Fruit of the Contemplative Life
Fruit of the contemplative life: => Ecstatic Buddhism => : Michel January 22, 2014, 11:52:28 PM
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm) 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 (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm) 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 (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm) 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 (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm). It is clear to this contemplative that one must understand both to be able to clearly articulate Dependent Origination (http://hhttp://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm) 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 (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm) Sidharta Gotama relied heavily upon the Vedic concept of nama-rupa (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/namarupa.htm). nama-rupa (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/namarupa.htm) 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 (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm) 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 (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm) very difficult. I hope this has helped.
-
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.
-
You are welcome. See also my Nama-Rupa (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/namarupa.htm) essay.
-
Thanks to Michel's inquiry the web page for Nama-Rupa (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/namarupa.htm) has been updated. I hope the writing is more clear.
-
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'?
-
Thank-you for updating the essay on nama-rupa (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/namarupa.htm). 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 (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/namarupa.htm), 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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
... 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
So what happens when you come back from shedding, do the aggregates still function to form an identity? If not, how can you tell you are still Jeffrey?
No, because you are not an arahant yet.
How will we know if we have reached that level? Was there anything specific for you personally?
I know that you said you do not mind, but thank you again for answering our many questions.
-
We have established that 'consciousness' or'bodhi' is bare awareness, which, in your own words, is an altered state of consciousness that occurs during meditation where the subject is not aware of anything, but is nonetheless aware, where consciousness does not need an object, nor does it need the senses, nor the mental processes.
Another type of subjective experience is objective consciousness, where the subject is aware of objects, sensations, and thoughts, as opposed to bare awareness (bodhi). What term should we apply to describe this state of objective awareness? Is there a distinction made in the suttas of the various types of consciousness?
The GWV defines 'cognition' partially in terms of 'awareness'. But we have established that consciousness is awareness. Is there a subtle nuance that I'm not getting? See below.
"cognition n.
1. The mental process or faculty of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.
2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge. [Middle English cognicioun, from Latin cognitia, cognitian-, from cognitus, past participle of cognoscere, to learn : co-, intensive pref.; see CO- + gnoscere, to know—cognitional adj."
How would you define cognition (vinnana) in terms of Dependent Origination?
Why is cognition listed separately by itself in the factors of Dependent Origination? It is after all a component part of the Five Aggregates which are closely related to 'concepts and appearances' (nama-rupa).
-
So what happens when you come back from shedding, do the aggregates still function to form an identity? If not, how can you tell you are still Jeffrey?
If you live in the moment with a still mind, then there is no identity, this is why people describe the experience in non-dual terms.
How will we know if we have reached that level? Was there anything specific for you personally?
One is an arahant, when one is free of the 10 fetters. One becomes free of the 10 fetters by saturation in the 8 stages of the religious experience (samadhi).
I know that you said you do not mind, but thank you again for answering our many questions.
I am here to teach. When there is no one to teach, then there is no reason for me to be here any longer.
We have established that 'consciousness' or'bodhi' is bare awareness, which, in your own words, is an altered state of consciousness that occurs during meditation where the subject is not aware of anything, but is nonetheless aware, where consciousness does not need an object, nor does it need the senses, nor the mental processes.
Another type of subjective experience is objective consciousness, where the subject is aware of objects, sensations, and thoughts, as opposed to bare awareness (bodhi). What term should we apply to describe this state of objective awareness? Is there a distinction made in the suttas of the various types of consciousness?
This is called normal dualistic mind of suffering.
The GWV defines 'cognition' partially in terms of 'awareness'. But we have established that consciousness is awareness. Is there a subtle nuance that I'm not getting? See below.
"cognition n.
1. The mental process or faculty of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.
2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge. [Middle English cognicioun, from Latin cognitia, cognitian-, from cognitus, past participle of cognoscere, to learn : co-, intensive pref.; see CO- + gnoscere, to know—cognitional adj."
How would you define cognition (vinnana) in terms of Dependent Origination?
[/quote]
Awareness, consciousness makes all of the cognitive processes function. Without Awareness, consciousness, then one is unconscious.
Why is cognition listed separately by itself in the factors of Dependent Origination? It is after all a component part of the Five Aggregates which are closely related to 'concepts and appearances' (nama-rupa).
This is a good question. I am just trying to find a cognitive term that is not consciousness that will fit the definition of vinnana. It seems to me that cognition was reasonable. Because cognition is a mental process that combines sensing, perception, reasoning, identity, etc. into the mental processes.
-
"Michel: "How will we know if we have reached that level? Was there anything specific for you personally?"
Jhananda: "One is an arahant, when one is free of the 10 fetters. One becomes free of the 10 fetters by saturation in the 8 stages of the religious experience (samadhi).""
This is also a question I continue to ask. In the sutta's it talks about a knowing that the holy life has been lived, the burden laid down. Or something like that. I want to be able to confirm with an arahant that there is a point where one attains unshakable and complete confidence that one has become am arahant or Buddha.
So in your personal experience, was there a sudden and lasting insight that you were an arahant? Or was it simply a conclusion you arrived at through deduction, such as "well I've been hitting the 8th stage often, and I don't appear to have any fetters, so I guess I'm an arahant?"
I'm interested in the details of your personal moment when you came to the conclusion or knowing that you were an arahant--however that happened.
Great discussion, chaps.
-
How will we know if we have reached that level? Was there anything specific for you personally?
This is also a question I continue to ask. In the sutta's it talks about a knowing that the holy life has been lived, the burden laid down. Or something like that. I want to be able to confirm with an arahant that there is a point where one attains unshakable and complete confidence that one has become am arahant or Buddha.
So in your personal experience, was there a sudden and lasting insight that you were an arahant? Or was it simply a conclusion you arrived at through deduction, such as "well I've been hitting the 8th stage often, and I don't appear to have any fetters, so I guess I'm an arahant?"
I'm interested in the details of your personal moment when you came to the conclusion or knowing that you were an arahant--however that happened.
Great discussion, chaps.
Due to profound childhood abuse that was specifically targeted at undermining my self confidence it took me decades to develop the confidence that I had indeed found the path to liberation and enlightenment. Along the way I kept thinking that one day I would find a guru, or mystic, or priest in some religion who would be able to confirm my attainment, and possibly guide me further, but I never met one.
By 1974 I was confident that laying down the burden of worldly attachments, and leading a full-time contemplative life, was liberating to the point that I was free of substance abuse, and other fetters, but I found no way to support myself, so I returned to getting jobs, but I maintained a dedicated contemplative life that consistently produced at least the first three stages of the religious experience (jhana/samadhi); however, I was not fully free of all of the other fetters until about 2000. By then I also had the self confidence to accept that the world truly is utterly and completely corrupt. So, by definition in the suttas, when one is free of all of the fetters, then one is an arahant.
-
How will we know if we have reached that level? Was there anything specific for you personally?
This is also a question I continue to ask. In the sutta's it talks about a knowing that the holy life has been lived, the burden laid down. Or something like that. I want to be able to confirm with an arahant that there is a point where one attains unshakable and complete confidence that one has become am arahant or Buddha.
So in your personal experience, was there a sudden and lasting insight that you were an arahant? Or was it simply a conclusion you arrived at through deduction, such as "well I've been hitting the 8th stage often, and I don't appear to have any fetters, so I guess I'm an arahant?"
I'm interested in the details of your personal moment when you came to the conclusion or knowing that you were an arahant--however that happened.
Great discussion, chaps.
Due to profound childhood abuse that was specifically targeted at undermining my self confidence it took me decades to develop the confidence that I had indeed found the path to liberation and enlightenment. Along the way I kept thinking that one day I would find a guru, or mystic, or priest in some religion who would be able to confirm my attainment, and possibly guide me further, but I never met one.
By 1974 I was confident that laying down the burden of worldly attachments, and leading a full-time contemplative life, was liberating to the point that I was free of substance abuse, and other fetters, but I found no way to support myself, so I returned to getting jobs, but I maintained a dedicated contemplative life that consistently produced at least the first three stages of the religious experience (jhana/samadhi); however, I was not fully free of all of the other fetters until about 2000. By then I also had the self confidence to accept that the world truly is utterly and completely corrupt. So, by definition in the suttas, when one is free of all of the fetters, then one is an arahant.
I can relate, and am sorry about your childhood trauma.
I agree that the world is utterly and completely corrupt, which only propels one more earnestly into the N8P. Lately, things continue to happen in this life where I hear the Buddha's words "I do not quarrel with the world, the world quarrels with me." (or something to that effect). Even those who I've held in high esteem have shown clear signs of delusion and corruption.
So according to your response, at some point you reflected that in 2000 you became free of the ten fetters?
I find it difficult to evaluate this, because it seems some of the fetters rarely make themselves evident unless specific life-situations occur. But perhaps this is another function of the 8 stages of samadhi>? That seems very logical. Like how I become afraid when the white-wall of annihilation appears, or I can feel identity being ripped from me and I become frightened. That would be identity view, or attachment to material existence?
So then it seems if one can smoothly glide through all 8 stages, then one is an arahant?
Apologies for high-jacking the thread. I merely want to know how one can be sure they have attained arahantship.
-
I can relate, and am sorry about your childhood trauma.
I agree that the world is utterly and completely corrupt, which only propels one more earnestly into the N8P. Lately, things continue to happen in this life where I hear the Buddha's words "I do not quarrel with the world, the world quarrels with me." (or something to that effect). Even those who I've held in high esteem have shown clear signs of delusion and corruption.
I believe that this is a necessary preparatory stage for taking up the Noble Eightfold Path with the intention of enlightenment in this very lifetime.
So according to your response, at some point you reflected that in 2000 you became free of the ten fetters?
Correct. It was around March 1st 2000.
I find it difficult to evaluate this, because it seems some of the fetters rarely make themselves evident unless specific life-situations occur. But perhaps this is another function of the 8 stages of samadhi>? That seems very logical. Like how I become afraid when the white-wall of annihilation appears, or I can feel identity being ripped from me and I become frightened. That would be identity view, or attachment to material existence?
More precisely I would call this clinging to your identity, and when you are free of what binds you to identity, then you are free, and in my experience this is the last fetter.
So then it seems if one can smoothly glide through all 8 stages, then one is an arahant?
Correct.
Apologies for high-jacking the thread. I merely want to know how one can be sure they have attained arahantship.
I do not see this as hijacking the Dependent Origination thread, but exactly on target.
-
Many thanks for explaining further. I hope Michel found this as useful as I did.
-
Many thanks for explaining further. I hope Michel found this as useful as I did.
Yes, this is a very interesting discussion, Jhanon. I'm getting all these little pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together, and hopefully the big picture will start to emerge one day.
PS - I really hope you find a monastery somehow. You are so gifted and have great potential. I wish you the best of luck.
-
Thank-you so much, Jhananda, for your help in understanding this complex subject of Dependent Origination. I plan to go on a solo retreat shortly for an indefinite period of time. I find posting on the forum distracting. So I like to keep my mind as quiet as possible. But when I'm through, we can continue this discussion on Dependent Origination. Or, perhaps some others can take it from where we've left off.
-
What happens to a being's five aggregates when they die? Are they effaced?
Does a beings spiritual consciousness take on a new set of different aggregates when conception occurs in the womb?
Why does consciousness seek physical form in a living being? Why does it not remain as pure spiritual consciousness?
-
What happens to a being's five aggregates when they die? Are they effaced?
The physical 5 aggregates die with the body; however, if any of the fetters remain, then there is an immaterial representation of the 5 aggregates on the immaterial planes, which correlate to the remaining fetters. There the individual rises to whatever level of the immaterial domains that one's fetters will allow.
Does a beings spiritual consciousness take on a new set of different aggregates when conception occurs in the womb?
Yes.
Why does consciousness seek physical form in a living being?
Craving
Why does it not remain as pure spiritual consciousness?
The fetters. When one is fully liberated, then one has no need to come back to the material existence.
-
What happens to a being's five aggregates when they die? Are they effaced?
The physical 5 aggregates die with the body; however, if any of the fetters remain, then there is an immaterial representation of the 5 aggregates on the immaterial planes, which correlate to the remaining fetters. There the individual rises to whatever level of the immaterial domains that one's fetters will allow.
You haven't mentioned the material domains? Does this mean one is reborn in the immaterial domains after death, and then if the fetters remain, later, they can be reborn in the material domain, if that is their karmic fate?
Does a beings spiritual consciousness take on a new set of different aggregates when conception occurs in the womb?
Yes.
Would an individual's personality and physical characteristics be similar when they are reborn?
Why does consciousness seek physical form in a living being?
Craving
I'm a little confused here. Up thread you mentioned it was one's aggregates that craves rebirth. If consciousness seeks physical form, then this would imply consciousness craves? Is it consciousness that craves rebirth, or is it the aggregates that crave rebirth, or is it both?
Why does it not remain as pure spiritual consciousness?
The fetters. When one is fully liberated, then one has no need to come back to the material existence.
Do all beings possess the same undifferentiated spiritual consciousness? (i.e., that your spiritual consciousness is the same as mine.) If this is so, would this be a prime example of non-duality?
-
Many thanks for explaining further. I hope Michel found this as useful as I did.
Yes, this is a very interesting discussion, Jhanon. I'm getting all these little pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together, and hopefully the big picture will start to emerge one day.
PS - I really hope you find a monastery somehow. You are so gifted and have great potential. I wish you the best of luck.
Thank you, Michel. That actually helps me grow confidence in making the necessary sacrifices to pursue it.
And by the way, your discussion here has gotten quite intricate and complex. I'm enjoying sitting back and watching the back and forth :)
-
You haven't mentioned the material domains? Does this mean one is reborn in the immaterial domains after death, and then if the fetters remain, later, they can be reborn in the material domain, if that is their karmic fate?
I think you mean immaterial domains. In Buddhism they speak of taking birth on another plane of existence after death. That is one way to speak of what happens. I prefer the soul/astral body explanation, because that described better the experience of leaving the body in an OOBE, or after death. So, after death we leave the body and move to some part of the immaterial domains where we reside for a while before taking birth again in another physical body. What goes on for most people in between lifetimes is dream-like.
Would an individual's personality and physical characteristics be similar when they are reborn?
There will be a number of similarities psychologically, and possibly even physically, from one lifetime to the next. I once saw a book about a Spanish mystic from the 19th century, and it had a photograph of the mystic. The mystic looked just like Michael Hawkins, so it is possible that was one of Michale's previous lifetimes.
I'm a little confused here. Up thread you mentioned it was one's aggregates that craves rebirth. If consciousness seeks physical form, then this would imply consciousness craves? Is it consciousness that craves rebirth, or is it the aggregates that crave rebirth, or is it both?
This makes for an interesting chicken and egg style philosophical argument that could entertain philosophers for a few centuries. So, let us boil it down to the question, "What craves?' The identity is made up of the 5 aggregates. Consciousness animates the identity. The identity defines itself by its cravings. When craving and identification ceases, then one become pure consciousness, Budha.
Do all beings possess the same undifferentiated spiritual consciousness? (i.e., that your spiritual consciousness is the same as mine.) If this is so, would this be a prime example of non-duality?
This makes for another interesting chicken and egg style philosophical argument that could entertain philosophers for a few centuries. At the point of the 8th samadhi, one becomes everything, thus "all beings possess the same undifferentiated spiritual consciousness."There are seven non-dual stages before that. There is a saying in Advaita, "Atman es Brahman." It means "soul, is god."
-
This is all very fascinating to say the least, Jhananda. I thought about what you've said all day. I had a hard time meditating today, the mind went into overdrive on this topic. It just wouldn't shut up.
The physical 5 aggregates die with the body; however, if any of the fetters remain, then there is an immaterial representation of the 5 aggregates on the immaterial planes, which correlate to the remaining fetters. There the individual rises to whatever level of the immaterial domains that one's fetters will allow.
... In Buddhism they speak of taking birth on another plane of existence after death. That is one way to speak of what happens. I prefer the soul/astral body explanation, because that described better the experience of leaving the body in an OOBE, or after death. So, after death we leave the body and move to some part of the immaterial domains where we reside for a while before taking birth again in another physical body. What goes on for most people in between lifetimes is dream-like.
Okay, let's say I die. My aggregates are effaced. I am a disembodied spirit floating about in a dream-like state in the immaterial domain. Let us also say that in my immediate prior life I mananged to eliminate the first three fetters: 1) belief that my aggregates constituted my self-identity, 2) doubt about the teachings, 3) attachment to rites and rituals.
Let's see if I understand correctly. Could we say that there is an "imprint" of what were "my former aggregates," and remaining fetters, existing in the immaterial domain?
Could we also say that it is the immaterial spirit body that is imprinted with an image of the former aggregates and remaining fetters?
Would the spirit body crave rebirth? But how could it crave if the aggregates are effaced?
I'm not sure if this is a good question? It may not make sense. I trying to get at something... If one has eliminated the first fetter of belief that the aggregates constitute self-identity, then how can there be craving if there is no self-identity?
Would an individual's personality and physical characteristics be similar when they are reborn?
There will be a number of similarities psychologically, and possibly even physically, from one lifetime to the next. I once saw a book about a Spanish mystic from the 19th century, and it had a photograph of the mystic. The mystic looked just like Michael Hawkins, so it is possible that was one of Michael's previous lifetimes.
Fascinating. But he is not the same identical person? His aggregates have changed over time.
This makes for an interesting chicken and egg style philosophical argument that could entertain philosophers for a few centuries. So, let us boil it down to the question, "What craves?' The identity is made up of the 5 aggregates. Consciousness animates the identity. The identity defines itself by its cravings. When craving and identification ceases, then one become pure consciousness, Budha.
Would our immaterial spirit body be capable of having volitional choice as to whom it chooses to have as mother? Let's say it sees an attractive, intelligent woman with all kinds of desirable qualities, would it not hang around her waiting to enter her womb during conception?
Do all beings possess the same undifferentiated spiritual consciousness? (i.e., that your spiritual consciousness is the same as mine.) If this is so, would this be a prime example of non-duality?
This makes for another interesting chicken and egg style philosophical argument that could entertain philosophers for a few centuries. At the point of the 8th samadhi, one becomes everything, thus "all beings possess the same undifferentiated spiritual consciousness."There are seven non-dual stages before that. There is a saying in Advaita, "Atman es Brahman." It means "soul, is god."
Fascinating stuff.
Those fetters and the self-identity view of the aggregates must be overcome.
Was John Lennon right when he said, "You are me, and I am you. Come together, right now, over me"?
-
This is all very fascinating to say the least, Jhananda. I thought about what you've said all day. I had a hard time meditating today, the mind went into overdrive on this topic. It just wouldn't shut up.
Sorry to hear that this topic caused some ripples in your mind-stream. It will settle down again.
Okay, let's say I die. My aggregates are effaced. I am a disembodied spirit floating about in a dream-like state in the immaterial domain. Let us also say that in my immediate prior life I mananged to eliminate the first three fetters: 1) belief that my aggregates constituted my self-identity, 2) doubt about the teachings, 3) attachment to rites and rituals.
Let's see if I understand correctly. Could we say that there is an "imprint" of what were "my former aggregates," and remaining fetters, existing in the immaterial domain?
That is reasonable.
Could we also say that it is the immaterial spirit body that is imprinted with an image of the former aggregates and remaining fetters?
This is also reasonable.
Would the spirit body crave rebirth? But how could it crave if the aggregates are effaced?
It is the imprint, the habit, the karma.
I'm not sure if this is a good question? It may not make sense. I trying to get at something... If one has eliminated the first fetter of belief that the aggregates constitute self-identity, then how can there be craving if there is no self-identity?
Just because you have eradicated some of your belief systems does not mean that you are without identity. The identity has just become more subtle.
Fascinating. But he is not the same identical person? His aggregates have changed over time.
Correct.
Would our immaterial spirit body be capable of having volitional choice as to whom it chooses to have as mother? Let's say it sees an attractive, intelligent woman with all kinds of desirable qualities, would it not hang around her waiting to enter her womb during conception?
If craving is what drives you to rebirth, then yes. If you are already an arahat taking birth for the benefit of others, then you take what you can get, because the choices are limited.
Fascinating stuff.
Those fetters and the self-identity view of the aggregates must be overcome.
Was John Lennon right when he said, "You are me, and I am you. Come together, right now, over me"?
John Lennon was trying, as so many others are.
-
Today I was reading the Māgandiya sutta MN75, and I thought it showed nicely how the Five Aggregates fit into Dependent Origination.
23...“Māgandiya, suppose there was a man born blind who could not see dark and light forms … or the sun and moon. He might hear a man with good eyesight saying: ‘Good indeed, sirs, is a white cloth, beautiful, spotless, and clean!’ and he would go in search of a white cloth. Then a man would cheat him with a dirty soiled garment thus: ‘Good man, here is a white cloth for you, beautiful, spotless, and clean.’ And he would accept it and put it on. Then his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, would bring a physician to treat him. The physician would make medicine—emetics and purgatives, ointments and counter-ointments and nasal treatment—and by means of that medicine the man’s vision would arise and be purified. Together with the arising of his vision, his desire and liking for that dirty soiled garment would be abandoned; then he might burn with indignation and enmity towards that man and might think that he ought to be killed thus: ‘Indeed, I have long been tricked, cheated, and defrauded by this man with this dirty soiled garment when he told me: “Good man, here is a white cloth for you, beautiful, spotless, and clean.”’
24. “So too, Māgandiya, if I were to teach you the Dhamma thus: ‘This is that health, this is that Nibbāna,’ you might know health and see Nibbāna. Together with the arising of your vision, your desire and lust for the five aggregates affected by clinging might be abandoned. Then perhaps you might think: ‘Indeed, I have long been tricked, cheated, and defrauded by this mind. For when clinging, I have been clinging just to material form, I have been clinging just to feeling [sensations], I have been clinging just to perception, I have been clinging just to [mental] formations, I have been clinging just to consciousness [cognition]. With my clinging as condition, being [comes to be]; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.’
-
Thanks-you Michel for posting the sutta quote for us to find wisdom, and right guidance toward liberation and enlightenment in this very lifetime. If we crave for the objects of the senses, then we lose sight of the charisms; whereas, if we lose craving for the senses, then we gain the bliss, joy and ecstasy of the charisms.
-
Meanwhile, back here on earth...
I'm deep into reading the Book of Causation in the Samyutta Nikaya and came across this sutta. It describes what qualities and knowledges a stream-winner possesses. It also mentions dependent origination as a requisite knowledge for stream-entry. You can skip to my summary below after the sutta.
V. The Householder
41 (1) Five Fearful Animosities (1)
At Savatthi. Then the householder Anathapindika approached
the Blessed One, paid homage to him, and sat down to one side.
The Blessed One then said to him:
"Householder, when five fearful animosities have subsided in
a noble disciple, and he possesses the four factors of streamentry,
and he has clearly seen and thoroughly penetrated with
wisdom the noble method, if he wishes he could by himself
declare of himself: 'I am one finished with hell, finished with the
animal realm, finished with the domain of ghosts, finished with
the plane of misery, the bad destinations, the nether world. I am
a stream-enterer, no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in
destiny, with enlightenment as my destination.'1l8
"What are the five fearful animosities that have subsided?
Householder, one who destroys life engenders, on account of
such behaviour, fearful animosity pertaining to the present life
and fearful animosity pertaining to the future life, and he experiences
mental pain and displeasure."g Thus for one who abstains
from destroying life, this fearful animosity has subsided.
"One who takes what is not given .. . [69] . . . who engages in
sexual misconduct . . . who speaks falsely . . . who indulges in wine,
liquor, and intoxicants that are a basis for negligence engenders.
on account of such behaviour, fearful animosity pertaining to the
present life and fearful animosity pertaining to the future life,
and he experiences mental pain and displeasure. Thus for one
who abstains from wine, liquor, and intoxicants that are a basis
for negligence, this fearful animosity has subsided.
"These are the five fearful animosities that have subsided.
"What are the four factors of stream-entry that he possesses?l20
Here, householder, the noble disciple possesses confirmed confidence
in the Buddha thus: 'The Blessed One is an arahant, perfectly
enlightened, accomplished in true knowledge and conduct,
fortunate, knower of the world, unsurpassed leader of persons to
be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the Enlightened One,
the Blessed One.'
"He possesses confirmed confidence in the Dhamma thus: 'The
Dhamrna is well expounded by the Blessed One, directly visible,
immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally
experienced by the wise.'
"He possesses confirmed confidence in the Sangha thus: 'The
Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples is practising the good way,
practising the straight way, practising the true way, practising
the proper way; that is, the four pairs of persons, the eight types
of individuals-this [70] Sarigha of the Blessed One's disciples is
worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy
of reverential salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit for
the world.'
"He possesses the virtues dear to the noble ones-unbroken,
untorn, unblemished, unmottled, freeing, praised by the wise,
ungrasped, leading to concentration.121
"These are the four factors of stream-entry that he possesses.
"And what is the noble method that he has clearly seen and
thoroughly penetrated with wisdom?l22 Here, householder, the
noble disciple attends closely and carefully to dependent origination
itself thus: 'When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising
of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to
be; with the cessation of this, that ceases. That is, with ignorance as
condition, volitional formations [come to be]; with volitional formations
as condition, consciousness.. . . Such is the origin of this
whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away
and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations;
with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness..
.. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.'
This is the noble method that he has clearly seen and thoroughly
penetrated with wisdom.
"When, householder, these five fearful animosities have subsided
in a noble disciple, and he possesses these four factors of
stream-entry, and he has clearly seen and thoroughly penetrated
with wisdom this noble method, if he wishes he could by himself
declare of himself: 'I am one finished with hell, finished with the
animal realm, finished with the domain of ghosts, finished with
the plane of misery, the bad destinations, the nether world. I am
a stream-enterer, no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in
destiny, with enlightenment as my destination."' SN 12:41
In summary, the Stream Winner is a noble person who:
1. Abstains from the five fearful animosities (the five precepts):
- Killing
- Stealing
- Sexual misconduct
- False speech
- Intoxicants
2. Possesses the four factors of stream-entry:
- Confidence in the Buddha
- Confidence in the Dhamma
- Confidence in the Sangha
- Possesses virtues dear to the Noble Ones. (the five precepts above)
3. Has a thorough understanding of dependent origination (referred to as "the noble method" in the sutta; the noble method also refers to the N8P, according to Bhikkhu Bodhi)
This is one way of describing a stream winner.
The other way of defining a stream winner, commonly found in the suttas, is one who has overcome the first three fetters. Perhaps there are other ways of defining stream-entry?
Did any of you find that you possessed a full understanding of dependent origination when you became stream-winners? Was this an intellectual type of understanding or what? How did you arrive at this understanding?
-
Good to hear from you, Michel. Thank-you for the excellent and timely sutta quote. Your analysis of it seemed very accurate to me. I agree the noble method also refers to the N8P. However, the sangha does not seem to be a sangha any more. So, a new sangha has to form, which is guided by an enlightened understanding of the dhamma. Not by a sangha who wears the robes only, and pretends to be enlightened, while marginalizing those who have acquired the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala) by correctly following the Noble Eightfold Path.
-
Jhananda, did you find that you possessed a full understanding of dependent origination when you became stream-winner? Was this an intellectual type of understanding or was it intuitive? How did you arrive at this understanding?
-
Michel here are two passages you may want to read about streamwinners, however they are from the Gurdjieff tradition outside of Buddhism. That said you will find they are referring to the same phenomenon, but the language is very different.
Man no. 4 is not born as such. He is a product of school culture. He differs from man no. 1, no. 2, and no. 3 by his knowledge of himself, by his understanding of his position, and, as it is expressed technically, by his having acquired a permanent center of gravity. The last means that the idea of acquiring unity, consciousness, permanent "I," and will - that is, the idea of his development - has already become for him more important than his other interests.
This is from P. D. Ouspensky's book The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution, AKA Six Psychological Lectures. Since this book is rare here is a pdf (http://www64.zippyshare.com/v/23458670/file.html) of it that I have. It is from the Second Lecture.
"Man number four is not born ready-made. He is born one, two, or three, and becomes four only as a result of efforts of a definite character. Man number four is always the product of school work. He can neither be born, nor develop accidentally or as the result of ordinary influences of bringing up, education, and so on. Man number four already stands on a different level to man number one, two, and three; he has a permanent center of gravity which consists in his ideas, in his valuation of the work, and in his relation to the school. In addition his psychic centers have already begun to be balanced; one center in him cannot have such a preponderance over others as is the case with people of the first three categories. He already begins to know himself and begins to know whither he is going.
This is from his other book, Fragments of an Unknown Teaching.
To help explain these passages it would help to explain some context.
First, G. I. Gurdjieff took our inner life as a division into the Mind, Emotions, and Body. The ordinary human being is in a dysfunctional state, because either the Mind, Emotions, or Body is in control of the other two. This is what Man no. 1, 2, and 3 refers to. As we enter into the spiritual life, these 3 faculties are put in order; we develop self-awareness and become whole individuals. If we are whole, then we are aware of all these faculties of ourselves, and all our past experiences. After this has happened, our spiritual development proper begins. The four noble ones of Buddhism have their equivalent in Gurdjieff's teaching. He refers to them as:
Man no 4 = streamwinner
Man no 5 = once-returner
Man no 6 = nonreturner
Man no 7 = arahant
I explored this topic in another post here (http://fruitofthecontemplativelife.org/forum/index.php/topic,665.0.html).
-
Thank-you, Alexander, for introducing me to Gurdjieff and P. D. Ouspensky. My antivirus software advises me not to download the PDF book. However, Ouspensky's book is available from Amazon in Kindle or book format:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychology-Mans-Possible-Evolution/dp/0394719433/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1403986526&sr=8-1
I read some reviews of the book and certainly Ouspensky's work looks very interesting. So I'll buy the Kindle edition for my PC. I'll read the lecture that you recommended.
The interesting thing about some of these mystic teachers is that they are saying the same thing but using different terminology.
PS - I have a little question for you: Did you find that you possessed a full understanding of dependent origination when you a became stream-winner? Was this an intellectual type of understanding or was it intuitive? How did you arrive at this understanding?
-
Thank-you, Alexander, for introducing me to Gurdjieff and P. D. Ouspensky. My antivirus software advises me not to download the PDF book. However, Ouspensky's book is available from Amazon in Kindle or book format:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychology-Mans-Possible-Evolution/dp/0394719433/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1403986526&sr=8-1
I read some reviews of the book and certainly Ouspensky's work looks very interesting. So I'll buy the Kindle edition for my PC. I'll read the lecture that you recommended.
The interesting thing about some of these mystic teachers is that they are saying the same thing but using different terminology.
PS - I have a little question for you: Did you find that you possessed a full understanding of dependent origination when you a became stream-winner? Was this an intellectual type of understanding or was it intuitive? How did you arrive at this understanding?
I thought about which upload site I should use to send you that. I assume you do not have adblocker, so you're clicking one of the fake download buttons. That is a trouble of zippyshare. However the pdf is there if you want a free copy.
I mentioned in the conversation with fqmorris yesterday, that for a long time I was an individual like any other. But, I intuited that I was somehow different. I assume that at stage I was already rid of the 3 lower fetters. It was only later when I developed a theoretical understanding of what a streamwinner was.
-
Continuing our study of dependent origination:
I just finished reading the Book of Causation in the Samyutta Nikaya and there's is no clear explanation of what the sequential factors of dependent origination are. So how can you hope to understand what dependent origination is from the suttas. I've read many commentaries on various theories of dependent origination and they're all over the map. They have theories like dependent origination happening over a period of three lives, etc.
So, we have the factors of the sequence in forward order:
Cognition < > Concepts and Appearances > Sensory Stimulation > Sensation > Craving > Clinging > Becoming > Birth > Aging & Death > Suffering
What is it that is becoming, being born and that is aging and dying? Is it the ego, or is it a living being as encompassed in the 5 aggregates? This is what the suttas fail to make clear.
Jhananda, could you give us an example of dependent origination in action. How about something like what happens when a guy sees a lovely gal walking by and he lusts for her. Let's say he makes a pass at her and she snubs him which leads to his suffering. Could you go through each of the factors of the sequence showing how they map on and lead to the guy's suffering?
-
Continuing our study of dependent origination:
I just finished reading the Book of Causation in the Samyutta Nikaya and there's is no clear explanation of what the sequential factors of dependent origination are. So how can you hope to understand what dependent origination is from the suttas.
To me your conflict here refers more to how poorly the suttas have been translated, than the suttas do not explain dependent origination properly. I recommend that you return to my version of the mahanidana sutta (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/pali/Phala_Nikaya/mahanidanasutta.htm)
I've read many commentaries on various theories of dependent origination and they're all over the map. They have theories like dependent origination happening over a period of three lives, etc.
So, we have the factors of the sequence in forward order:
Cognition < > Concepts and Appearances > Sensory Stimulation > Sensation > Craving > Clinging > Becoming > Birth > Aging & Death > Suffering
Your conflict here seems to be becoming circular. I recommend that you return to the beginning of this thread, and read through it again, and also reexamine my essay on Dependent Origination (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm).
What is it that is becoming, being born and that is aging and dying? Is it the ego, or is it a living being as encompassed in the 5 aggregates? This is what the suttas fail to make clear.
My take on Dependent Origination (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm) is the 5 aggregates was Siddhartha Gautama's attempt to describe identity. It is identity that reincarnates into new bodies.
Jhananda, could you give us an example of dependent origination in action. How about something like what happens when a guy sees a lovely gal walking by and he lusts for her. Let's say he makes a pass at her and she snubs him which leads to his suffering. Could you go through each of the factors of the sequence showing how they map on and lead to the guy's suffering?
At the point that the guy allows himself to lust he has entered craving, which leads to suffering as per the 4 Noble Truths. The solution to the 4 Noble Truths is mastering the 4th jhana consistently every time one meditates, and one meditates thus several times a day. At that point the "lovely gal walking by" is no different than a youthful cow, deer, or rabbit hopping/walking by. We can enjoy the beauty of nature without lusting for it.
-
The five aggregates define identity. Identity is what craves. Identity is ego...
The physical 5 aggregates die with the body; however, if any of the fetters remain, then there is an immaterial representation of the 5 aggregates on the immaterial planes, which correlate to the remaining fetters. There the individual rises to whatever level of the immaterial domains that one's fetters will allow.
I've reread everything as you suggested. I should of done this before. I apologize. It's worth rereading.
D.O. describes why we are reborn because, and as you say, and I paraphrase from the above quote, "if there are any remaining fetters they leave an immaterial representation of our 5 aggregates on the immaterial plane which correlate to the remaining fetters." So, the fetter of craving for a material or an immaterial birth is why we are reborn into a new set of the 5 aggregates.
Now here is what is not clear to me. Where exactly in the sequence of factors of D.O. does rebirth occur? We could the change the name of "Birth" in the sequence to "Rebirth" and then the whole sequence would make sense to me.
For example:
Cognition < > Concepts and Appearances > Sensory Stimulation > Sensation > Craving > Clinging > Becoming > Rebirth > Aging & Death > Suffering
-
Now here is what is not clear to me. Where exactly in the sequence of factors of D.O. does rebirth occur? We could the change the name of "Birth" in the sequence to "Rebirth" and then the whole sequence would make sense to me.
If there is any craving, then there is rebirth. Get to the 4th jhana, and you are free of craving.
-
But does the sequence make any sense when I change 'Birth' to 'Rebirth?'
-
I do not find the sequence relevant. Just pay attention to whether you are craving/clinging. If you are not craving/clinging, then in that moment you are free. Can you connect all of your free moments together until there are no moments that are not free? If one can lead a life that is free in every moment, then one can meditate to depth. We meditate to depth so that we can be free in every moment.
-
I think your comments a very wise, Jhananda. I can see how eliminating craving as much as possible from moment to moment leads one to freedom suffering. This is what D.O. boils down to. Perhaps the sequence is impossible to fully understand and therefore it is not important.
-
Leigh Brasington, Aya Khema's student, outlines the various theories and their shortcomings on Dependent Origination:
•Dependent Origination as Outlined by the Buddha
•The 3 Lives Model
•Problems with the 3 Lives Model
•A 1 Life Model
•Problems with a 1 Life Model
•A 2 Lives Model
•Problems with a 2 Lives Model
•Moment-to-Moment Dependent Origination
•Problems with Moment-to-Moment Dependent Origination
•Thoughts Towards a Better Interpretation
His arguments of the above are presented here: http://www.leighb.com/deporg1.htm#cc
-
I thought I'd show you my latest musings on Dependent Origination. I think Kamma is a direct result of Craving. So, if one ceases Craving, then Kamma ceases.
This is my own sequence which was cobbled together from my understanding of the suttas. So buyer beware.
Ignorance > 5 Aggregates > 6 Sense Bases > Contact > Sensation > Perception > Thinking > Thought Proliferation (papanca) > Volition > Craving > Kamma > Clinging > Suffering > Rebirth > New Set of 5 aggregates...
Let me explain the sequence:
Ignorance is not understanding how craving leads to suffering. Because we crave existence at death, a new set of aggregates come into being at rebirth. Because we are equipped with 6 senses we make contact with sensory objects. What we sense we perceive as being either pleasing, unpleasing or neither pleasing-or-unpleasant (the peaceful feeling during meditation). What we perceive we think about. What we think about, leads to thought proliferation. With thought proliferation, we arrive at a volitional intention towards the sensory object. With volition, we crave for the sensory object. This is where Kamma arises. What we crave, we cling to. What we cling to, leads to suffering, because all things of the world are impermanent in nature. And so the cycle continues from life to life.
And how do we end Craving and Kamma? We keep everything at the bare level of sensory experience by the non-perception of sense objects being content in the present moment. So take perception out of the equation. Perceive only when you must.
-
I just came across this sutta today. It shows the relationship between craving and kamma. This supports my above premise as to where kamma fits in the sequence of Dependent Origination.
The Destruction of Craving - SN 46.26
...“Here, Udayī, a bhikkhu develops the enlightenment factor of mindfulness, which is based upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, maturing in release; which is vast, exalted, measureless, without ill will. When he develops the enlightenment factor of mindfulness, which is based upon seclusion … without ill will, craving is abandoned. With the abandoning of craving, kamma is abandoned. With the abandoning of kamma, suffering is abandoned….
“He develops the enlightenment factor of equanimity, which is based upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, maturing in release; which is vast, exalted, measureless, without ill will. When he develops the enlightenment factor of equanimity, which is based upon seclusion … without ill will, craving is abandoned. sn.v.87 With the abandoning of craving, kamma is abandoned. With the abandoning of kamma, suffering is abandoned.
-
In my own experience, i found that I was able to attribute things like craving, and kamma, by focusing on the aggregates. Like, you're aware that cravings lead to suffering, this really does hold true to all cravings. So, I would define thoughts and actions as they arose. Then through contemplation I would recognize the reason, the senses, perception, craving, kamma.
What I've found most interesting is that the suttas become a road map to the one destination, while you walk the path. With that said, it's very simplified, it explains pre requisite of condition in almost every passage. What I do, is read what is repeated in the passage and first relate. I then try to understand the "state" being described, then learn what it is to be taught new.
The Bible is riddled, the Discourses, in my opinion, have no riddles. They just make you brutally honest with yourself, and gives us the tools to end suffering.
-
*Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form. MN 9
Name= Identity
Form= The body
Identity + The body= Dependant origination.
...“Here, Udayī, a bhikkhu develops the enlightenment factor of mindfulness, which is based upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, maturing in release; which is vast, exalted, measureless, without ill will. When he develops the enlightenment factor of mindfulness, which is based upon seclusion … without ill will, craving is abandoned. With the abandoning of craving, kamma is abandoned. With the abandoning of kamma, suffering is abandoned….
“He develops the enlightenment factor of equanimity, which is based upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, maturing in release; which is vast, exalted, measureless, without ill will. When he develops the enlightenment factor of equanimity, which is based upon seclusion … without ill will, craving is abandoned. sn.v.87 With the abandoning of craving, kamma is abandoned. With the abandoning of kamma, suffering is abandoned.
Enlightenment + Equanimity= Rebirth in a higher realm. (The 4th jhana. True oneness with Dhamma, even before the separation of the physical realm, which get complicated, because while there, you already are. Jhananda would know the words needed here. Perhaps, he would not say anything at all. Perhaps he would say this is what should be experienced, and the way to get there is by living a rigorous, contemplative lifestyle, with progressive meditative absorption...)
One should spend all attention first relinquishing craving to the body. I want to refer to the 4 corner stones, or N8P, I am not sure. When this has happened there is a good chance one has found jhana, and attention should be turned to the identity. While in the third jhana one develops the tool of equanimity. Equanimity is the pre-requisite to relinquishing the identity, through the guidance of the 5aggregates of clinging.
What is written in the sutta passage above, is precisely what must be let go, to be free of dependent origination. Name-&-Form.
-
I do wonder what his method would be, Jhananda...This whole site is a conglomeration of "road signs", yet what made it effective was that he was here to always point us back to the path of progression. This is where you re-start from, he'd tell us, guide us. Does he hold that faith that, Sangha, us together, will point each other back to the correct re-start point? Of course...yet he already knows...the hardest lesson, is the one best learned.
-
He truly has answered all of my questions, given me all guidance I would ever need, even before I had the need to ask the question...he must know...he does know...
So where does it go? What happens next? Suffering...purpose...origination...all of it, why does it matter? Nibbana, oneness, even it is just another form of existence. Why should this be a goal, are we only to just exist?? Does suffering or not suffering even matter?
Just another problem that will require solution, repeats. Fate...it just is. Will the "dream" never cease? Are we fated in this way? Forever?
Dreamers within the dream of reciprocating dreams....
-
I do wonder what his method would be, Jhananda...This whole site is a conglomeration of "road signs", yet what made it effective was that he was here to always point us back to the path of progression. This is where you re-start from, he'd tell us, guide us. Does he hold that faith that, Sangha, us together, will point each other back to the correct re-start point? Of course...yet he already knows...the hardest lesson, is the one best learned.
It is fruitful, my friends, to reflect upon the philosophy of enlightenment (dhamma), and the enlightened sangha of those with the direct attainment of jhana are those who can help you.
Since Michel quoted Leigh Brasington, then we have to ask if Leigh Brasington understands the dhamma. I sat an 11-day retreat led by him about 14 years ago. At that time it was clear to me that he did not know what jhana was. And, since he did not at that time meditate daily, then it is understandable that he would not know jhana from direct experience. Not knowing jhana from direct experience, then Leigh Brasington is not likely to understand Dependent Origination.
Below is a summary of what I wrote on Dependent Origination (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm).
To simplify this for the Western educated reader so it doesn't take book-length form, I like to view the Five Aggregates (khandas) as the cognitive processes, thinking, reasoning, memory, perception and awareness. Understanding the object of the Buddha's entire trajectory, which was cessation (nibbana), then we can see that cessation, to the Buddha, was the stopping or ceasing of grasping and aversion at the cognitive processes, which through a rigorous contemplative practice would leave us ultimately with the last of the cognitive processes alone, awareness. At cessation (nibbana) then, we become awareness only.
It is through entering the absorption states (jhanas) that we actually traverse the aggregates of cognition (skhandas). You will notice from the list above of skhandas that the physical aggregate (rupa) is the first on the list. When one begins to explore the absorption states (please see the list below) one progressively sheds the aggregates. Such that when one enters into the first stage of absorption the first aggregate, the physical body (rupa), is mostly relinquished or shed as a structure of ego identification. By the second stage of absorption the mental aggregate (nama) as represented by sañkhara is relinquished as revealed by the cessation of vitakka and vicára.
-
Since Michel quoted Leigh Brasington, then we have to ask if Leigh Brasington understands the dhamma. I sat an 11-day retreat led by him about 14 years ago. At that time it was clear to me that he did not know what jhana was. And, since he did not at that time meditate daily, then it is understandable that he would not know jhana from direct experience. Not knowing jhana from direct experience, then Leigh Brasington is not likely to understand Dependent Origination.
I don't know what to make of Brasington. But I've read his descriptions and instruction on the jhanas. What is remarkable is that his descriptions are very similar to yours. Perhaps over those 14 years, since your encounter with him, he has attained some degree of attainment in the jhanas.
-
Below is a summary of what I wrote on Dependent Origination (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/dependentorigination.htm).
To simplify this for the Western educated reader so it doesn't take book-length form, I like to view the Five Aggregates (khandas) as the cognitive processes, thinking, reasoning, memory, perception and awareness. Understanding the object of the Buddha's entire trajectory, which was cessation (nibbana), then we can see that cessation, to the Buddha, was the stopping or ceasing of grasping and aversion at the cognitive processes, which through a rigorous contemplative practice would leave us ultimately with the last of the cognitive processes alone, awareness. At cessation (nibbana) then, we become awareness only.
It is through entering the absorption states (jhanas) that we actually traverse the aggregates of cognition (skhandas). You will notice from the list above of skhandas that the physical aggregate (rupa) is the first on the list. When one begins to explore the absorption states (please see the list below) one progressively sheds the aggregates. Such that when one enters into the first stage of absorption the first aggregate, the physical body (rupa), is mostly relinquished or shed as a structure of ego identification. By the second stage of absorption the mental aggregate (nama) as represented by sañkhara is relinquished as revealed by the cessation of vitakka and vicára.
Thanks for this summary, Jhananda. It's food for thought.
-
I don't know what to make of Brasington. But I've read his descriptions and instruction on the jhanas. What is remarkable is that his descriptions are very similar to yours. Perhaps over those 14 years, since your encounter with him, he has attained some degree of attainment in the jhanas.
If it were the case that Brasington had finally learned how to meditate deeply, and attained genuine jhana, then he would have made himself a friend here. While I agree that his description of jhana might be similar to mine; one must keep in mind that to Brasington jhana is a meditation practice of going up and down the jhanas as a mental exercise alone. There is no experience in his description, only a guided meditation exercise, so we can conclude Brasington has no experience of jhana.
-
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.
I have thought much on this the last couple months. The Identity is not something born of social conditioning, rather, it is a faculty of Awareness. If it is not, what then tethers us? There would not be dependent origination. We are the person we were re-born to be and the "programming" has always been there...
-
Well, my take on identity within a Buddhist context is, it is made up of the 5 aggregates, so dependent origination is the description of how identity is formed and dissolved.
The deep meditation experience is where we unravel the tangled thread of identity and find pure awareness.
-
He truly has answered all of my questions, given me all guidance I would ever need, even before I had the need to ask the question...he must know...he does know...
So where does it go? What happens next? Suffering...purpose...origination...all of it, why does it matter? Nibbana, oneness, even it is just another form of existence. Why should this be a goal, are we only to just exist?? Does suffering or not suffering even matter?
Just another problem that will require solution, repeats. Fate...it just is. Will the "dream" never cease? Are we fated in this way? Forever?
Dreamers within the dream of reciprocating dreams....
Man....i almost wish I hadnt read this. I had forgotten...This was why I stopped meditating. I got lost, and I guess I realized I was supposed to get lost, and just let go.