Not an endless path

"Is there a word for 're-birth' or is it just 'birth again and again'? I know 're' is taken as 'again', but Is there a subtle difference in how people read these two English ways of conveying it?

There is birth again and again VERSUS There is re-birth. "

If someone sees rebirth as meaning transmigration, then I would say, there is a subtle difference; if someone sees rebirth as meaning repeated birth, then I would say there is no difference.

"I am aware the Buddha talked about past and future lives. But what is better for practice, to consider the fact we take birth every moment or that upon death we end up in a deva realm or hell realm? Actually i would say both being the hardcore nutter that I am. "

Hehe!

I would say that taking the suttas literally can lead to different results than taking them figuratively. (For example, what if one interprets the 10-fetters model figuratively?)

"Is it not the same flow of consciousness (the candles lighting the candles) that moves from this moment to the next, and from the moment of the death of the physical body to the next dependent on DO?"

It is fundamentally the same. However, considering this process (moment-to-moment within one life) to be rebirth is figurative...it could be useful for practice, but (insofar as one is committed to a literal reading of the suttas) one should not accept this and simultaneously ignore the literal meaning.

Is there such a thing as the sequence of dependent origination that is not conditioned by ignorance? I didn't realise there were two 'dependent originations'.

I actually don't know and am curious as to where I can find some commentary on that. As far as the pali suttas go (at least as far as I have read) they seem to point to the whole sequence ending with the elimination of ignorance:

"And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering." www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

NOTE: Not evangelizing but curious.

Nick, my take on your question is that ignorance conditions the existence of a body, and so, even after ignorance ceases, so long as there is a body, the conditioned effects of ignorance (the existence of a body, the existence of the senses, etc.) will continue as well.

As birth conditions death, and as dependent origination is held to be lawlike, if one is born, it must be the case that one dies, whether ignorance remains or not, else dependent origination would be false, no? So, as far as I can see, dependent origination continues until parinibbana.

I do notice that that last line of the quote from the sutta above says : "Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress and suffering."

The key word being 'entire'. I've read over and over how the body is seen as a mass of suffering regardless of being an arhat or not in the suttas. It would explain the reason for examples of supposed arhats committing suicide in the suttas due to being physically sick.

Makes sense now. So parinibbana is the complete cessation, not simplly nibbana. Nibbana with residue versus nibbana without?

"Be ever mindful Mogharaja, see the world as empty, abandon thoughts of self and you will reach that place beyond the ken of the King of Death." (Sutta Nipata)

The Venerable Mogharaja:
"Twice have I asked Sakka [1] but the Seeing One has not answered me. I have heard a divine sage replies when asked a third time. I do not know the view of the greatly famous Gotama concerning this world, the next world and the Brahma-world with its deities. To him of supreme vision I have come with a question: how should one regard the world so that one is not seen by the King of Death?"

The Lord:
"Look upon the world as empty,[2] Mogharaja, ever mindful; uprooting the view of self you may thus be one who overcomes death. So regarding the world one is not seen by the King of Death."

www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.5.15.irel.html

The body may die - but birth and death are not applicable to one who has uprooted the view of self.

"I do notice that that last line of my quote from the sutta above says : "Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress and suffering."

The key word being 'entire'. I've read over and over how the body is seen as a mass of suffering regardless of being an arhat or not."

Good point, I never thought of that; thanks for sharing it.

"Makes sense now. So parinibbana is the complete cessation, not simple nibbana. Nibbana with residue versus nibbana without?"

That is the only way to read the suttas literally that I have ever seen or been able to come up with. Everything else leaves one trying to explain in some fanciful way, how, with the cessation of everything in dependent origination, an arahant is still walking around and interacting with the world.

"The body may die - but birth and death are not applicable to one who has uprooted the view of self."

"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death."

As this literally happens to an arahant, I would ask you to question your interpretation if you intend it to be the literal meaning of the suttas.

And with that, I will bow out of this particular discussion re: literal vs. figurative meanings.

EDIT: Actually, mumuwu, I believe I missed your point; now I see it and agree (death is irrelevant to an arahant, whatever may happen to the body) so nevermind what I wrote.

"I actually don't know and am curious as to where I can find some commentary on that. As far as the pali suttas go (at least as far as I have read) they seem to point to the whole sequence ending with the elimination of ignorance."

Nick, my version of this is that dependent origination explains the process of perception. Objects, all objects, arise and pass with the immensely rapid repetition of that process, over and over and over. The question being discussed here involves what it is that arises, not that "things" (objects) arise at all (see Alex Weith's comments up thread in this regard). If the process of dependent origination stops then perception stops. When that happens we are literally dead. The arising of ignorance may somehow be intercepted by the observer such that conditioned phenomena are either seen as conditioned and the product of ignorance, or maybe ultimately seen without any conditioning what-so-ever. Still, objects will arise and pass.

Make sense?

I second what Chris just wrote, but agree that the interdependence and mutual conditioning of phenomena is more at the core of Mahayana Buddhism, particularily in the Hua-yen (Avatamsaka) school that did have a major influence on Chinese, Korean and Japanese Buddhism, and consequently on Dogen'thought.

"Nick, my version of this is that dependent origination explains the process of perception. Objects, all objects, arise and pass with the immensely rapid repetition of that process, over and over and over. The question being discussed here involves what it is that arises, not that "things" (objects) arise at all (see Alex Weith's comments up thread in this regard). If the process of dependent origination stops then perception stops. When that happens we are literally dead. The arising of ignorance may somehow be intercepted by the observer such that conditioned phenomena are either seen as conditioned and the product of ignorance, or maybe ultimately seen without any conditioning what-so-ever. Still, objects will arise and pass.

Make sense?

"

Disclaimer: My opinion on this is ever evolving and changing

Hi Chris,

Are you talking about the entire sequence of DO continuing to occur or just parts of it, like the contact of sense objects hitting sense doors giving rise to vedana? When i talk of DO I include ignorance at the beginning.

It seems you are pointing to the possibility that parts of the entire sequence of DO can still occur without ignorance there to condition it. With the elimination of ignorance, the aggregates still operate, they just don't operate within the sequence of DO as it is described entirely, no? From ignorance to birth death and all that jazz.

If so, I wholeheartedly agree. But this would not be the DO sequence that begins with ignorance (unless we are talking about the literal interpretation of DO concerning a literal interpretation of rebirth, not a figurative interpretation from moment to moment birth and death)

Nick, if we believe that ignorance can be overcome by being seen for what it is and thus rendered harmless then the entire process of dependent origination applies to every living human being all the time.

Alternatively, if we believe that some human beings are able to completely rid their perception, the process of perceiving any "thing" or object of ignorance, that they can truly see objects arising without being conditioned by mind, then some parts of the process of dependent origination do not apply to those specific human beings. The process is suppressed or truncated in some way and does not work on certain objects.

This can get very, very tricky. For example, in the second scenario I just described are the "things" those human's no longer perceive objects or are they somehow parts of objects? What does it really mean to say that everything is conditioned? That everything is the product of cause and effect? What parts of perception, if any, are being removed, suppressed or otherwise just not seen? And why does the person continue to appear "normal" to outsiders?


BTW -- I don't want to repeat the issues we had here a few weeks ago but I do think it's reasonable to talk about this stuff in just one topic and compare notes. This is not something new yogis should focus on, frankly, but for those who have an interest in exploring this without evangelizing I think it's fine.

"Alternatively, if we believe that some human beings are able to completely rid their perception, the process of perceiving any "thing" or object of ignorance, that they can truly see objects arising without being conditioned by mind, then some parts of the process of dependent origination do not apply to those specific human beings. The process is suppressed or truncated in some way and does not work on certain objects.

This is not something new yogis should focus on, frankly, but for those who have an interest in exploring this without evangelizing I think it's fine.

"

I would say that (according to dependent origination, and according to my experience so far) it is not that objects are perceived any differently, but that the mind's reaction to objects (craving conditioned by ignorance) is what ultimately is reduced or stops, which stops delusions about the nature of objects from arising.

I would also say that the perception of any object is conditioned (by causal processes, including those related to the workings of the mind)...what changes is the removal of an additional conditioned layer of experience on top of that (whatever ignorance conditions).

"I would say that (according to dependent origination, and according to my experience so far) it is not that objects are perceived any differently, but that the mind's reaction to objects (craving conditioned by ignorance) is what ultimately is reduced or stops, which stops delusions about the nature of objects from arising."

Because?

See, I agree with this statement but I'm not sure we agree on why it's the case. In my version ignorance is seen through thoroughly for what it is and has no more viability. Emptiness abounds and there is no permanent, abiding or essentialness to objects of any kind. Others seem to think something about the basic process of dependent origination changes, gets interrupted somehow or that some objects don't even arise. This difference is critically important, I think.

Hi Chris,

You say ignorance is not in place for those who are aware the sense of existing (1) is just another phenomenon that arises and passes and thus see it as empty phenomenon, right? There is now no more ignorance of that felt sense of existing being empty. For such yogis, there is no more ignorance according to what is empty. This is what I have understood from your comments over time. It does not matter if that sense of existing arises or not as it's all empty anyway, right?

From my perspective, in the case where I was aware of the empty nature of the felt sense of existing (MCTB 4th/ Kenneth's 5th stage), I saw that there was still ignorance on my part as to the causes for that arising of felt sense of existing. When there was no ignorance of the causes for such an arising, then there was no felt sense of existing to call empty. Practicing in this way, looking at the causes for such arisings led to the permanent cessation of such phenomena (at least 3 months and continuing)

I think this may be where the critical difference lies. What one person thinks is ignorance and what is not ignorance versus what another sees and doesn't see as ignorance.

My take: ignorance of what occurs in the chain of DO leads to becoming in this very moment. My further take is that any arising of a mentally felt sense of existing is that very becoming. Thus when it arose and was seen as just empty phenomena, cool bananas, but there was still an ignorance of how it came to arise in the first place that led to it's arising.

Note: this is not evangelizing. This is me speaking frankly about what I see and have seen in my own experience and my own interpretation. I agree there are differences here in what people consider what. One seems to be an ignorance of emptiness, the other an ignorance of causes. Is this a correct assumption?

(1) sense of existing was equated to the arising of stress by myself

"Practicing in this way, looking at the causes for such arisings led to the permanent cessation of such phenomena (at least 3 months and continuing)"

I know. You have said this many times, Nick. I'm not sure that it matters, frankly. and I suspect that we're describing the same thing as seen from a different context and/or a different angle. I'm not aware of much sense of self arising these days, but I interpret this as the recognition of the emptiness of things, me included. A sense that there is a "thing" here still arises periodically and seems to be tied to the arising of other objects that are very clearly not self, such as stories the mind tells, the perspective bound by the physical location of of my sense organs, and so on. But... it is eminently clear that none of that is me in any permanent way, so it's almost always ignored. It's just empty and does not cause any pain. If it does cause pain then that's because I'm not paying enough attention to the arising of it, not seeing it for what it is.

Hope this helps....

"But... it is eminently clear that none of that is me in any permanent way, so it's almost always ignored.

"

Hi Chris,

Yes, I have mentioned it many times as you have mentioned that 'it does not matter' many times as well.

I will bow out of this conversation now. Interesting at times polar opposite, rebelious, at odds relationship we have developed on the internet, chris, wouldn't you say? Hehe. Be well.

NIck, I'm confused. Why are you bowing out? I didn't realize we had a contentious relationship. This conversation, too, seems to be going swimmingly. I do respect your wishes, however.

Be well yourself!

Assuming Nick might just change his mind I'll respond to this comment:

"My take: ignorance of what occurs in the chain of DO leads to becoming in this very moment. My further take is that any arising of a mentally felt sense of existing is that very becoming. Thus when it arose and was seen as just empty phenomena, cool bananas, but there was still an ignorance of how it came to arise in the first place that led to it's arising."

If the chain of dependent origination is seen clearly, if the objects that arise are known fully, seen as the never ending flow of essence-less "things" that they truly are, where does the ignorance come from? I'm curious about this in particular: "ignorance of how it came to arise in the first place" as that seems to be the crux of the difference. I can only offer that any object, when seen for what it is, fully, does not and cannot be seen as permanent, as painful, or cause suffering.

And we really may find they we're describing similar things from different perspectives.

Yes?

No?

Truly curious....

"
"I would say that (according to dependent origination, and according to my experience so far) it is not that objects are perceived any differently, but that the mind's reaction to objects (craving conditioned by ignorance) is what ultimately is reduced or stops, which stops delusions about the nature of objects from arising."

Because?

See, I agree with this statement but I'm not sure we agree on why it's the case. In my version ignorance is seen through thoroughly for what it is and has no more viability. Emptiness abounds and there is no permanent, abiding or essentialness to objects of any kind. Others seem to think something about the basic process of dependent origination changes, gets interrupted somehow or that some objects don't even arise. This difference is critically important, I think.
"

Well, according to the suttas and my own experience, DO is altered at the step of vedana-->craving, and ultimately (I believe) will cease to function beyond that step (so vedana leads to nothing). I imagine the rest of DO will continue on until death, and perhaps beyond it (depending on whether rebirth happens and whether one is able to remove ignorance).

It seems that when you say you see things are empty, I would merely call that being able to observe craving (etc.) clearly. Delusions about objects stop arising, in my view, when there is nothing arising that *ever* masqueraded as a self.

But, we've been down this road before. Remember, I say that the experience of vibrations is precisely the experience of ignorance conditioning craving (etc.).

If you want to ask me a specific question regarding this subject and my experience, ask away.

"Well, according to the suttas and my own experience, DO is altered at the step of vedana-->craving, and ultimately (I believe) will cease to function beyond that step (so vedana leads to nothing)."

To clarify..."seeing through ignorance" has a meaning that is identical with this. As I see it, ignorance is reduced when vedana leads to less craving (permanently). Ignorance is ended when vedana leads no to craving (permanently). As far as I can tell, ignorance is not a thing, it is a tendency of the mind to react, and the reaction or the lack of it (experienced as vibrations / attention wave) is the only thing by which its existence can be judged.

"It seems that when you say you see things are empty, I would merely call that being able to observe craving (etc.) clearly."

Well, here's my take:

Emptiness goes beyond being able to observe craving. It is the absence of essence in all things. It is the real time observance of the absence of essence. No thing, nothing, exists separately. All objects lack permanence. No object is fixed or independent of other objects. One can observe the flow of this interdependence and impermanence occurring in real time. It applies to the self and all other objects. Suffering stems from the perceived permanence of those things that have no essence. That perception is in error, in Buddhism we call that error "ignorance." It is the absence of that ignorance that relieves suffering.

JMHO

"And we really may find they we're describing similar things from different perspectives.

Yes?

No?

Truly curious....

- cmarti"


It seems to me that you are just describing the process from different angles, the two indivisible aspects of the Essential Nature of the Mind, one being emptiness and the other spontaneous presence. In my experience realizing the emptiness produces the same results as seeing through the spontaneous arising and passing of the phenomena.

One should however keep in mind the fact that seeing that everything comes and goes leads to insights into impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and in the fact what comes and goes is not-the-Self. Ultimately, the self-center or ego dissolves and one realizes the "True Self" or "No-Self" (cf. Ingram, MCTB chapter True Self vs No-self). A sense of self remains, but it is not anymore localized anywhere within the body. When one looks for what used to be the self-center, one only finds an empty voidness.

The first assumption is that this state is arahathood. The second assumption is that the same method will lead to a complete extinction of the sense of self.

Evidence shoes however that beyond technical 4th path the good old Mahasi noting [flickering sensations] practice doesn't lead to further permanent stages, as it simply induces more cycles, or crystalizes the sense of being a pure non-dual awareness beyond impermanent phenomena. This must be reason why technical 4th path was logically assumed to be arahathood.

Digging into the Pali Suttas, we realize that we do not have to reinvent the wheel. 2500 years ago, Buddhist yogis have been confronted with the same problems. These suttas explain why it happened, what needs to be done and what can be expected.

"It seems to me that you are just describing the process from different angles, the two indivisible aspects of the Essential Nature of the Mind, one being emptiness and the other spontaneous presence. In my experience realizing the emptiness produces the same results as seeing through the spontaneous arising and passing of the phenomena."

That's what I said!

"
It seems to me that you are just describing the process from different angles, the two indivisible aspects of the Essential Nature of the Mind, one being emptiness and the other spontaneous presence. In my experience realizing the emptiness produces the same results as seeing through the spontaneous arising and passing of the phenomena.

"

For the less mentally agile, can anyone comment further on this point? Would it be correct to say that things are empty of intrinsic/permanent/fixed nature and they also arise and pass away by themselves (is that what is meant by spontaneously?), and one can pay attention to either aspect of a thing/phenomena/sensation/etc and gain insight thereby? But that what might be confusing in this discussion is that some people are focusing more on paying attention to one aspect and others to the other?