What about SN 14.14 to SN 14.22?
Agreed…
Moreover, it seems several references are turning around the pot of some of Gombrich’s conclusions and, more specifically, Joanna Jurewicz’s Playing with fire.
I have long looked for any reference to Jurewicz’s theory on Sutta Central. I’m still waiting. It would be largely appreciated if someone like Bhantes Sujato or Brahmali – or another monastic (that maybe has also been involved in studies on kamma and rebirth) – position their interpretation with the parallels Jurewicz makes between the EBTs and the Vedic cosmological stand.
Of course anyone else familiar with this comparison is also invited to give it a go.
These two Suttas, in my opinion, perfectly aligns with what I said above. SN.14 says " Bhikkus, it is by way of elements that beings come together and unite. Those of an inferior disposition come together and unite with those of an inferior disposition". Is it not “bhava paccaya jati”. ?.
And some more very interesting papers here: Joanna Jurewicz | University of Warsaw - Academia.edu
Still, we need to keep in mind the probable circumstances of that time. Texts like the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad probably didn’t appear out of nowhere. Rishis and mystics would have had their experiences, tell them, re-tell them, they would spread in different variations, and in a self-referential process the versions would settle to some main threads. The Brihadaranyaka itself is a good example as it relates different creation myths. So when Jurewicz discusses the Rigveda or the Brihadaranyaka we have to keep in mind that the texts we have today are probably not what people then had available, at hand, or memorized. There must have been many different versions of similar stories around when and if the Buddha referred to them.
Here there are nine suttas. I am not aware the doctrine of ‘elements’ (‘dhatu’) refers to ‘bhava paccaya jati’. I gain the impression the doctrine of ‘elements’ (‘dhatu’) sounds similar to the scientific idea of ‘nature’ or ‘genetics’ and “_bhava paccaya jat_i” sounds similar to the scientific idea of ‘nurture’ or ‘conditioning’, i.e., ‘Nature & Nurture’.
You may be correct. I think it is an occasion when science has agreed with what the Buddha said.
For an extensive scholarly perspective on the different versions of the DO I can highly recommend the following article. It’s a bit older and maybe there are even more learned articles, but this is great scholarly work
"Bucknell - Conditioned Arising Evolves":
https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8891/2798
This work seems seduced by the (unusual) Mahanidana Sutta (DN 15) and the Brahmanistic definition of ‘nama-rupa’ (‘naming-forms’).
In the introductory core teaching of the Four Noble Truths, suffering was traced back to craving (8th link of D.O.). Thus, starting at craving was obviously deemed by the Buddha as sufficient. In other words, the various additional descriptors in the various versions of D.O. would been intended to not alter the basic message of the 4NTs.
For the purposes of nurturing more acute sati-sampajjana (mindfulness & clear comprehension) & sense-control, I would guess the core teaching was traced back to the sense-spheres, highlighting the fact that consciousness was dependent on the sense organs (to probably avoid any departure into the idea the consciousness was an atman/soul). MN 18 is a good example, here, also MN 38. Yet Rodney seems to suggest in this 1999 work that it is safe to say sense objects are dependent upon consciousness (thus departing from the opening principles in MN 38).
Then, as practitioners analysised the causality, I would guess the mutually dependent ‘loop’ was described between consciousness & mentality-materiality (‘nama-rupa’) (e.g. SN 12.67).
Then further, the processes both underlying & tainting the six sense spheres/contacts, namely, ignorance & sankhara, was revealed. In other words, per SN 22.47; SN 22.81, etc, how ‘contact-tainted-by-ignorance’ (avijjāsamphassajena) comes to be was described. This leads to the entire 12-link standard formula.
In my opinion, there is really no contradiction between the ‘looped’ & ‘standard’ formula since their purposes are different. The ‘looped formula’ seems to describe the body-mind-consciousness biological/neurological process (rather than the generation of suffering) where as the 12-link formula describes how the body-mind-consciousness are tainted by underlying ignorance & the outflows (asava) of hindrances (nirvarana) ignorance produces (per SN 46.55, for example).
As for the term ‘external nama-rupa’ (found in SN 12.19), this is obviously not a straightforward term, yet the Rodney seems to fall back on reliance on it (as he seemed to rely on the ambiguous DN 15). SN 12.19 states: “there is this kaya and external nama-rupa”. It is possible the common translation of ‘kaya’ as ‘physical body’ here is incorrect, given the physical body (by itself, alone) cannot experience ‘external nama-rupa’ in a way to give rise to sense-contact. This problematic translation is why translators, such as Rodney, must insert the term ‘conscious body’ to make the sutta comprehensible. ‘Kaya’ here could simply refer to ‘this group/collection’, namely, ‘this group/collection of five aggregates’, which experiences ‘external mentality & materiality’. In other words, a change of the common yet altered translation (of ‘conscious body’) to ‘this group (of aggregates)’ removes the Brahmanistic interpretation (namely, ‘naming-forms’) of this verse Rodney seems to have imputed. Instead, the verse will read: “There is this group (of internal five aggregates) & external mentality-materiality: thus this dyad. Dependent on the dyad there is contact”.
My quick reading of the article gained the impression that Rodney was suggesting the standard 12-link formula is a later creation at the 3rd council, which sought to downplay the Brahmanistic ‘nama-rupa’ used by the Buddha, by the 3rd council redefining it as ‘mentality-materiality’.
I personally would have the opposite view, namely, it is the Mahanidana Sutta (DN 15) & the Brahmanistic uses of ‘nama-rupa’ (in DN 11, MN 49, etc) that were later creations (possibly under King Ashoka) for the purpose of proselytizing a Brahmanistic version of Buddhism for the conversion of Brahmans.
1 Like
A good book on Paticca-samuppada according to Pali Tipitaka.
One who understands Paṭiccasamuppāda correctly as taught by the Lord Buddha will dispel both Sassatavada and Ucchedavada, subsequently gain supramundane Samma Ditthi.
1 Like
That is correct, practically speaking any enquiry into DO is a waste of valuable time.
Seen over 3 lives or in real time, PS is, i belief, about seeing our own and others unfreedom. About how often we are blindly governed by habitual forces (sankhara’s) arising in the mind who shape our current way of thinking, speaking and acting and future experiences.
The stronger those habitual forces become, the easier they will govern us, ofcourse. So, those habitual forces cannot liberate us. PS is about a forceful development. A forceful surge. About a compulsive development. Obsessive. Unfreedom. It lacks the taste of freedom, i belief, that’s the point. Seeing your own and others slavery.
Goverened by habitual forces, like a wave governed by the wind, is also a way to talk about dukkha. Don’t you feel there is some kind of wish or drive to not be goverend by habitual forces To be no slave or a kind of machine? When you become a machine you suffer. I do. Spontaneity, vitality, sensitivity, wisdom, openess, all kind of qualities seem to get lost in this compulsive development called PS.
I have a tendency to help people and animals but i can also feel it is often somewhat compulsive. It is not really free, not ariya, noble, wise, although it is ofcourse not a bad habit.
I can feel the difference. I have often sensed that habitual behaviour, also doing habitual good, is not real quality and not accurate. For me, noble simply means that is not out of habit but pure.
Habitual is not the pure level.
When ones thoughts, speech, acts, live become to habitual, dukkha increases, i feel. Also when it is about good habits. But, at the same time, the mind has a fondness for habits. Oke, my mind. They give a sense of certainty, of security, control, predictability. That can be nice. Mind relation to habits is, i feel, one of repelling and attracting.
The use of PS is, i belief, we can see unfreedom and freedom.