It would seem the Buddha picked up the term ‘nama-rupa’ so to make redundant/obsolete the unimportance of its previous meaning. Apart from that, I do not agree the Buddha referred to an already existing creation myth that included atman, ignorance, consciousness, and nama-rupa. This idea is in conflict the very idea of a ‘Sammasumbuddha’ (self-awakened Buddha). If the Buddha was stealing ideas from Brahmanism, he could not be a Buddha. Worse, to believe the Buddha stole ideas would likely render such a believer a non-Buddhist in terms of refuge
D.O. obviously refers to something very real.
Any similarities between D.O. and old Brahmanism must be due to interpretations (be they accurate or not) of reality since consciousness is the basis of human experience.
The Brahmans may have had a view that the mind phenomenologically ‘creates’ is own perceptual world via naming & that ultimately all names are ignorance (due to their subjective nature), similar to the Tao Te Ching, which states: “The name that can be named is not the eternal name”. However, such doctrines obviously were unable to end suffering.
Where as the Buddha was solely concerned with ending suffering, which was also based in how ignorance taints/affects conscious experience. The Buddha discovered it was ignorance, craving, attachment & selfing that was the problem (rather than ‘naming’).
Brahminism: ignorance > consciousness > myriad naming/labels of forms
Impossible. The 4NTs was merely an introductory teaching. D.O. is a full explanation.
D.O. is ignorance or ‘the wrong way/path’ (SN 12.3). Why should it be always connected with enlightenment? All ‘beings’ (‘satta’ SN 23.2) are spinning in samsara due to D.O.
Not exactly my point of view, but an interesting and intriguing idea worth considering. Could you provide a specific example how secular interests could shape the DO formula in a specific way (no criticism here, I am honestly intrigued ) or maybe how it evolved over time?
That DO structures occurred in a context of other religious & secular powers seems obvious. But secular effects would primarily have been funerary issues & merit movement, wheel-turning kings & wholesome politics, some Vinaya rules, and so forth.
If you go to a buddhist country and talk to abbots or vice-abbots you often hear about the pressures they are exposed to (could the monastics please comment here as well? I just repeat impressions of others). I just have to imagine the following situation:
200 years after the Buddha - monasteries, centers, and libraries are set up - in contrast to solitary forest monks they depend on stable support by lay people and rulers - monks with good diplomatic skills rise to influential positions - rulers have to balance power and heritage, and keep the peace, and thus favour certain teachings - scores of different dhamma formulations float around - the scholarly center prepares an edition of core suttas to settle arguments - the editors have to satisfy scholarly factions and the benevolence of external powers - and voila: a dhamma edition influenced by external and internal interests.
How could things like that not happen? It seems too obvious. Specifically with the DO - imagine people constantly and all the time come to the Buddha, or later monks and ask “yes, but what is it with what the rishis said about atman, consciousness and nama-rupa?” - does a teacher say “This is stupid, forget about it, let me talk to you about something that has nothing to do with your question”? of course not…
Well, basically, conditionality is covered by the second & third truths, while the first & fourth define the proper problem to address & the proper method for alleviation. So, the four truths already encompass DO, and more besides.
The Buddha didn’t invent dukkha or asceticism or philosophy or lofty states of mind in meditation. That he became an ascetic doesn’t mean he ‘stole’ it from brahmins or jainas as you say. Neither did he ‘invent’ conditionality. We know that his teachers had a teaching and that the Bodhisatta, by following it, got to the same extremely advanced - yet not fully liberated - state of mind. Why would it be impossible to assume that former advanced ascetics had insights into some form of conditionality - and that the Buddha deconstructed these for his purpose? Historically contextualizing the buddha-dhamma is not ‘debunking’ it, but a form of dhamma-investigation.
D.O. is not ‘conditionality’. As I posted previously, ‘conditionality’ is called 'idappaccayatā '. The Buddha did not discover ‘idappaccayatā’. Nor did the Buddha discover ‘suffering’/‘sorrow’.
But the Buddha discovered exactly what all suffering is, namely, ‘upadana’ (attachment). The Buddha was the very 1st to diagnose exactly what suffering is. The Buddha also discovered D.O., which is a specific type of ‘idappaccayatā’ but not idappaccayatā itself.
(‘Iddappaccayatā’ is like the ‘planets’ & discovering D.O. is like discovering a planet, say Pluto, that was previously not known to exist).
I did not say trivially that if a person does not believe the Buddha discovered D.O. it is unlikely that person can be a Buddhist, since this is the whole basis of refuge, namely, that the Buddha was self-enlightened without any help in relation to his core teachings (which does not include kamma, metta, asceticism, philosophy, jhana, etc). The Buddha’s core teachings are 4NTs, 3Cs, DO, sunnata.
With metta
Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before:…
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta SN 56.11
~~
Then, monks, this thought occurred to me ‘What being present does decay-and-death come to be? What conditions decay-and-death?’ Then, monks, as I considered this thoroughly, the insight and comprehension dawned on me: ‘Birth…ignorance.’ And so we have it like this: ‘Conditioned by ignorance are the formations, conditioned by the formations is consciousness… So there comes about the arising of this entire mass of suffering.’
At this thought, monks, there arose in me, concerning things unheard of before, vision, knowledge, understanding, light.
According to this definition I’m not a buddhist then, and according to others I am
May I suggest to outsource the topic of who is a true follower? thanks
Thanks. I personally am not on any witchhunt. I am just pointing out in a purely academic way that Buddhists chant for refuge:
namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Homage to the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened! Homage to the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened! Homage to the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened!
MN 97
To me, the most important thing is the quenching of suffering. If you believe Krishna or Jehovah whispered the 4NTs & D.O. into Gotama’s ear, that is all good if they are used to quench suffering.
All the best
Now, the Blessed One has said, “Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising.” MN 28
“He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma”. SN 22.87
I wonder how many educated western buddhists with any knowledge
of science in general, and genetics in particular, believe in reincarnation.
It was the accepted “science” of the time, along with devas, yakkhas and
the 4 elements. It might explain why so few western buddhists have spent
much time trying to analyse that aspect of Paṭicca Samuppāda.
On the level of the PRESENT MOMENT, of course, Paṭicca Samuppāda is superb.
One could perhaps
well wish reincarnation was true. It makes an effective incentive for
popular morality, and would go some way to explain the inherent
inequalities and injustices of life, though, on the other hand, it
does tend to rather weaken the imperative to get things sorted out
here and now. It certainly does in popular Buddhism in the East.
However WISHING is not enough. Pity God never thought of it (so to
speak!)
nibbana is unattainable within one human life, even the Buddha himself according to the Canon was in training for unknown number of lives until his awakening, therefore rebirth is necessary
and the view of annihilationists used to be explicitly refuted by the Buddha
I asked Ajahn Sudanto during a Q&A session if he had any thoughts on the practical application of DO, or examples of how it could be used in real-time situations, and he said something similar - “not really.”
However, I have found the causal chain to be quite helpful in illuminating the sources of clinging and craving, and helpful in identifying “becoming” and how it manifests in everyday situations. I meditate on the chain fairly frequently and try to identify events in daily life where it is evident. I think the difficulty comes - and I did read/hear a teacher say something to this effect but I’ve forgotten the source - in seeing the chain as sequential and stretching out over a detectable amount of time, when the first 6-7 steps seem to be somewhat subconscious and instantaneous.
I am grateful for the discussion and try to summarize the different outcomes:
My initial question was if the 12-DO had any practical value at all. Reasons for doubt are not new - there are many (at least five) versions of the DO, it has always been a puzzling aspect of the dhamma, and some parts resemble older indian texts.
It became clear that there are more applications than I thought:
as the most fundamental framework for conditionality, similar in rank to the four truths
showing how there is no-self, neither in the beginning, the end or in between
as a possible reference to how rebirth can take place without a soul/ atta/atman
to show a more realistic view next to the eternalist and the annihilist position regarding the (non-)existence of the world
as a topic for reflection and penetration culminating in sotapanna-ship
Over history very learned people disagreed over the DO (Buddhaghosa,Buddhadasa, Nakamura, Frauwallner, and many many more), and for me personally I don’t see an ‘original’ version or interpretation emerging out of the discussions. I wished for more practical descriptions in the suttas, or metaphors, or practices, but well, the nikayas are not a request programme. Yet, the discussion helped me to see and research the different positions. Thanks to the sangha!
As I mentioned previously, the 1st basis of refuge is the Self-Awakened-Buddha. The 2nd basis of refuge is the Dhamma of the Buddha is perfectly spoken (Svakkato Bhagavata Dhammo). I personally would not blame or censure the nikayas for a lack of personal endeavor or initiative.
the Blessed One answered him, saying: “What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me, Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back”. DN 16
@Deeele I reluctantly reply because you keep criticizing without grounds, and I wished you’d rather ask than accuse. Anyway, we surely have very different starting points: You seem to think that the Buddha spoke, his followers remembered his words verbatim for six-hundred years without any change, adjustment, memory flaws, personal interest, edition or other possible alternation, until at some point they wrote it down and it came flawlessly to us. I can’t tell you on how many levels I think this is wrong. I do believe the Buddha was an amazing teacher, I don’t believe that the canonization we have available is perfect. This is my basic assumption. I don’t want to change your mind, but please stop dogmatically accusing people for being bad buddhists because they disagree with you.
For me, it is a meditation formula. Let me start you off on my unconventional idiosyncratic personal interpretation:
1. Ignorance
There are three taints (asava: outflows): the taint of sensual desire, the taint of being and the taint of ignorance. With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints. Not knowing about suffering, not knowing about the origin of suffering, not knowing about the cessation of suffering, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering — this is called ignorance. With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance. MN 9
These ‘asava’ from/of ignorance flow out of the (subconscious) mind & condition/stir up the in & out breathing (kaya sankhara), discursive thinking (vaci sankhara) and perception & feeling (citta sankhara) in the form of the five hindrances (nirvarana), distracting thoughts (MN 20) & agitated breathing.
2. Sankhara
There are these three kinds of sankhara: the bodily (kaya) sankhara, the verbal (vaci) sankhara, the mind (citta) sankhara. With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of formations. MN 9; SN 12.2
In-&-out breaths are the bodily (kaya) sankhara. Applied & sustained thought are the verbal (vaci) sankhara. Perceptions & feelings are the mind (citta) sankhara. MN 44
The arising of these sankharas will then capture or become the pre-occupation of mind consciousness (mano vinnana).
3. Consciousness
These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness (mano-vinnana). MN 9; SN 12.2
Should consciousness, when standing, stand…supported by fabrications (as its object), landing on fabrications…it would exhibit growth, increase & proliferation. SN 22.53
The outflow of ignorant sankhara as hindrances & distracting thoughts also condition (paccaya) the mind (nama) & body (rupa).
Imagine, Brahman, a bowl of water mixed with lac, turmeric, dark green or crimson dye. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was. In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires… then he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of others, to the profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied. SN 46.55
Nama-rupa is defined as:
4. Nama-rupa
Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality. MN 9 Ñanamoli Thera
When formal meditation is practised, the 1st step is to stabilize the rupa and direct the nama & consciousness onto the kaya-sankhara (breathing):
There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. MN 118
The meditator abandons the five hindrances that are flowing out of ignorance in the form of vaci & citta sankhara.
After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore.
Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will & anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will & anger. Abandoning sloth & drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth & drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth & drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness & anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness & anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty. MN 38
After using the mental faculties (nama) in a wholesome way to abandon the five hindrances, the meditator applies the nama & consciousness to calm the kaya & citta sankhara. In the 2nd jhana, the vaci sankhara is full calmed:
[4] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in calming the kaya sankhara.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out calming the kaya sankhara.’
[8] He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in calming the citta sankhara.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out calming the citta sankhara.’
MN 118
Having attained the second jhana, thought-conception and discursive thinking are quietened. SN 36.11
When the sankhara are calmed (‘samatha’), nama directs consciousness to practise ‘vipassana’ to end ignorance & liberate the mind.
If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. SN 22.53
Whether what I have written is right or wrong is irrelevant. What it demonstrates is with using only the 1st four conditions of D.O. internally, I can create a meditation using D.O. that is integrated with the formal meditation teachings. This is because D.O. uses the same terminology as the meditation teachings.
For me D.O. is very plain. To deny D.O. as mere philosophical information, to me, is like denying the nose of my face.
Reincarnation is a term used by Hindus and Buddhism uses the term “punarbhava” meaning continuity due to accumulation of necessary conditions for a rebirth in a place conducive to those very conditions. These two terms are entirely different.
Having said that, I wonder how you would explain the diversity we observe in society where each individual is different from the other in respect of wealth, health, social status, appearance etc etc. Can science explain this.?. I do not think so. I think DO is superb not only on the level of the PRESENT MOMENT but also in how Karma functions.
Khandas as far as I understand them are derived from DO and they are not separate things.
I am not sure if the order really matters. One can even ask why Sanna is not included in DO. This type of questions will only derail us from the real problem that is Dukha.
) or maybe how it evolved over time?
