Ajahn Paññāvaddho & paticca-samuppada

Essays
25

Greetings @Mat,

I suppose we could go on diverging for ever. However, it is not so much about saṅkhāra that we should talk about, but duality.
Then again, let’s try to cover both.

Here, I am talking about saṅkhāra as the active force; not the things produced by them.
Saṅkhāra (Skt: saṃkara,) is not a Vedic word.
The meaning of saṅkhāra has therefore to be found conceptually; neither lexicographically or etymologically, as far as influenced are concerned.
For instance, we can equate it with this instance in the ŚBr:

1:6:3:23. Twofold, verily, is this, there is no third: to wit, the moist and the dry; and what is dry, that relates to Agni; and what is moist, that relates to Soma. But (it may be objected) if this is twofold only, why then this manifold performance:–the two butter-portions for Agni and Soma, the low-voiced offering to Agni and Soma, and the rice-cake for Agni and Soma,–when by means of any one of these he obtains all, why then this manifold performance? [The answer to this objection is that] so manifold is the power, the generative force of Agni and Soma.
Dvayaṃ vā idaṃ na tṛtīyamasti | ārdraṃ caiva śuṣkaṃ ca yacuṣkaṃ tadāgneyaṃ yadārdraṃ tatsaumyamatha yadidaṃ dvayamevāpya kimetāvatkriyata ityagnīṣomayorevājyabhāgāvagnīṣomayorupāṃśuyājo 'gnīṣomayoḥ puroḍāśo yadata ekatamenaivedaṃ sarvamāpnotyatha kimetāvatkriyata ityagnīṣomayorhaivaitāvatī vibhūtiḥ prajātiḥ.

It is the duality (dvaya,) that is empowering the generative force - the active force - (think about the vital air - Assāsa/Passāsā).
That active force, that took the name of saṃkara (saṃkṛ,) later on in late Vedic (post Buddhist) time, took also the meaning of confusion, and of pollution.
Was it the same conception in Buddhism? - A generative, confusing & polluting force?
Are the impermanence of formations (the things produced by this active force,) dependent on the nature of the force itself?
How could we go further than this litany of common grounds served by Thanissaro & C°, or the Abhidammic crowd? - Déjà vu (and quite dubious for the latter).
It could be interesting to talk about all that - But here again, it is duality that concerns us. And more precisely, the duality of consciousness.
Note that I am not going to complain about diverging a bit, if this is interesting. And it is.

Sleep well, dream well; and tell me about that tomorrow. :expressionless:

Metta
suci

26

The generative ‘force’ (if you like) is ignorance (avijja). It generates everything including this world, the cosmos and the next existence wherever that is, in samsara. When ignorance fades, that which arose from it fades. There isn’t a sense that it is duality that powers it. Ignorance is considered a negative thing and the opposite of which is insight (panna, yatabhutha nana -the knowledge of the way things really are) is considered positive. Wisdom is gained by ‘lending an ear’, contemplation and vipassana (insight meditation).

As for duality it is discussed here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.3.12.than.html. It sounds different from what you described and doesn’t play an important role in EBTs, possibly as it has no clear conceptual role in how suffering arises or how it is removed.

With metta

Mat

27

A little more about Eastern philosophy.

The original void gives rise to Tai Chi, which differentiates into Yin Yang, which give rise to the relation of the five elements, which generate the ten thousand things.

According to traditional Chinese cosmology, the original emptiness gives rise to Tai Chi, which differs in Yin Yang, which gives rise to the relation of the five elements, which generate the ten thousand things (ten thousand have for the Chinese the sense of infinity).

The process of the Tao Yin meditation is in the opposite sense, of the ten thousand things returning to the relation of the five elements, recovering the balance of Yin Yang returning to Tai Chi, from which again it becomes integrated into the original void, the origin of existence.

:anjal:

2 Likes
28

Greetings @Mat,

I wish snp3.12 could be an EBT.
There are many dyads (dvaya) in the EBTs.

  • Notion of existence & of nonexistence SN 12.15
  • (External) name & form SN 12.19
  • Eye & forms, the ear & sounds, … mind & phenomena SN 35.92.
  • Pleasant and painful SN 35.94
  • Etc.

But as far as consciousness is concerned, only the cosmic knowledge of the duality of the three pairs in saṅkhāra nidāna, and the wordly knowledge of the duality of eye/form, ear & sounds … mind & phenomena, are of a concern.

I agree that everything comes from ignorance. Starting with the duality of the three pairs in saṅkhāra nidāna.
Ignorance has definitely the seed of duality.
Bodily duality (body as organs = spirit-bodhi, breath-prāṇa; later on ego-asmi, eye, ear,…, mind-mano) - Mental duality (saññā/vedanā) - Verbal duality (vittakka/vicāra - thought/concretism).

Note:
Often in Pali the Skt ava becomes the Pali o - as in Bhavanti becoming honti = they are. But the “are” (or “is”) in honti (hoti), retains the underlying meaning of [u]becoming[/] that comes from the Skt root √भू-bhū.

  • Arise, come into being, exist (RV.)
  • To be transformed into (RV. - AV.)
    Therefore, because of ignorance, these dualities (the pairs) have become - Ignorance has been transformed into this particular duality.
    And such is the “experiential” cosmic knowledge of consciousness. Namely the pairs. Namely the knowledge of a combination (transformation,) again through saṅkhāra, of the three pairs. And that is all that consciousness knows at inception.
    We could say that consciousness is dual in its essence - yet in its transformation, it is the knowledge of all the combinations from these three pairs. Consciousness is the result (what has become,) of the kāya/citta/vacī saṅkhāra. It is “knowledge” of that.
    Was that enough to actualize, and satisfy ignorance?

Later on, in the chain of causes and becomings, consciousness is brought to experience the wordly duality of the pairs eye & forms, ears & sounds, etc. And the combinations become infinite.

And here come yathābhūtañāṇadassana, whose definition is not about “insight, from knowledge according to things as they really are”; but “insight, from knowledge according to what have become”.
It can still carry the meaning of “things as they really are”; but should, imho, always retain the underlying meaning of things as they have come to exist.
As far as pañña is concerned, its first meaning in the Pali is “discernment” - (Skt: discernment, distinction, discrimination (RV. - ŚBr.))

Discerning (within) things, phenomena or dhatus; and having the insight, from knowledge, according to how they have come to be.
Starting from ignorance.

Metta.
suci

N.B.
The question is:
Are we able to understand cosmos if we aren’t able to understand the world. Isn’t Buddha telling us to use some “trick”, like the ānānāpasati sutta, to somewhat reenact Paṭiccāsamupāda.
Like an old Vedist would reenact Prajapati’s sacrifice through the ritual sacrifices.

29

Ignorance wouldn’t work like that in Buddhism because that would mean when there is Wisdom (devoid of duality) there would Oneness. There is no such Oneness, apart from intentionally created mental fabrications of the mind. These fabrications (like the sphere of infinite consciousness/6th jhana) are perceived as brahma etc but those are just the labels we put on such states. The states themselves don’t have such labels- and don’t behave like brahma either. They are created by the yogi, and brought to an end by the yogi. Hence, they are impermanent, doesn’t last and therefore unsatisfactory and beyond our control -not fit to be considered Self, or even ‘mine’.

Ignorance in Buddhism- to use a particular formula- is thinking that which is
-impermanent as permanent
-unsatisfactory as satisfactory
-not Self as Self
-foul (asubha) as Pleasant

with metta

30

In Buddhism, the world and the cosmos is being created …now.

It arises and passes away …every moment.

Therefore the act of creation is captured now- not in a text book, but with our senses now.

31

I agree 100%. But this is another flaw in forums. The need to scatter concepts all over the Nikayas (when it is not all over the Canon).
Let’s stay with the duality in consciousness; will you?

Nowhere did I say that avijja had the seed of dualism and that vijja was therefore devoid of duality.
Maybe the avyakata (ultimate reality) is. But that is not of my business as a Buddhist.
There is however a definite move towards oneness in calming the saṅkhāras.
What I say is that cosmic consciousness inherit, so to speak, the seed of duality of ignorance in a certain form (the pairs). And that we find another form of duality in the wordly consciousness (eye &form, etc).

N.B. It is not because of the above context of the ŚBr (moist vs. dryness) , that duality means that the pairs have to be opposites.

Also, I don’t see what Brahma has to do with this. There is no Self or self in paṭiccasāmuppada and jhānas.

Abhidhammic nonsense to me.
I don’t think that Buddha conceived that exactly that way.

32

See below the mundane consideration of impermanence of the body and mind (we also know that every atom in our bodies are replaced every 7-10 years. Does Your Body Really Replace Itself Every Seven Years? | HowStuffWorks)

It would be better, bhikkhus, if an uninstructed ordinary person regarded this body, made of the four great elements, as himself rather than the mind. For what reason? This body is seen to continue for a year, for two years, five years, ten years, twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years, and even more. But of that which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness, one moment arises and ceases as another continually both day and night.
— SN 12.61

Noting impermanence as a powerful practice:

The perceiving of impermanence, bhikkhus, developed and frequently practiced, removes all sensual passion, removes all passion for material existence, removes all passion for becoming, removes all ignorance, removes and abolishes all conceit of "I am."SN 22.102

Noting impermanence in ultimate reality (paramatta sacca) - in terms of the five aggregates (aka vipassana):

The five aggregates, monks, are anicca, impermanent; whatever is impermanent, that is dukkha, unsatisfactory; whatever is dukkha, that is without attaa, self. What is without self, that is not mine, that I am not, that is not my self. Thus should it be seen by perfect wisdom (sammappa~n~naaya) as it really is. Who sees by perfect wisdom, as it really is, his mind, not grasping, is detached from taints; he is liberated.
— SN 22.45

Paticcasamuppada is possible because causes are impermanent so that effects can arise. A permanent consciousness would perceive a permanent object, endlessly. Life is possible because things are impermanent.

2 Likes
33

Greetings @Mat,

Again this need to hit with some commonplace truisms.
We are not here to review the Nikayas, (which I recall pretty well,) but to canvas some deeper features or meaning in them.
In our case, the relationship between the nature of the cosmic consciousness and the wordly consciousness. Relationship that occurs, for instance, in practices like ānāpānasati.
Ajahn Paññāvaddho saw a divided consciousness. But he restrained it to the subject/object realm. And I believe this to be a bit reductive.

Note: Cosmic does not mean the stars and galaxies; like some sort of acid trip - but a “formless realm”; if that can be a summary of its simplest, yet not inclusive meaning - a formless realm in which stars and galaxies have no more relevancy anyway.

What, for instance, do we use, when building a phenomena, from body to feeling to citta, to dhamma in ānāpānasati?
Do we use the wordly consciousness, or some kind of cosmic one?
What are the saṅkhāras involved? Is it assasa/passasa - feeling/perception - vitaka/vicāra - the three united? Or do we use the saṅkhāras “inherited” from the wordly consciousness? eye/form, etc?
Consequently, how do we calm the saṅkhāras involved, so as to score this duality out, to the best of possible?
What is the true nature of this duality? Black & white, or something else?

We’ve seen, more or less, how consciousness was conceived in Indian early and late Vedic philosophy; and how it was conceived by the Buddha. At least where this consciousness stands in the process. That is to say at the beginning of the process for the Vedic sages; and within the process, for Buddha; of which two natures can be clearly distinguished: cosmic and wordly.
We saw that that consciousness “inherited”, so to speak, the duality of the saṅkhāra nidāna.
So it is dual. But how dual is it? - And how do we apply that in our mindfulness (recollection of the Teaching)?.

SN 12.61 to which you gladly refer as a proof of your abhidhammic creed, seems to me exactly the opposite of what you want to prove.
If the body (as conceived by Buddha) can have a span of more than a 100 years, and that the body (conceived by science) a more or less 10 years span; what is to be considered as “now”? What is a “moment”?
Some sort of quantic wave function collapse - which wave would encompass all possible future and past and present possibilities - with the “moment” as the collapsing actualisation? Maybe, maybe.
But certainly not the “moment” and the “now” of the abhidammic crowd anyway.

Do we mean body as somewhat the “organs” of Indian philosophy here; which can be extended as far as the “mind” (spirit) called bodhi? A body that has, (as consciousness does,) a cosmic and wordly nature.
Anyway, it sounds like the “moment” of the body, restricted to the body made of the four great elements (aka wordly body,) is definitely more than a mere “now”.
But again, I don’t want to get in the endless discussion of the “now” and “moment”, elaborated later on, by the clergy of what had become a religion, and not a philosophy anymore.

And yes, impermanence is the key word of Buddhism. So what?
Another commonplace out of the blue. Does it make your argument truer? - Do we have to rely to whatever true concept we can pick-up in the Nikayas, to systematically ponctuate our doubts or dubious conceptions?

Note: paramatta is, again, called “ultimate reality” by the abhidammic crowd - and has nothing to do with the ultimate reality - avyakata - we are talking about. You are mixing up everything; wondering if this is not on purpose?
Moreover this paramatta appears only in the EBTs’ Thig 5.12, with the simple meaning of a higher goal.

Viewing the abhidammic (confusing,) & “vipassanic” (also confusing,) turn that this conversation is taking; I think that I will stop here, if you don’t mind. No offence. It is just that I like to discuss; but not to argue on different grounds. I find it useless & stressful.
Each one its kamma, I suppose.

Notes:

  1. A definition of vipassana is given at the end of the EBT’s (almost comprehensive) relevant suttas here:
  2. “Life is possible because things are impermanent,” you say.
    “Life & death are the results of the impermanent nature of paṭiccasamuppāda,” I’d reply. And I would add: “and the attribute of those who haven’t yet stilled the saṅkhāras; and brought that duality to a middle-ground”.
    Whatever happens next.

Metta,
suci

34

Hi Suci,

Consciousness arises at the five senses bases as well as the mind (the sixth sense base, according to the Buddha). Any mental ‘object’ will be cognised by consciousness arising at the mind sense base. When the 6th jhana with its mental object of Infinite consciousness arises, consciousness arises at the mind (mano-vinnana) to perceive it. There is no special cosmic consciousness here, apart from consciousness of the mind. I would like to clarify this before discussing duality with you.

With metta

Matheesha

35

Mano in jhana VI - hum.
If you add empiricism to the abidhamma & “vipassana” list of your creeds; then this is not only a mere discussion, turning into a useless argument; but a bare pathetic deaf’s dialog to be.

A forum is not a place for social harmony. You would join a lodge of bigots to find that. Whatever harmonious their bigotry means.
Each point of view should be taken into account. However, people should have, at bare level, the same basis of creed to discuss some point. Harmony is found in discussing different points of view, among people of the same creed.
In other words, I am glad to read you talk and explore with your abidhammic, “vipassana” and empiricist peers. I learn a lot on your frame of view.

Note: Discussions that are done in the open air; as the name “forum” meant to be - so we can really share something in common.

Again, I pass; no offence - sorry.

Metta
suci

1 Like
36

I’m not here to argue with anyone :grinning:. My apologies if you were looking for that. But I can discuss concepts with you so that we can mutually benefit. It’s a much more pleasant way to learn from each other!

Now, duality I know very little of. It’s not used much in EBTs - it’s not an important concept like say, the Four Noble Truths. Why is it important to you/your understanding?

With metta

Matheesha

37

As I say, @Mat, I see neo-forum (the new concept of the old concept of a public place where people used to debate,) as a place where different opinions are discussed by people of the same creed.
In other words, not a place where you argue; but a place where friends of the same creed are discussing openly in front of people of different creeds.

It is pretty strange that you are asking me if what I wanted was to “argue”, after all I said!?!

Nevermind.

Metta
suci

Note: If someone is having a more rationalistic view on Buddhism, (without having to get lost into rationalism vs. empiricism,) I’d rather. I once read the old Alasdair MacIntyre fairish, (& quite Buddhistic) rationale on the uselessness of arguing, to get in that trap anymore.

1 Like
38

Here’s what I see as rational impermanence:

If I am physically and mentally different from what I was when I was 10 years old, the change would have taken place gradually (and not suddenly). For gradual and progressive change to occur everything must be changing in this very moment. In fact there is no such delimited thing as the present moment. All there is, is change. To the spinning of atoms (to collapsing quantum waves?), to the electrical bursts in nerve cells there is change. However at a macro scale we see people, objects, trees etc looking permanent and fixed. This is an illusion.

With metta

2 Likes
39

Very well said. I am with you all the way.
With Metta

40

Maybe this could be rational causality:

We are all living in the past- consciousness is conscious of what has already occurred milliseconds in the past, due to how the brain functions. This means ‘we’ already made the decisions we think we are making now. This can only happen if everything happens automatically, not needing our conscious input. So consciousness becomes a false mediator, pretending to make changes, but only present after the fact. The DO is also unmediated- it doesn’t need a self to operate. It works well enough entirely on its own, without the need for a ‘being’. We can understand then, that we are nothing but causes and effects, giving rise to one after the other.

with metta

Mat

3 Likes
41

Is there possibly a reference on that @Mat, Thanks!
:anjal:

42

This one : Brain makes decisions before you even know it | Nature

There’s more out there.

With metta

M

2 Likes
43

Haynes “fresh look”, as the late 2015 proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences puts it, might cast some crispness to the old too soon assumed dogma.

We live in a quantum world, with quantum indeterminacy; an indeterminacy that is just averaged out at the macroscopic level, to become “determinism”. Stars and brains are macroscopic structures, made of innumerable averaged quantum phenomenas. The transition from quantum to classical happens at this level of averaging. Determinism is just this averaging - the only “illusion” out there. What Buddha called the stableness of DO in SN 12.20.
The brain is just the averaging macroscopic structure emerging from the quantum microscopic world, that in turn, controls through mental events (that have become, so to speak, “determined”) this microscopic undetermined quantum multitude.
In other words, what has become the determined “mind”, can move the body and all its contained undetermined quantum physical particles.
End of mind/body problem.

  1. Microscopic quantum world >> 2. Macroscopic physical world >> 3. Microscopic quantum world.

Though this does not tell us much about how the (#1) quantum phenomena - with its immaterial nature (information,) that needs matter & energy to express itself - had come to be. How we have evolved from pure information (ignorance,) to information processing material artifacts (biology), to teleologic (nomic) purposive self-replicating biological communicative information artifacts, etc.

1 Like
44

We think of time as linear - perhaps it’s not that straightforward. Another assumption we make is there has to be a beginning- maybe there isn’t. We also assume all things can be known (or figured out). Maybe somethings cannot be deducted.