the seas, etc.  I do not levitate, I was not born of a virgin, I do not walk on water, I do not part the seas, nor do I perform any other miracles.

However I do know that  Jesus could be angry when he whipped the money lenders. According to Ananda, the Buddha could be angry. His anger would not linger, he'd return to a state of equanimity quickly.

I bet he'd lose his temper if he ever had to work on an old Chevy van with a diesel engine in it.

Bare awareness is consciousness, which is spirit, which is bodhi.

Now we're getting somewhere. I'm really happy!

Do you think that I should commit suicide?

No, because you are not an arahant yet.

Only joking. Seriously, under what conditions should a non-arahant choose to take his or her own life? Is there a universal moral law operating here, where it's really bad karma? Let's say if I were to be faced with a painful and prolonged death, would that warrant suicide?

The Pali canon has no judgement against suicide.  I have no judgement against suicide.  I am actually surprised that with more than 6 billion miserable people on this planet that people are not lining up to commit suicide? 

On the other hand, there is no point in committing suicide, because everyone is just coming back for another ride through this hell until they finally shed their identity and become pure consciousness.