Is the DO merely an explanation?

So, it is being said here death will occur in the last life when one is an arahant but, in the unknown future, there will be no death because there is no birth? This idea has two problems for me:

  1. It is speculative. There is no evidence for it. It cannnot be known what happens in the future.

  2. More importantly, the suttas state in many places that “death” (“marana”) does not occur to an arahant.

Therefore, for example, Gotama was born as Gotama from his mother’s womb but the Buddha did not experience death (marana). Therefore, with Gotama there was a birth without death. :astonished:

If we don’t know the scholars also don’t know.

How do you expect the jhanas to help us? I hope you are not saying here that psychic powers are required? Sariputta & many other arahants did not have any psychic powers. So how is jhana going to help us?

This question was not answered. [quote=“Deeele, post:21, topic:5703”]
How do you account for the following different definitions in SN 12.2 vs DN 15?
[/quote]

This question was not answered. :neutral_face:

Nama-rupa is defined as feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention, earth,wind, fire & water.

Are you saying here an arahant does not have ‘nama-rupa’?

SN 12.2 first mentions “self” at the 9th link of attachment. To quote:

And what, bhikkhus, is clinging? There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and vows, clinging to a doctrine of self. This is called clinging. SN 12.2

SN 12.12 seems to be more clear, which states a ‘self’ does not experience sense contact, feeling, craving & attachment but attachment is the cause of a ‘self’. To quote:

“Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?”

“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One.

“I do not say that ‘he has a sense-impression.’ Had I said so, then the question ‘Who has a sense-impression?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be ‘What is the condition of sense-impression?’ And to that the correct reply is: ‘The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.’”

“Who, O Lord, feels?”

“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One. “I do not say that ‘he feels.’ Had I said so, then the question ‘Who feels?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be ‘What is the condition of feeling?’ And to that the correct reply is: ‘sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.’”

“Who, O Lord, craves?”

“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One. “I do not say that ‘he craves.’ Had I said so, then the question ‘Who craves?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be ‘What is the condition of craving?’ And to that the correct reply is: ‘Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.’”

“Who, O Lord, clings?”

“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One, "I do not say that ‘he clings.’ Had I said so, then the question ‘Who clings?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be ‘What is the condition of clinging?’ And to that the correct reply is: ‘Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.’ Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

SN 12.12

SN 22.81 also seems to say the idea of ‘self’ arises after craving rather than at nama-rupa. To quote:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. SN 22.81

:seedling:

SN 22.22 seems to say the “carrier of the burden” is the “person”, which has a “name & clan”.

SN 22.22 does not seem to say nama-rupa is “the person”. To quote:

And which is the carrier of the burden? ‘The person,’ it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden. SN 12.22

:seedling:

“With the cessation of birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease.”
(SN 12.1, SN 12.12…)

That statement is from the suttas. Not from me. Could be because I simplified this statement too much in my post to save some time, so you misunderstood that this statement is from my speculation. However, I only try to categorize them into different classes (DO into premises, Cessation into theorems). That’s all what I did. None of those statements are from me. They all are from the suttas.

Our understandings are very much different and far apart, and as I have said before, we are not in the same domain, so it is hard to come up with any agreement. However, I respect your efforts in response to my posts. Moreover, I am glad that you have some interests with my understandings. Hope that you may find some things beneficial in them if any, and thanks for your thoughtful responses to my posts.

Regards.

That statement is not from the suttas. That statement is only words translated into English, which are interpreted.

The suttas are written in Pali. The statement was written in English.

How is aging-and-death related to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure and despair?

…with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. SN 12.1

Why does the translation above use the words: “aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure and despair” together?

Why does the translation above say with birth as a condition: “aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be”?

Is ‘aging-and-death’ the same as ‘sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure and despair’?

Or is ‘aging-and-death’ something different from ‘sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure and despair’?

:neutral_face:

I asked about SN 12.20, which you quoted. I asked: “How exactly does birth & death ‘fade away’ (‘virāga’)?”

Thanks :seedling:

Thank you. My efforts in responding are worthy of respect because I have paid close attention (manasikara) to your posts. However, you have not made the same effort to respond to my questions about the finer details of the teachings.

In Buddhism, it is the customary practise to question Dhamma teachers and for Dhamma teachers to answer questions put them. I am asking questions, according to Buddhist custom, however you have not answered those questions, so far.

:slightly_smiling_face:

I am not the translator. You can put your question to the translator if possible.

As I have stated before and in the posts, I am not a scholar or a teacher, and I do not know much Pali. I am a simple lay practitioner who is trying to learn and practice the Dhamma by himself. I posted these posts from James’s request because he wants to know how I understood dependent origination. These posts are just to fullfill that request. By doing this, I also hope that it may also benefit someone else, and that will be a gain for all. That’s all. I do not have any intent to teach or convince anyone that I am right or wrong, and I am not interest in any debate or arguing about this or that.

There are many great Dhamma teachers and scholars out there that you can put those questions, and they may be able to give you the correct answers. I am not a Dhamma teacher and only know couple of Pali words. That’s why I put my faith on those scholars for their interpretations, and go on with their interpretations. Therefore, I cannot answer your questions.

If you have questions about the translations, it is best to go to the translators or some good scholars.

Wish you well.

While I would not use the word “great” or “many”, there are a rare few Dhamma teachers out there you can put those questions & they are be able to give the correct answer. The suttas (AN 5.144; AN 6.96) state it is a “rare” thing in the world that there is an individual that understands the teachings.

I merely thought to question you about what you wrote & quoted.

With metta :seedling: