@26:43 in accord with your idea: "In understanding this dependently arising process, what is of crucial importance to remember here is that, as the Buddha says, the five aggregates of grasping are not separable from one another, although of course they can be distinguished. Considered in this context, what this really means is that at every stage of the causal process, the five aggregates of grasping, or at least their main constituents, are present. Then the question arises as to why at each stage only one factor is mentioned as the condition, and only one factor is mentioned as what is conditioned. Here the Theravada Buddhist exegesis comes to our support. In this connection it makes three main observations: 1. Dependent arising means the arising of effects evenly in dependence on a conjunction of conditions. 2. Arising means “arising together and equally, not piecemeal and successively. 3. If only one factor is mentioned as the condition for another, it is in order to single out the chief condition among many conditions and relate it to the most important conditioned factor among many other conditioned factors. What these three observations amount to is that from a plurality of conditions arise a plurality of conditioned factors. Stated otherwise: nothing arises from nothing, nothing arises from a single condition, nothing arises as a single conditioned factor. It is always the case that from a multiplicity of conditions arise a multiplicity of conditioned factors. Therefore, strictly speaking, “dependent” means “co-dependent” (dependence on many factors), and “arising” means “co-arising” (arising together with many other factors)." -Karunadasa-
Right! And to add further depth, I would strongly recommend the work of scholar-practitioner and translator Dr Rupert Gethin of Bristol University for folks wanting to really understand the Theravadin model of the momentary mind, in which as you rightly point out, numerous mental factors are present at each instant. There is a good talk he presented to the Dalai Lama and Karmapa available on UA-cam: 'Abhidhamma Concept of Attention - Rupert Gethin' Rupert is also president of the Pali Text Society.
Thank you for this video all three of you! I really like how it comes back around at the end to just practice and firsthand experience and intuitive understanding rather than being able to intellectually grasp it, contain it and explain it to someone effectively. Maybe this is one of the teachings that can only be understood through firsthand intuitive experience. I definitely see a big connection between anatta and paticca samuppada. Thanks again! Love the videos with the three of you, great team!
According to the Theravadins, "consciousness (citta) cannot occur without the simultaneous occurence of *at least* 7 additional 'mental qualities' (cetasika)." "The simplest kind of awareness in practice thus involves the *simultaneous occurence* of eight mental events (dhamma): consciousness + contact, feeling, perception, willing, one-pointedness, life, attention" from a presentation on Theravadin Abhidhamma by Dr Rupert Gethin to the Dalai Lama and Karmapa 'Abhidamma Concept of Attention - Rupert Gethin' - on UA-cam
That is the orthodox position, although many Theravadins, especially in the west, do not consider the Abhidhamma commentaries (where this stuff is found) to be authoritative.
@@pannobhasa I think we would be hard pressed to argue that the presentations of paticcasamuppada in the Nikayas and Agamas don't presuppose simultaneity - ie the presence at each instant of citta of mental factors such as perception, volition, and sensation. The presentations of dependent origination make little sense absent that presupposition. That this is the case is further reinforced by the fact that simultaneity is central to the model of mind in the various Vaibhasika and Sarvastivadin Abhidharmas. Dismissive takes on classical presentations of paticcasamuppada such as the 12-link model that I've encountered have all involved westerners not grasping this point about simultaneity. Most folks discuss and dismiss on the basis of assuming that the presentation is about a sequence of solitary instances - an instant of mere consciousness followed by mere sensation.... This doesn't imo stand much scrutiny. But that's surely also what's implicit when during the discussion in this video it's contended that sanna should be inserted next to vedana, for example. But it's certainly not the case that the 12-link sequence means us to understand that a solitary instance of consciousness is followed by a solitary instance of vedana. It makes even less sense when we think about a solitary instance of ignorance. Evidently the various presentations are each cutting along a particular grain of a sequence of instances of citta + mental factors and doing so for didactic and pragmatic reasons.... eg to emphasize that a particular instant of consciousness and its object arise from ignorance and volition or that an instant of apparent becoming arises from grasping / appropriation / identification and with it the illusion that continuity is grounded in a continuously present unchanging identity not mere causation, and so on... All these presentations presuppose that citta always entails the simultaneous presence of numerous mental factors each instant and they would make no sense without this understanding imo.
In Theravada the 12 links clearly refer to a temporal sequence over three (at least three) different lives, past, present, and future. But the entire 12 nidana theory is probably later than the time of the Buddha.@@angusgus123
The fact remains that the official, orthodox position of Theravada is that the 12 links extend over at least three lives, past, present, and future.@@angusgus123
a recent insight/formula, which I would like to share/put to the test is : "things are empty because they ex-ist" (ex-sistere, to take sustenance from elsewhere)
Defects in Traditional Three Lives Interpretation of Paticca Samuppada 1) The Buddha said in several suttas that his Dhamma is ‘sanditthiko’ meaning ‘visible in this life’ or ‘directly visible’. Although the Buddha did speak about past lives and sometimes even future lives which he directly saw and knew by his psychic powers, the Buddha meant by sanditthiko that the Dhamma can be known in this very life without referring to past lives or using psychic powers. This is very important as it means an ordinary intelligent person without psychic powers can understand the Dhamma. He also said that the Dhamma is ‘akaliko’, i.e. ‘not dependent on time; timeless, immediate’. This means the Dhamma is applicable always, irrespective of time, not bound by time. SN 35.70. “Venerable sir, it is said ‘the directly visible (sanditthiko) Dhamma, the directly visible Dhamma’. In what way, venerable sir, is the Dhamma directly visible, immediate (akaliko), inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise?” The above sutta shows that suffering, the cause of suffering, the ceasing of suffering, and the way to the ceasing of suffering are directly visible in this very life. This is confirmed again by sutta SN 12.43 2) The Jains or Niganthas taught that suffering is caused by kamma done in the past life/lives. The Buddha showed how this was unacceptable in sutta MN 14. We can see from the above that the Buddha was trying to show that past life actions are not relevant to present life suffering because we are not aware of them. What is important is that the origin, the cessation, and the way to end suffering can be seen here and now. There is no need to bring in the past and the future. One could argue that the Niganthas were speaking without direct knowledge (ie. psychic powers). If that is so then it would imply that when one asserts that rebirth-consciousness (Condition no.3) in this life is due to Kamma (Condition no.2) done in the past life, one would need to possess psychic powers and speak from direct knowledge. But the majority of the Arahants did not possess psychic powers. In sutta SN 12.10 the Buddha said he contemplated and understood Paticca Samuppada when he was still a Bodhisatta, not yet enlightened. So this argument is not valid. 3) Although the Buddha usually explained Paticca Samuppada by twelve conditions, sometimes he used only ten, leaving out Avijja and Sankhara. If Avijja and Sankhara refers to past life, as in the Three Lives Interpretation, then evidently past life is not necessary to explain the origin and ceasing of suffering. This is seen in the longest sutta in Paticca Samuppada, i.e. DN 15 (Maha Nidana Sutta), and also SN 12.65. 4) We see in sutta MN 79 (Culasakuludayi Sutta ) the Buddha was basically telling the wanderer Sakuludayi that they could discuss the past if Sakuludayi could recollect past lives, and the future if he possessed the divine eye. But since Sakuludayi did not possess these two psychic abilities, the Buddha said he would discuss a topic concerning only the present, namely Paticca Samuppada. This very clearly shows that Paticca Samuppada concerns only present life, not past or future.
The part that's been hardest for me to understand is the first three links, in no small part to the very unintuitive nature of the concept of "sankhara." However, this is how I understand it: Ignorance is perhaps the easiest part of these three links to understand. It's just ignorance of reality and how things work, particularly in allowing the fetters to continue to exist in one's mind. From this ignorance, the other fetters, primarily the fetter of craving for material existence, drives one "to be." The most powerful urge a human mind has is this one, and not even the will to live is quite on the same level as this will to exist (the will to live and will to exist are not the same; the former is a specific application of the latter). Since all of existence as we know it, rupa or arupa, is known through consciousness, that's what gets created. Consciousness is the self as far as the unenlightened mind is concerned. You can lose an arm and you're still you, so it's easy to see you're not this body. You can lose a perception, vedana, sankara...any of these and you're still you. But you cannot lose your consciousness and still be a self - and this is why the root ignorance of reifying consciousness into a self happens. And no, sleeping or being hit on the head is not what's meant by "losing consciousness" here. No author has helped me understand consciousness better than Bernadette Roberts, of which her book "What is Self?" is phenomenal. She came through a Catholic path, but I'm certain she reached Arahantship based on what she says about her path. She says that at the end of the path, consciousness ceases; it's gone. However, the physical being continues on until the death of the body. It's inconceivable to a conscious creature this could happen, but it's what happens at the end of the path when the will for existence, the fuel of consciousness, is given up. So the "will to exist" creates consciousness in order to exist. All the other sankharas are just kammic resultants that create the specific conditions that give rise to a specific kind of consciousness, but the first and foremost sankhara is the fetter of craving for existence. And the only way to exist is by being consciousness of something. From there, the mind creates the world as we experience it. I say "creates" because the mind is a very active participant in what it ultimately experiences. Modern cognitive science affirms this even. The mind is not a passive recipient of an outer world.
@18:34 There was a monk named Bhante Dhammavuddho and he has a similar definition of Bhava, he describes it as "the will to live". To understand better the meaning of existence, we have to refer to sutta SN 12.68: “Nibbana is the cessation of existence.” When a person becomes liberated, an Arahant, he has attained nibbana (SN 12.51, SN 22.46, SA 85, SA 226), and existence ceases, meaning the conceit (‘I am’ or self / atta) ceases. So existence means the perception that self or I exists, either in the sense-sphere or form-sphere or formless sphere. The Commentary however explained ‘cessation of existence’ as ‘cessation of the five aggregates’ which is unacceptable since the Arahant still possesses the five aggregates. This Commentarial remark has given rise to the wrong view that an Arahant only attains nibbana when he passes away. In the ordinary worldling the five aggregates cease when he dies, but the self/will or desire to live (bhava) does not cease and consequently leads to rebirth. So existence does not mean the world of existence, but existence means a being (with a ‘self’ or ‘I am’ perception) has come into existence. Thus the word bhava can also be translated as ‘being’ or ‘becoming’. So this being, upon realizing that it exists in this world, will understand that it must have been born into this world. So the condition existence / being is necessary for the realization of birth. That is why it is said that existence conditions birth, and not the other way around.
Sounds rather more like 'jivit indriya' or 'life force', which is one of seven necessary factors for any instant of citta according to Theravadin Abhidhamma
For a long time I had this theory that the universe is just God split into trillion individual conciousnesses so when you suffer it's really God suffering and when you're happy it's really God who's happy. In that scenario there is no real you and me, but only God who alone has conciousness. A sort of panentheism. God experiencing itself through us. Any thoughts on that?
The teaching of dependent origination precisely relates to all four of the Four Noble Truths: All samsaric phenomena are conditioned and conditioning (sankhata / sankhara), from which truth it necessarily follows that these phenomena are impermanent, dukkha, and anatta 1. The truth of dukkha: Dukkha is also the truth of anatta or not-self - see the Anattalakkhana Sutta - and impermanence. These three characteristics (tilakkhana) are coterminous with dependently arisen phenomena. 2. Dukkha arises due to causes and conditions Dependent origination is about how conditioned phenomena arise - cause and effect - and for practical purpose the teaching focuses on particularly significant sequences such as grasping / identification leading to becoming. 3. The cessation of dukkha, which is nibbana or asankhata (unconditioned) 4. Dukkha ceases due to the cultivation of the right causes, which is the reason for the popular Theravadin analyses following the grain along which the traditional 12-fold chain analysis cuts. A point the figures in the video miss is that a moment of citta (consciousness) entails numerous other mental factors. Please see the work of a superb scholar-practitioner, Rupert Gethin of Bristol University, president of the Pali Text Society
@@pannobhasain general most of us westerners would do well to attend more carefully to the texts eg in this instance texts such as the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta or the Anattalakkhana Sutta Which is not to say I'm disagreeing with your response exactly, merely pointing out that the definite articles (the) might beneficially give way to indefinite (a / an) Craving for becoming / existence and for annihilation are two of the (implicitly many) craving-related causal factors in the origin and cessation of dukkha in the "first" of these two suttas, not only craving for sensation In the "second" sutta the craving that is relinquished is craving for all five of the five aggregates: form, sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness Arguably even insisting on a hard distinction between Suttanta and Abhidhamma can cause confusion given the many temporal strata within and between these texts, never mind insisting on an "orthodox tradition"
Since you guys are talking about Buddhadasa's views on Rebirth. His views are crystal clear, for all who do not refuse to see. He says, there's no Rebirth in DO, there's Birth. We can see lots of births of all sorts of things all around us, but nobody has ever seen anything die, then be reborn again. There's birth, but not ever of the same person/being/thing which has previously died. He goes on and says, there's 3 types of Births: There's Physical or biological birth from the mothers womb, which happens once and that's all there is to it. There's no rebirth of the dead, no biological rebirth. There's births all over the place, but not of "dead people".. Then there's Psychological birth, arising of the illusion of Self in the mind, caused by afflictions and kamma - every time "me, mine" arises in the mind, it is this type of "birth" of Self happening. But again, it is always a new "me, mine" arising and then ceasing; there's no re-birth because each "me, mine" is momentary & not-self. And then there's birth of functions - we have eyes, but eye sense organ is "born" - "jumps to life" - only when contact arises; when contact ceases, that's the "death" of that particular sensation. When there's another contact, even if it's in rapid succession, it is not rebirth, it is a new birth, of a new eye sense organ and a new sensation, and of all that which follows.... -- And as for the claim that he never denied literal rebirth after death: he has explicitly stated that this doctrine is false in absolute sense, but is useful as a social tool, and as a pacifier to stop children from crying. Because it is like this, of course he doesn't deny it - he also never denied Santa Claus....why make the children cry?
Could you cite sources? Reason I ask is I've only read Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree where iirc his denial of rebirth is based on everything being 'unborn'. I would read that as a rhetorical denial not literal.
@@angusgus123 Well, it won't let me post links... Please do a google search for "Buddhadasa bhikkhu books pdf", should give you link to Suan Mokkh monastery library. Start with CONCERNING BIRTH. Also, do a UA-cam search for Buddhadasa bhikkhu, there's a channel with his teachings narrated in English. I've listened to all of them, despite the almost omnipresent roosters 😄
@@angusgus123 And BTW, what do you mean "sources"? The source is Buddhadasa, you are free to read and listen to his lectures - available on internet. But look into your own mind, into your own experience, see first hand right there what is going on. The Path is not about studying Buddhism, but seeing the workings of our own minds. It is like studying waves by reading about them in the books - while sitting on the beach!
The entire subject is of very low intelligence and mired in insincerity. If DO explains everything that why doesn't it include Nirvana or Buddha? And if it does not include Nirvana or Buddha then what is the point of discussing it ? You are only discussing what is false, and you see it ciruclates. So what. Looking repeatedly in an empty box does not fill the box. Nor does observing an empty box, or diagnosing it with "logic", does not make love occur, because love can only be understood with a higher logic. The logic that is used in the analysis of DO is of a very low mechanical and childish ilk. Then as the discussion approaches the end, then the poetry begins. Buddha "went beyond" all this, perhaps the universe knows the answer, perhaps the answer is a song. Such attitudes occur to those who have not been brave in their mortal lives and have not brought great force to challanges.
The entire purpose of the theory of paticca-samuppada is to explain the mechanics of Samsara, and the means of transcending it. If you don't "get it" and consider it "of very low intelligence," then that's your problem.
There's 2 things to see here: There's Idappaccayata, the Law of Specific Causality, which "explains everything", i.e. explains how all phenomena emerge as temporary results of specific causes temporarily merging together to manifest them. This is paticca samuppada in the broadest sense, causality as investigated by Nagarjuna in his 70 stanzas on emptiness. Then there's the 12 links (nidana), or specific causality that leads to the arising of Dukkha. It's Idappaccayata applied on the arising of Dukkha. I personally love Nagarjuna's summation of the 12 nidana/factors/links in the chain: 3 are afflictions (ignorance, clinging, craving) 2 are kamma (mental formation, becoming) 7 remaining linksare all Dukkha He goes on and puts them in motion: From 3 come 2 From 2 come 7 From 7 come 3 again... P.S. I personally subscribe to Buddhadasa's explanation of DO, because the moment to moment, act to act "births" are something I can see for myself, while the multiple lifetimes explanation requires a lot of mental gymnastics and too much talking & believing... More on reddit, r/buddhadasa
You are walking around the lake not coming down to swime in water of Paticca Samuppada because your mindset are sticking with something else. Blind Brahmins Asanga ,Baubandhu and others did the same before like you.
@26:43 in accord with your idea:
"In understanding this dependently arising process, what is of crucial importance to remember here is that, as the Buddha says, the five aggregates of grasping are not separable from one another, although of course they can be distinguished. Considered in this context, what this really means is that at every stage of the causal process, the five aggregates of grasping, or at least their main constituents, are present. Then the question arises as to why at each stage only one factor is mentioned as the condition, and only one factor is mentioned as what is conditioned.
Here the Theravada Buddhist exegesis comes to our support. In this connection it makes three main observations:
1. Dependent arising means the arising of effects evenly in dependence on a conjunction of conditions.
2. Arising means “arising together and equally, not piecemeal and successively.
3. If only one factor is mentioned as the condition for another, it is in order to single out the chief condition among many conditions and relate it to the most important conditioned factor among many other conditioned factors.
What these three observations amount to is that from a plurality of conditions arise a plurality of conditioned factors. Stated otherwise: nothing arises from nothing, nothing arises from a single condition, nothing arises as a single conditioned factor. It is always the case that from a multiplicity of conditions arise a multiplicity of conditioned factors. Therefore, strictly speaking, “dependent” means “co-dependent” (dependence on many factors), and “arising” means “co-arising” (arising together with many other factors)."
-Karunadasa-
Right! And to add further depth, I would strongly recommend the work of scholar-practitioner and translator Dr Rupert Gethin of Bristol University for folks wanting to really understand the Theravadin model of the momentary mind, in which as you rightly point out, numerous mental factors are present at each instant.
There is a good talk he presented to the Dalai Lama and Karmapa available on UA-cam:
'Abhidhamma Concept of Attention - Rupert Gethin'
Rupert is also president of the Pali Text Society.
Thank you for this video all three of you! I really like how it comes back around at the end to just practice and firsthand experience and intuitive understanding rather than being able to intellectually grasp it, contain it and explain it to someone effectively. Maybe this is one of the teachings that can only be understood through firsthand intuitive experience. I definitely see a big connection between anatta and paticca samuppada. Thanks again! Love the videos with the three of you, great team!
According to the Theravadins, "consciousness (citta) cannot occur without the simultaneous occurence of *at least* 7 additional 'mental qualities' (cetasika)."
"The simplest kind of awareness in practice thus involves the *simultaneous occurence* of eight mental events (dhamma): consciousness + contact, feeling, perception, willing, one-pointedness, life, attention"
from a presentation on Theravadin Abhidhamma by Dr Rupert Gethin to the Dalai Lama and Karmapa
'Abhidamma Concept of Attention - Rupert Gethin' - on UA-cam
That is the orthodox position, although many Theravadins, especially in the west, do not consider the Abhidhamma commentaries (where this stuff is found) to be authoritative.
@@pannobhasa I think we would be hard pressed to argue that the presentations of paticcasamuppada in the Nikayas and Agamas don't presuppose simultaneity - ie the presence at each instant of citta of mental factors such as perception, volition, and sensation. The presentations of dependent origination make little sense absent that presupposition.
That this is the case is further reinforced by the fact that simultaneity is central to the model of mind in the various Vaibhasika and Sarvastivadin Abhidharmas.
Dismissive takes on classical presentations of paticcasamuppada such as the 12-link model that I've encountered have all involved westerners not grasping this point about simultaneity. Most folks discuss and dismiss on the basis of assuming that the presentation is about a sequence of solitary instances - an instant of mere consciousness followed by mere sensation....
This doesn't imo stand much scrutiny.
But that's surely also what's implicit when during the discussion in this video it's contended that sanna should be inserted next to vedana, for example.
But it's certainly not the case that the 12-link sequence means us to understand that a solitary instance of consciousness is followed by a solitary instance of vedana. It makes even less sense when we think about a solitary instance of ignorance.
Evidently the various presentations are each cutting along a particular grain of a sequence of instances of citta + mental factors and doing so for didactic and pragmatic reasons....
eg to emphasize that a particular instant of consciousness and its object arise from ignorance and volition or that an instant of apparent becoming arises from grasping / appropriation / identification and with it the illusion that continuity is grounded in a continuously present unchanging identity not mere causation, and so on...
All these presentations presuppose that citta always entails the simultaneous presence of numerous mental factors each instant and they would make no sense without this understanding imo.
In Theravada the 12 links clearly refer to a temporal sequence over three (at least three) different lives, past, present, and future. But the entire 12 nidana theory is probably later than the time of the Buddha.@@angusgus123
@@pannobhasa no, it's certainly not the case that eg the presentations of dependent origination in the Nidanavagga are about three lives!
The fact remains that the official, orthodox position of Theravada is that the 12 links extend over at least three lives, past, present, and future.@@angusgus123
a recent insight/formula, which I would like to share/put to the test is : "things are empty because they ex-ist" (ex-sistere, to take sustenance from elsewhere)
Defects in Traditional Three Lives Interpretation of Paticca Samuppada
1) The Buddha said in several suttas that his Dhamma is ‘sanditthiko’ meaning ‘visible in this life’ or ‘directly visible’. Although the Buddha did speak about past lives and sometimes even future lives which he directly saw and knew by his psychic powers, the Buddha meant by sanditthiko that the Dhamma can be known in this very life without referring to past lives or using psychic powers. This is very important as it means an ordinary intelligent person without psychic powers can understand the Dhamma. He also said that the Dhamma is ‘akaliko’, i.e. ‘not dependent on time; timeless, immediate’. This means the Dhamma is applicable always, irrespective of time, not bound by time. SN 35.70. “Venerable sir, it is said ‘the directly visible (sanditthiko) Dhamma, the directly visible Dhamma’. In what way, venerable sir, is the Dhamma directly visible, immediate (akaliko), inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise?” The above sutta shows that suffering, the cause of suffering, the ceasing of suffering, and the way to the ceasing of suffering are directly visible in this very life.
This is confirmed again by sutta SN 12.43 2) The Jains or Niganthas taught that suffering is caused by kamma done in the past life/lives. The Buddha showed how this was unacceptable in sutta MN 14. We can see from the above that the Buddha was trying to show that past life actions are not relevant to present life suffering because we are not aware of them. What is important is that the origin, the cessation, and the way to end suffering can be seen here and now. There is no need to bring in the past and the future. One could argue that the Niganthas were speaking without direct knowledge (ie. psychic powers). If that is so then it would imply that when one asserts that rebirth-consciousness (Condition no.3) in this life is due to Kamma (Condition no.2) done in the past life, one would need to possess psychic powers and speak from direct knowledge. But the majority of the Arahants did not possess psychic powers. In sutta SN 12.10 the Buddha said he contemplated and understood Paticca Samuppada when he was still a Bodhisatta, not yet enlightened. So this argument is not valid.
3) Although the Buddha usually explained Paticca Samuppada by twelve conditions, sometimes he used only ten, leaving out Avijja and Sankhara. If Avijja and Sankhara refers to past life, as in the Three Lives Interpretation, then evidently past life is not necessary to explain the origin and ceasing of suffering. This is seen in the longest sutta in Paticca Samuppada, i.e. DN 15 (Maha Nidana Sutta), and also SN 12.65.
4) We see in sutta MN 79 (Culasakuludayi Sutta ) the Buddha was basically telling the wanderer Sakuludayi that they could discuss the past if Sakuludayi could recollect past lives, and the future if he possessed the divine eye. But since Sakuludayi did not possess these two psychic abilities, the Buddha said he would discuss a topic concerning only the present, namely Paticca Samuppada. This very clearly shows that Paticca Samuppada concerns only present life, not past or future.
The part that's been hardest for me to understand is the first three links, in no small part to the very unintuitive nature of the concept of "sankhara."
However, this is how I understand it:
Ignorance is perhaps the easiest part of these three links to understand. It's just ignorance of reality and how things work, particularly in allowing the fetters to continue to exist in one's mind.
From this ignorance, the other fetters, primarily the fetter of craving for material existence, drives one "to be." The most powerful urge a human mind has is this one, and not even the will to live is quite on the same level as this will to exist (the will to live and will to exist are not the same; the former is a specific application of the latter).
Since all of existence as we know it, rupa or arupa, is known through consciousness, that's what gets created. Consciousness is the self as far as the unenlightened mind is concerned. You can lose an arm and you're still you, so it's easy to see you're not this body. You can lose a perception, vedana, sankara...any of these and you're still you. But you cannot lose your consciousness and still be a self - and this is why the root ignorance of reifying consciousness into a self happens. And no, sleeping or being hit on the head is not what's meant by "losing consciousness" here.
No author has helped me understand consciousness better than Bernadette Roberts, of which her book "What is Self?" is phenomenal. She came through a Catholic path, but I'm certain she reached Arahantship based on what she says about her path. She says that at the end of the path, consciousness ceases; it's gone. However, the physical being continues on until the death of the body. It's inconceivable to a conscious creature this could happen, but it's what happens at the end of the path when the will for existence, the fuel of consciousness, is given up.
So the "will to exist" creates consciousness in order to exist. All the other sankharas are just kammic resultants that create the specific conditions that give rise to a specific kind of consciousness, but the first and foremost sankhara is the fetter of craving for existence. And the only way to exist is by being consciousness of something.
From there, the mind creates the world as we experience it. I say "creates" because the mind is a very active participant in what it ultimately experiences. Modern cognitive science affirms this even. The mind is not a passive recipient of an outer world.
@18:34 There was a monk named Bhante Dhammavuddho and he has a similar definition of Bhava, he describes it as "the will to live".
To understand better the meaning of existence, we have to refer to sutta SN 12.68: “Nibbana is the cessation of existence.” When a person becomes liberated, an Arahant, he has attained nibbana (SN 12.51, SN 22.46, SA 85, SA 226), and existence ceases, meaning the conceit (‘I am’ or self / atta) ceases. So existence means the perception that self or I exists, either in the sense-sphere or form-sphere or formless sphere. The Commentary however explained ‘cessation of existence’ as ‘cessation of the five aggregates’ which is unacceptable since the Arahant still possesses the five aggregates. This Commentarial remark has given rise to the wrong view that an Arahant only attains nibbana when he passes away. In the ordinary worldling the five aggregates cease when he dies, but the self/will or desire to live (bhava) does not cease and consequently leads to rebirth.
So existence does not mean the world of existence, but existence means a being (with a ‘self’ or ‘I am’ perception) has come into existence. Thus the word bhava can also be translated as ‘being’ or ‘becoming’. So this being, upon realizing that it exists in this world, will understand that it must have been born into this world. So the condition existence / being is necessary for the realization of birth. That is why it is said that existence conditions birth, and not the other way around.
Thanks Jeremy for the Information !
Sounds rather more like 'jivit indriya' or 'life force', which is one of seven necessary factors for any instant of citta according to Theravadin Abhidhamma
Excellent once again yes i think intuition is the way rather than the nuts and bolts approach although it gives a Framework to work from ???
For a long time I had this theory that the universe is just God split into trillion individual conciousnesses so when you suffer it's really God suffering and when you're happy it's really God who's happy. In that scenario there is no real you and me, but only God who alone has conciousness. A sort of panentheism. God experiencing itself through us. Any thoughts on that?
Well by golly, I should try to answer that question on my next Q&A video. Not much room in a comments section to cover something like this. Cheers.
maybe that's why pratyekabuddhas keep their mouth shut.....indeed Panno
What is this theory of everything to do with the end of dukkha?
The teaching of dependent origination precisely relates to all four of the Four Noble Truths:
All samsaric phenomena are conditioned and conditioning (sankhata / sankhara), from which truth it necessarily follows that these phenomena are impermanent, dukkha, and anatta
1. The truth of dukkha:
Dukkha is also the truth of anatta or not-self - see the Anattalakkhana Sutta - and impermanence. These three characteristics (tilakkhana) are coterminous with dependently arisen phenomena.
2. Dukkha arises due to causes and conditions
Dependent origination is about how conditioned phenomena arise - cause and effect - and for practical purpose the teaching focuses on particularly significant sequences such as grasping / identification leading to becoming.
3. The cessation of dukkha, which is nibbana or asankhata (unconditioned)
4. Dukkha ceases due to the cultivation of the right causes, which is the reason for the popular Theravadin analyses following the grain along which the traditional 12-fold chain analysis cuts.
A point the figures in the video miss is that a moment of citta (consciousness) entails numerous other mental factors.
Please see the work of a superb scholar-practitioner, Rupert Gethin of Bristol University, president of the Pali Text Society
According to orthodox tradition the end of dukkha comes from breaking the link between feeling and craving.
@@pannobhasain general most of us westerners would do well to attend more carefully to the texts eg in this instance texts such as the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta or the Anattalakkhana Sutta
Which is not to say I'm disagreeing with your response exactly, merely pointing out that the definite articles (the) might beneficially give way to indefinite (a / an)
Craving for becoming / existence and for annihilation are two of the (implicitly many) craving-related causal factors in the origin and cessation of dukkha in the "first" of these two suttas, not only craving for sensation
In the "second" sutta the craving that is relinquished is craving for all five of the five aggregates: form, sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness
Arguably even insisting on a hard distinction between Suttanta and Abhidhamma can cause confusion given the many temporal strata within and between these texts, never mind insisting on an "orthodox tradition"
🙏🔥🙏
Since you guys are talking about Buddhadasa's views on Rebirth.
His views are crystal clear, for all who do not refuse to see.
He says, there's no Rebirth in DO, there's Birth. We can see lots of births of all sorts of things all around us, but nobody has ever seen anything die, then be reborn again. There's birth, but not ever of the same person/being/thing which has previously died.
He goes on and says, there's 3 types of Births:
There's Physical or biological birth from the mothers womb, which happens once and that's all there is to it. There's no rebirth of the dead, no biological rebirth. There's births all over the place, but not of "dead people"..
Then there's Psychological birth, arising of the illusion of Self in the mind, caused by afflictions and kamma - every time "me, mine" arises in the mind, it is this type of "birth" of Self happening. But again, it is always a new "me, mine" arising and then ceasing; there's no re-birth because each "me, mine" is momentary & not-self.
And then there's birth of functions - we have eyes, but eye sense organ is "born" - "jumps to life" - only when contact arises; when contact ceases, that's the "death" of that particular sensation. When there's another contact, even if it's in rapid succession, it is not rebirth, it is a new birth, of a new eye sense organ and a new sensation, and of all that which follows....
--
And as for the claim that he never denied literal rebirth after death: he has explicitly stated that this doctrine is false in absolute sense, but is useful as a social tool, and as a pacifier to stop children from crying. Because it is like this, of course he doesn't deny it - he also never denied Santa Claus....why make the children cry?
Could you cite sources? Reason I ask is I've only read Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree where iirc his denial of rebirth is based on everything being 'unborn'.
I would read that as a rhetorical denial not literal.
@@angusgus123
Buddhadasa on UA-cam youtube.com/@buddhadasabhikkhu7829?si=dLDv7-dR45-uF8wy
@@angusgus123
Well, it won't let me post links...
Please do a google search for "Buddhadasa bhikkhu books pdf", should give you link to Suan Mokkh monastery library. Start with CONCERNING BIRTH.
Also, do a UA-cam search for Buddhadasa bhikkhu, there's a channel with his teachings narrated in English. I've listened to all of them, despite the almost omnipresent roosters 😄
UA-cam is removing my posts, I don't know why...
@@angusgus123
And BTW, what do you mean "sources"? The source is Buddhadasa, you are free to read and listen to his lectures - available on internet.
But look into your own mind, into your own experience, see first hand right there what is going on. The Path is not about studying Buddhism, but seeing the workings of our own minds.
It is like studying waves by reading about them in the books - while sitting on the beach!
Rue was a little eccentric for me but he’s growing on me.
Better an eccentric than a normie.
@@pannobhasa you can say that again. Love the channel. Binging you and Brian lately
The entire subject is of very low intelligence and mired in insincerity.
If DO explains everything that why doesn't it include Nirvana or Buddha? And if it does not include Nirvana or Buddha then what is the point of discussing it ? You are only discussing what is false, and you see it ciruclates. So what.
Looking repeatedly in an empty box does not fill the box.
Nor does observing an empty box, or diagnosing it with "logic", does not make love occur, because love can only be understood with a higher logic.
The logic that is used in the analysis of DO is of a very low mechanical and childish ilk.
Then as the discussion approaches the end, then the poetry begins. Buddha "went beyond" all this, perhaps the universe knows the answer, perhaps the answer is a song.
Such attitudes occur to those who have not been brave in their mortal lives and have not brought great force to challanges.
The entire purpose of the theory of paticca-samuppada is to explain the mechanics of Samsara, and the means of transcending it. If you don't "get it" and consider it "of very low intelligence," then that's your problem.
There's 2 things to see here:
There's Idappaccayata, the Law of Specific Causality, which "explains everything", i.e. explains how all phenomena emerge as temporary results of specific causes temporarily merging together to manifest them. This is paticca samuppada in the broadest sense, causality as investigated by Nagarjuna in his 70 stanzas on emptiness.
Then there's the 12 links (nidana), or specific causality that leads to the arising of Dukkha. It's Idappaccayata applied on the arising of Dukkha.
I personally love Nagarjuna's summation of the 12 nidana/factors/links in the chain:
3 are afflictions (ignorance, clinging, craving)
2 are kamma (mental formation, becoming)
7 remaining linksare all Dukkha
He goes on and puts them in motion:
From 3 come 2
From 2 come 7
From 7 come 3 again...
P.S. I personally subscribe to Buddhadasa's explanation of DO, because the moment to moment, act to act "births" are something I can see for myself, while the multiple lifetimes explanation requires a lot of mental gymnastics and too much talking & believing...
More on reddit, r/buddhadasa
You are walking around the lake not coming down to swime in water of Paticca Samuppada because your mindset are sticking with something else.
Blind Brahmins Asanga ,Baubandhu and others did the same before like you.
Could you cite sources eg page numbers and texts?