OK, that certainly makes the whole metaphor work a whole lot better for dependent origination (DO)! I guess the desire of the believers for a place of worship roughly corresponds to the stages of ignorance and sankhara in DO, and the body of people and expertise who can build/maintain cathedrals might equate to birth consciousness. Presumably, the people in the area can only recall that there has been a cathedral there forever as far as anyone knows (whenever a fire or earthquakes topples one down, another has been built in its place).
Well, at least in terms of the outcome, the resulting religious framework is remarkably similar: a type of continuity from life to life, kamma, heavens & hells and a soteriological endpoint/solution are all present in spite of non-self (comparable to other Indian religious systems with an atta of the time, even if perhaps the endpoint was different).
As to whether dependent origination actually approaches the status of science-based causation, well, the later stages do certainly seem to rather accurately model human psychological processes. And it’s certainly possible the earlier steps do correspond to some kind of fundamental infrastructure of reality, like the cathedral-building infrastructure of our metaphor. However, unlike this example, the possible mechanisms of rebirth are not described and, for most anyway, have to be taken as a matter of faith. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but IMO that’s the part of dependent origination that seems more like metaphysics to me.
Furthermore, I guess there is always the inherent difficulty of proving the non-existence of something. Like the “Where’s Wally?” or “Where’s Waldo?” books, one may seek Wally here, there and everywhere without success, and eventually just give up and assume that Wally is nowhere to be found, but there’s always at least a small chance that the elusive Wally will reappear when one least expects! I suppose there’s a difference between a shrug of the shoulders, the attitude “why should I believe in this?” and a working assumption that it doesn’t, and an emphatic principle that something definitely does not exist (the later is IMO getting into more metaphysical territory, at least when dealing with fundamental principles of reality and being).
This is actually quite important for the whole topic and has not been highlighted enough! It seems like the position of @RickRepetti is something like:
But in the suttas it is exceedingly rare that jhanas are mentioned in a context with anatta. Where is this idea coming from, that in jhana one would not experience atta? Is that some teachers’ claim, or of commentarial literature? It certainly is not suttist.
But isn’t also a contemporary cognitivist attitude that whatever we hold as “I” or “self” is an emergent phenomenon (i.e. similar to DO), ultimately based on how the brain and neural networks function? Why aren’t followers of this kind of reasoning Buddhists? I think rebirth comes back here as the essential difference.
Still, is that his way of explaining, or does he describe it in line with his teaching tradition, or does it come from the suttas? If it’s not from the suttas then it’s open for anyone to make up their mind if they want to see it as an early Buddhist understanding.
IMO you have to separate between the aesthetics of religion and science. If someone said some parts of the multiverse are less pleasant because of the quantum distribution of the weak electronic force, that has the aesthetics of science but it doesn’t make it science.
Both the rapture and ‘uploading your consciousness into a computer’ are unscientific, but they differ in aesthetics. When it comes to climate change, people tend to be magical thinkers about technology. Some people think they will live forever because science will “solve aging”.
But if we go beyond the superficial, typically you’d want a causal theory with variables you can intervene on, which is what DO is.
It does, and it is a better described theory than most you will find in the psychological literature.
DO is a mechanistic description of rebirth. In causal theories, the mechanism is in how intervening on some variables changes others.
Moreover, the method of verification is described via developing the higher mind, remembering your past births, verifying kamma, etc.
Regular science is taken even more on faith, because you do not directly observe the findings of other scientists. It doesn’t help that there are ongoing replication crises in most of the soft fields, even in medicine.
Plus, in social sciences, psychology, etc. researchers are typically interested in the average treatment effect (the effect of something on many people on average). This effect is not always relevant for individuals.
Edit: Where as DO is about individuals (you, me, everyone else), so it is directly relevant
As long as there is no move away from now, no existence or illusion of such can cause a contraction on consciousness. The subject I am aware of doesn’t exist, and doesn’t move.
Any move away from now, must be a lie or as you put it, a defilement.
And when “I am” or “here” is used, it’s only to point to the threshold, it is not “it”, but it does the trick, because it lands ones mind before any thought kicks in. It’s a mind stopper, like Zen Buddhism uses koans.
I am, is a disease, and I agree with Buddha there, but I doubt Buddha would mind if one gets to know the virus before making the suitable vaccine.
It was actually just that same point that sparked me to write that post in the first place (though I also went off on some probably meandering tangents when I got going ). I could see an argument with both sides sharing a seemingly common assumption about jhana and it relationship to anatta and I found myself wondering: “are we really so sure that this assumption is actually implied by the suttas?”
EDIT: And, yes, I agree that rebirth is the tricky part, the essential difference/sticking point with comparison to such emergent theories.
Sure, it is a coherent explanation/theory (powerful at least with respect to what we can easily experience in terms of human mental processes, which perhaps suggests it might possibly be applicable to what cannot be so readily or widely experienced).
The details on rebirth are sketchy but, as you say in the following, verification is potentially available (I did say that it’s something to be taken as a matter of faith “for the most part” because I think it’s possible that there are some that don’t need faith anymore). I suppose ultimately it comes down to just that.
Though, that begs the question as to what is the breakthrough insight of the stream enterer. It’s hardly the case that this verifies rebirth (certainly not to the extent of seeing past lives, anyway, which is more the purview of the arahant)? It’s described in many different ways in the SN: insight into the three characteristics in the five aggregates or four elements or sense bases etc. or sometimes as an insight into the 4 noble truths or insight into dependent origination. None of these, per se, necessarily require direct verification/seeing of the truth of rebirth at that point (except perhaps the DO version, which prompts the question as to what exactly is meant by DO in this context). Probably no easy answer to that, anyway (am not likely to get there by logical reasoning ).
Is it not that in this case the absence of proof is the evidence of its absence? In the sense that they claim an eternal unchanging self or essence but when we base on our observation of impermanence and look we cannot find the thing that has an essence of what we may call a self.
For example a man claims that a small plant lives inside of us and hides in an organ. But when a surgeon dissects a cadaver he cannot find such a plant in any organ .He started with the kidneys then the liver until he has truly chopped up the body but he still cannot find it. Other surgeons have tried to search for the plant too but cannot find it. That doesn’t mean that since there is an absence of evidence against the plant there is no proof of its absence. It is exactly the absence of proof that proves the absence. It is precisely because the surgeons cannot find it anywhere makes the case for its nonexistence.
Of course with such stories there can be disclaimers such as burden of proof are on those who claim .etc I hope it makes sense.
there are many philosophers who argued, in different ways, that we have a self even though we can’t observe it. Kant is one.
Also, other philosophers, like Heidegger, understood the self not as something unchanging or eternal.
I mean there are also other philisophers like David Hume and Derek Parfit who has strongly argued againt such eternal unchanging kind of self Hmmm how did Kant come to the conclusion that self exists but it is a thing that is unobservable? How did he know or observe it? I am genuinely curious When I mean self I use the criteria of which self is permanent etc. as used earlier in this thread
I most highly recommend reading or listening to the following lecture, which covers some of the most profound suttas, and addresses issues such as philosophy of language and how it impacts communication, as well as Dependent Origination and relativity, all with regards to the conceptualisation of ‘Self - I am’, as well as the effects of proliferation and imaginings as a direct hindrance to realisation.
It is a brilliant and comprehensive exposition on these issues, by Ven K Nanananda as part of a series of lectures on Nibbana, and presented by Bhikkhu Analayo.
I don’t know if it’s just me . . . but I don’t see much progress is being made in this thread . . . Hopefully what I’m about to say can help some of you on the path, if not, might confuse some of you more . . .
What’s most important is for one to verify, contemplate and realize the Buddha Dhamma for themselves. Having the “right” teacher and dhamma friends is one of the most (if not the most) important things to have when learning the Buddha Dhamma. When I say “right” teacher and Dhamma friends, “right” here means the teacher or the dhamma friends must attained Magga phala, at the very least Sotapanna (stream-entry). It would be very difficult if not possible for someone to attain magga phala without hearing or reading material’s from someone that has attained magga phala.
There’s a story about a monk who knew the Tipitaka inside out and even taught the Tipitaka to other Ariya’s, including in many life times. But the Buddha admonished him because himself never attained Magga phala. So knowing or understanding a lot about the Tipitaka doesn’t necessary mean that one has understood the Buddha Dhamma, although it can help.
I do like the way you think about verifying the Buddhist teachings found within the Early Buddhist texts. It’s better to say “early Buddhist texts” as the Pali Canon Tipitaka. If one consults only the Pali Canon Tipitaka (besides other ariya’s) for the Buddha’s teachings, one would solve 50% of the problems people face when learning Buddhism . . .
Saddhu saddhu saddhu to you and others that doesn’t interpret Anatta as “no self”.
Hopefully this will clear away some confusion, if not cause more confusion . . .
The proper meaning of atta (in Buddhism) is not atman (soul). Atta can mean different things depending on the context of the verse or sentence. Just like the word “right”. Depending how the word “right” is used, it can mean different things. “Am I right?” “Turn right”, etc . . .
The current meaning of anatta given today comes from the Sanskrit word “anatman” (no soul, in Buddhism it’s no-self). But “anatta does not mean anatman” (No soul or no self). Anatta means something else. Lord Buddha admonish two monks whom asked him if they can convert the Dhamma into Sanskrit . This is exactly what has happened today and causing a lot of confusion.
Depending on the context how it’s used in the sutta’s, that’s one meaning of anatta. The other more common supramundane meaning is “no essence” (this can get very deep!). There’s a few other meanings as well, but anatta definitely does not mean “no-self”.
Anatta is one of the three characteristics of existence or this world that’s used for insight into the true characteristics of our existence or this world.
Sakkaya ditthi is the wrong view of “self” and “no-self”, “me” “I”. This is what most people take anatta as today. Sakkaya ditthi and Anatta are two different things but are related.
Because one doesn’t need jhana’s to attain Nibbana !!! As well Anatta is not the doctrine of “no self”. Sakkaya ditthi is the wrong view of “self” and "no-self, “me”, “mine”, “I”, etc . . .
Jhana’s can help one attain magga phala / Nibbana, but it’s not a requirement. One can attain Arahanthood without jhana’s. Attaining jhana’s doesn’t equate to attaining magga phala, although it can help.
My teacher can explain this process clearly.
If one wishes for clarification or a deeper explanation on some of the things I say, please feel free to ask.
For anyone that believes one needs jhana’s to attain magga phala or nibbana. . .
From one of my teacher’s exact words.
“*There is NOWHERE IN the Tipiṭaka that says one needs jhāna to attain magga phala or Nibbāna.”
For those believing or teaching others that one “needs” jhana’s to attain magga phala or Nibbana, please reconsider !! As well anyone who teaches or share’s the Buddha Dhamma, please consider this as well.
From my teacher exact words. (Not directed at anyone)
—Start
Misinterpretation of Dhamma Concepts Is an Offense
It is an offense to misinterpret *suttā (*and dhamma concepts in general.) That is in several suttā in the Bālavagga of Aṅguttara Nikāya 2.
For example, AN 2.25 is a short sutta that says: “Dveme, bhikkhave, tathāgataṃ nābbhācikkhanti. Katame dve? Yo ca neyyatthaṃ suttantaṃ neyyattho suttantoti dīpeti, yo ca nītatthaṃ suttantaṃ nītattho suttantoti dīpeti. Ime kho, bhikkhave, dve tathāgataṃ nābbhācikkhantī” ti.
Translation: “Monks, these two people slander the Tathagata. Which two? One who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be explained in detail as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. The other explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs clarification. These are two who slander the Tathāgata.”
Two perfect examples of the first type of slander say that the words anicca and anatta are fully explained by “impermanence” and “no-self.” Those two concepts require detailed explanations."
—End
It’s proper/correct for one to teach/tell others that attaining jhana’s CAN help with attaining magga phala / Nibbana. BUT it’s NOT a requirement NOR it equates to attaining magga phala.
Your getting it !! There’s further / deeper explanation for what you just mentioned.
What are these two different jhana states? As far as I know, these two yogis would only be able to teach the Buddha one jhana state and that would be Anariya jhana’s . . .
The two teachers mentioned by suaimhneas were able to attain the Anariya (not noble) arupa jhana’s (highest levels of jhanas). It was unfortunate to the Buddha that he wasn’t able to repay back the kindness of these two teachers. Before the Buddha got the chance to share the Dhamma with these two teachers, they died and were born in the arupa loka where it’s not possible to learn the Buddha Dhamma. Since they didn’t attain magga phala, it’s possible / most likely that these two teachers can end up in the apayas (undesired realms) in future rebirths. The Buddha said we all had attained the highest jhana’s uncountable times and been born in the arupa loka’s. We all also been to the lowest apaya’s. He could not discern a beginning to this rebirth process. Just look where we are now.
From Britannica:
“Atman , (Sanskrit: “self,” “breath”) one of the most basic concepts in [Hinduism], the universal self, identical with the eternal core of the personality that after death either transmigrates to a new life or attains release from the bonds of existence.”
The Buddha said there is no such thing, that’s why it’s unfortunate that the Buddha wasn’t able to share the Buddha Dhamma with the two teachers that was mentioned.
This is Sakkaya ditthi, the wrong view about “me”, “mine”, “I” or “self”
Very well said !! Gabriel
Suaimhneas or anyone, can anyone please source for me from the Tipitaka where Anatta is connected with “opening of the Dhamma eye?” Or Jhana’s are connected with Anatta?
From my own understanding of the Buddha Dhamma, ones’ “opening of the Dhamma eye experience” happens when one attain’s Sotapanna stage and it’s further developed as one makes further progress on the path. (See the first sutta Dhammacakkappavattana that was delivered to the 5 ascetics)
This is a very small part of what my teacher wrote in regards Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.
" Opening the “Dhamma Eye” to the World
A Buddha discovers the true nature (Dhamma) upon attaining the Enlightenment (the Buddhahood.) Only a Buddha can discover true nature, which remains hidden in the absence of a Buddha. That is why Buddha Dhamma is a “previously unheard Dhamma” (or “pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu” as stated in the sutta.
The Enlightenment is referred to as “cakkhuṃ udapādi” in that same verse. That cakkhu is the “vision to the true nature of this world with its 31 realms.”
However, an average human can comprehend it, once explained. But the name of the sutta becomes quite apparent when one looks at section 9. In section 9 (see the pdf), dhamma cakkhuṃ udapādi means “eye to see the Dhamma was born” for the ascetic Kondanna (āyasmato Koṇḍaññassa)."
Only a Buddha and the person who claims to have attained Magga phala can say that they have attained magga phala. Not even an Arahant can tell if the “other person” has attained Magga phala or not. Of course there’s some criteria’s that one can see if one has attained magga phala or not, but it’s not foolproof.
Jhana’s are not needed for 2), but it can definitely help and is a byproduct of one attaining higher levels of Magga phala.
Not necessary apply more to Arahants. One of the main reason why Arahants go into deep jhana’s is because they have realized how even just being alive is vexatious. There is no more Tanha or cravings for Arahants, they also have removed all defilements. They’re done with the path and after they die, they won’t be reborn anywhere in the 31 realms of existence. They had attain “Nibbana”, of course not full Nibbana until they die. As long as one is alive in this world, one has to associate with the 5 aggregates (not necessary mean with craving or attachment, but live with it until they die).
Hopefully this help.
Anicca = (One of the meanings). Inability to maintain/keep the things we like the way we like/desire them to be.
Dukkha = suffering, etc . . .
Anatta = (two of the meanings). No essence or no/not in control. (There’s other meanings as well)
The Buddha suffered from pains due to kamma vipaka (effects of kamma) from past unwholesome deeds that was done from his previous lives. He was not able to pay of some of the karmic debts that was left due to some of the unwholesome things that he had done wrong to other living beings in his previous lives. The reason why he was not able to pay off these karmic debts was because these living beings where in the hell realm. Hell realm is the only realm where living beings cannot receive merits that’s being transferred or offered. Of course one doesn’t need to pay all of ones’ karmic debt to attain Nibbana. But bad / negative kamma vipaka we experience in our lives are due to the unwholesome things we have done to other living beings in our past lives.
On the flip side, if one attained arupa jhana’s without attaining magga phala and one is born in the arupa loka, one cannot learn the Buddha Dhamma. Just like what I mentioned before about the two teachers of the Buddha.
The Buddha could’ve lived longer if he wanted to. But he choose not to so that he can show that even the Buddha is subject to universal laws or nature’s law. Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. As well he said, he’s living NOT because HE WANTS TO, but to fulfill his responsibility as a SammasamBuddha !!
It’s more correct to say “if science-based causation EVER approaches the status dependent origination”. . . Which might be never . . .
Well said Erik . . .
I don’t blame people for selling Paticca Samuppada short . . . After all, I’m pretty sure the majority of you, if not everyone here has only been exposed to the Akusala-Mula P.S.
“Yō Paṭiccasamuppādam passati,
so Dhammam passati.
Yō Dhammam passati,
so Paṭiccasamuppādam passati.”
One who sees Paṭiccasamuppāda
sees the Dhamma.
One who sees the Dhamma
sees Paṭiccasamuppāda.
Quoted . . .
" 3. The Paṭicca samuppāda(let us shorten it as PS) describes all aspects of life moment-to-moment: how we suffer the consequences of our past deeds, and how we make new causes or add more fuel.
Acariya Buddhaghosa understood only one aspect (the akusala-mūla PS) of the innumerable applications of PS, and since the time Theravada sect adopted Visuddhimagga as the basis of Dhamma, this wonderful knowledge of PS has been hidden."
Even though the underlying concept seems to be simple, Paṭicca Samuppāda can run very deep. In the “Mahānidāna Sutta (DN 15)“, the Buddha admonished Ven Ananda not to take it lightly.
These two verses encompass the critical idea in Buddha Dhamma: That mind is at the forefront. This whole world is made of the mind and has the mind as the basis for everything.
Not really . . . . The technique the Buddha uses is “divide into parts”
For example, we can say Wally is some “person”. What makes up a person in Buddha Dhamma? 5 aggregates, P.S. dhatu’s, ayatana’s, 32 parts of body, etc . . . If we use 32 parts of the body, where’s the 33rd part of the body that is the “I” “me” “self” “Wally” “Waldo”? What about if we look at this from the Akusala-Mula paticca samuppada perspective. Avija paccaya sankhara paccaya . . . etc . . . Where is the “I” “me” “self” “Wally”, “Waldo” from dependent origination? What about the 5 aggregates? I don’t know about others . . . but it’s obviously to me that I can’t find this “I” “me” “wally” or “Waldo” from the ways that we can “divide into parts”.
Another example is a bicycle. If all the parts of a bicycle are put together, we call it a bicycle. But what if all the parts are broken down. Can anyone tell me which part or parts of a bicycle is called a / the bicycle? We would say that’s the seat, that’s the handle bar, etc . . . We wouldn’t say the seat or handle is a bicycle . . .
Your getting it !! That’s why it’s not correct to say a self exist or doesn’t exist. A self exist due to causes and if these causes are removed / ceases, then what was arisen due to causes will also cease.
If I were to ask any of you “does a bicycles exist in front of you?” I’m already asking the wrong question and it’s an invalid question. If an answer of yes or no was given, either answers would be wrong because I was already asking the wrong question in the first place. A bicycle can exist in front of us if the causes allow it to. If there’s no such causes, then the bicycle “would not be existing in front of us” So it’s not correct to say that bicycle exist or doesn’t exist in front of us. In fact, the question was wrong in the first place.
It’s the same for “self” and “no-self”.
This is from my very first post that I wrote in this forum . . .
From the Anandasutta S.N. 44.10
From my current understanding / knowing / seeing of the Buddha Dhamma, to me it makes more sense to say. Sabbe dhamma anatta’ti as “All dhamma are without essence”. The word “phenomena” doesn’t do the meaning of “dhamma” justice, but it’s probably one of the better English words that can be use to define “dhamma”. “Dhamma” is such a deep subject, takes further explanation / teaching to understand the full scope of “dhamma”
In ultimate reality, there is no such thing as “me” “I” or "self. What’s important is not to fall into the two extreme views of eternalism and annihilationism. Or focus too much from the perspective of “no-self” because that would be denying what we’re experiencing or perceiving (or lying to ourselves). Obvious every single one of us is still experiencing or perceiving that there is a self. So I believe it’s more helpful to see or try to understand the Buddha Dhamma from our current perception. To see / understand / comprehend how we living beings have the wrong view about “me” “mine” “I” or “self” (Sakkaya ditthi) there’s nothing we can take as one’s own. Combine it with Anatta (no essence and other meanings)to see that this world is devoid of value or “essenceless”.
I’ll end this post with this . . .
It’s very dangerous to “blindly” believe what anyone say’s/teaches about the Buddha Dhamma including the things that I say / share. The most important thing is for one is to develop panna (wisdom) and attain Magga phala (at the very least stream-entry). So that one won’t ever stray from the noble 8 fold path or be easily misled by other teachings/teachers or what other’s say/share about the Buddha Dhamma.
At the beginning we need to put faith and trust in our teachers / others teaching us the Dhamma, but at some point, it’s no longer about faith or trust. It’s about if what we’re learning from the materials / teachers make’s sense to us or is consistent with the Buddha Dhamma based on our own current understanding / knowing/ seeing of the Buddha Dhamma. If something doesn’t make sense or is not consistent with the Buddha Dhamma that we understand it to be, then we need to revaluate our own understanding or the material’s that we’re learning from. But mostly it’s our own understanding that’s the culprit for our own confusion or misunderstandings of the Buddha Dhamma, although the material’s we learn from can also be a major cause as well.
What about I’m to say is not something that I want to point out or take delight in. But based on my own understanding of the Buddha Dhamma, I feel it’s the most compassionate thing to do. I apologize in advance if someone takes this in the wrong way or have offend anyone . . .
“When you emerge from jhana, you know that you have seen the three characteristics directly”.
Based on my own understanding / knowing / seeing of the Buddha Dhamma and depending on the persons’ clarification, what was just mentioned is the wrong understanding, inconsistent with the Buddha Dhamma and can be very dangerous
The statement that was mentioned can be “easily” explain based on the Buddha Dhamma why it’s inconsistent with the Buddha teachings. As well, there’s problems with other things mentioned in the paragraph where it came from. I didn’t want to say anything, but seeing it’s being promoted / spread and seeing people “blindly” believing it. I feel it’s the most compassionate thing for me to try point it out.
More often than not, I know that the many of us have the best of intentions when we’re discussing/sharing of the Buddha Dhamma. We all make mistakes including myself when understanding and sharing of the Buddha Dhamma.
From my own experience, teaching and sharing of the Buddha Dhamma is one of the hardest things to do. No one can explain / teach the Buddha Dhamma without errors or mistakes besides the Buddha and Arahants.
I’m grateful to and would like to thank the people who did / does their best to disseminate the Buddha Dhamma (suttacentral and many others!) based on their own understanding and abilities. Without these people, the many of us (especially English speakers) wouldn’t even have the opportunity to learn the Buddha Dhamma in the first place. Thank you.
May the blessing of the triple shine upon all of us living beings. May all the living beings see the truth in the Buddha Dhamma and attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana.
People make too much of this passage. First of all, there is only one version of it, secondly it’s in the Vinaya, thirdly it doesn’t mention Sanskrit: In Vin 2.139 the Buddha rebukes monks for transmitting his teaching in chandas - this is a high metrical form, i.e. an elitist style.
I did a detailed analysis of this once, and there is not much connection between jhana and “anti-self” in various terms. The following list looks long, but it contains even the slimmest connections. I put closer connections in bold: SN 22.76, SN 22.90, SN 28.1-9, AN 3.32, AN 3,94, AN 4.124, AN 9.36, AN 4.38, AN 4.200, AN 6.29, MN 2, MN 8, MN 28, MN 44, MN 64
Thanks for all that. Much nice stuff in your reply!
In terms of an example of the opening of the Dhamma eye with a link to anatta, I guess perhaps the following from the SN35.74 (the SN is usually a good place to go for this type of thing):
“Good, good, bhikkhu! It is good that you understand the Dhamma to have been taught by me for the sake of the fading away of lust. For the Dhamma is taught by me for the sake of the
fading away of lust.
“What do you think, bhikkhu, is the eye permanent or impermanent?” – “Impermanent, venerable sir.”… “Is the ear … the mind permanent or impermanent?” – “Impermanent, venerable sir.” – “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?” – “Suffering, venerable sir.” – “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?” – “No, venerable sir.”
“Seeing thus … He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’”
This is what the Blessed One said. Elated, that bhikkhu delighted in the Blessed One’s statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, there arose in that bhikkhu the dust-free, stainless vision of the Dhamma: “Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.”
Most examples of stream-entry happen during a talk from a Buddha or one of his disciples. However, not all do (and maybe these cases are underrepresented since perhaps such an occurrence was probably less likely to be recorded), e.g., the following example occurring in meditation from SN36.30:
Then, while staying in an empty hut, I followed the churning of the five grasping aggregates. I truly understood: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’. I comprehended the teaching; I acquired the path. When developed and cultivated as I’m living in such a way, it will bring me to such a state that I will understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’
I acquired the awakening factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles, energy, rapture, tranquility, immersion, and equanimity. When developed and cultivated as I’m living in such a way, they will bring me to such a state that I will understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’ This is the path that I acquired. When developed and cultivated as I’m living in such a way, it will bring me to such a state that I will understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”
On the need for jhana in enlightenment, it’s definitely something that is arguable with respect to stream-entry. A rather stronger case can be made that it is needed for non-return and arahantship. IMO not all jhana details in the Pali Canon are entirely consistent. I also wouldn’t say there are no suttas that explicitly describe jhana as being necessary for these. Two examples come immediately to mind. AN9.12 would tend to indicate it is needed; it describes stream-entry as completing the training in ethics, non-return as completing the training in ethics & samadhi, and arahantship as completing the training in ethics, samadhi & wisdom. It seems very likely that jhana is being referred to here. However, even if one wants to argue against that, there is still MN64 which says that at least 1st jhana is needed for ending the 5 lower fetters, i.e. non-return, and the same for ending the 5 higher fetters, i.e. arahantship. Though, as with most things jhana, one can probably find a few suttas to build an argument for the opposite case as well (overall, I don’t find such arguments convincing though; it just seems so ubiquitous for monastics in the Pali Canon).
Sure. Quite often absence of proof doesn’t mean anything. A favourite example of the neo-Atheists would be the “flying spaghetti monster”. I guess we don’t have to treat all unfalsifiable theories seriously. It seems for every aphorism there is an equal and opposite one, e.g., against “absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence” we have “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. I suppose it depends on one’s “Bayesian prior”! For most, the prior likelihood of the “flying spaghetti monster” would be very very small and require a lot of evidence to overturn! However, for most claims in the spiritual world, e.g., rebirth or souls/atta, IMO things are not so clear-cut.
Thank you Gabriel for bring this up! I’ll address this in a later post . . . Hopefully it will really open some eyes, but before that . . .
Seems like you and probably many others aren’t aware the significant of this passage . . . Which is okay . . . maybe I’ll explain the significant of this passage later on . . . .
Can you please clarify what you mean by that there’s only one version of it? Is there any problems or issues with only one version of it or it being in the vinaya?
I guess the desire of the believers for a place of worship roughly corresponds to the stages of ignorance and sankhara in DO, and the body of people and expertise who can build/maintain cathedrals might equate to birth consciousness. Presumably, the people in the area can only recall that there has been a cathedral there forever as far as anyone knows (whenever a fire or earthquakes topples one down, another has been built in its place).
). I could see an argument with both sides sharing a seemingly common assumption about jhana and it relationship to anatta and I found myself wondering: “are we really so sure that this assumption is actually implied by the suttas?”
However, for most claims in the spiritual world, e.g., rebirth or souls/atta, IMO things are not so clear-cut.