I think it’s worth pointing out that the sutta SN 42.11 can be read as support for the multiple lifetime interpretation:
“Chief, if I were to teach you about the origin and ending of suffering in the past, saying ‘this is how it was in the past,’ you might have doubts or uncertainties about that. If I were to teach you about the origin and ending of suffering in the future, saying ‘this is how it will be in the future,’ you might have doubts or uncertainties about that.”
SN 42.11
The Buddha then goes on to give a very simple example of mental suffering over attachment to someone. So here it seems that there is a division into three times—past, present, and future—and the Buddha chooses to not teach them in detail. Notably, he does not teach the 12 links to the village chief.
The third sutta there specifically says “When …, there is the production of future renewed existence” which even Ven. Ñānavīra agreed refers to future lives.
The middle sutta is sometimes used to say that the vedanā link should not be taken as a resultant. Not to spend much time on it, but I believe that debate is just people talking past one another. The fact that beings experience feeling in general is due to having the faculty; the specific instances or content of the feelings is more particular.
Though I’m not sure this thread is meant to actually discuss the points, so forgive me if not!
Yes, and this is peculiar to the Vibhanga. I don’t know of any other Abhidharma text that draws out this type of compare and contrast of what the suttas say vs. the Abhidharma teaching. It’s as if the author of the Vibhanga was summarizing the Abhidharma of other traditions and then comparing them to his own sutta pitaka. Maybe it was one of the first Abhidhamma texts composed in Pali, and they began by summarizing texts from India. Many of the categories in Abhidharma lack explicit sutta precedence from a Theravada point of view. Sarvastivadins quote sutras to support some of them - but where those sutras came from is a mystery. The natural suspicion is that they were invented by Sarvastivadins. They claim that sutras were lost at some point early in Buddhist history and that Abhidharma preserves them.
Below are two screenshots from the Chapter on DO. I’m focusing on the justification for the momentary DO interpretation here, so that means not focusing on a lot of the other stuff. The diagrams of 3L DO were really neat though, so this isn’t a judgement upon the whole book (which I haven’t read).
So the arguments for the momentary DO interpretation seem to be:
It is implicit in the traditional life-to-life account of DO (description 2A)
but it focuses on a deeper meaning of specific Pali terms, or
it focuses on the practical significance of specific Pali terms
Moreover:
there are suttas which suggest that the momentary interpretation of DO is in line with the Buddha’s intention and the real objective of the teachings on DO
There are many suttas that provide evidence for this
SN 12.38, SN 12.43, and SN 12.44 are examples of such suttas
So like, basically something like “when you read between the lines, you can discover that the real intention and objective of the Buddha teaching DO was momentary DO” ?
That is the general vibe I’m getting here, YMMV of course.
Also, it’s worthwhile to engage with the momentary account of DO, because some people don’t think the traditional account of DO practically relevant for them. Or in other words, there is a demand among Buddhists for an account of DO that is momentary, because they feel it is more practically relevant to them.
Do you think I am giving a fair characterization of the argumentation? I might misunderstand things, I haven’t read Ven. Payutto’s writings before, so I’m not familiar with his style.
Edit: But it does look like he’s saying that the traditions were wrong, or somehow missed, the real intention and objective behind the Buddha’s teaching of DO (without explaining why or how that happened?)
This is a big claim AFAIK, and one would perhaps also require strong evidence for such a claim?
My impression after reading the DO chapter in Buddhadhamma was that Venerable Payutto sought to present the traditional and alternative interpretations fairly. I think he did a good job in that task. He may have some affinity for the alternative interpretation, given that it is so thoroughly discussed. But I didn’t get any sense of an implication that one interpretation was superior to the other or that one was right and the other was wrong.
Maybe this is a stupid question on my part, but when he writes that the momentary DO is the intention and the real objective of the Buddha’s teaching, you don’t think that is favoring the momentary one?
I’m genuinely curious here – is it just that Ven. Payutto is being less careful than usual with the language here? Is it a mistranslation from Thai perhaps?
Edit: Also, I’m not asking if Ven. Payutto is being fair. I’m asking if you think the way I am describing his arguments are fair. Since you’ve read his book and recommend it, I’m assuming you have more knowledge of his teaching style.
E.g. there could be some linguistic theory behind the ‘deeper or practical meaning’ of Pali words that I don’t know about.
It seems to me like he’s doing a more vibes-based analysis, but maybe you know something I don’t
It could be any of those possibilities. Or perhaps he meant something else. I’m not sure.
They seem fair enough to me.
To be clear, I recommended the book without having fully read it. I’m ~1200 pages through its ~2000 pages. It’s quite long. The reason I recommended it is because there have been many, many excellent teachings in what I’ve read so far and I fully expect to find more in the next 800 pages. I may write a little review in the book’s forum thread here when I finish.
Ajahn Jayasaro wrote in one of the forewords that if he could have one book on a desert island, it would be this one. I would pick a sutta collection myself, probably MN. But I would still rate this book very high in a top 10 list of non-sutta Dhamma books, and I haven’t even finished it.
Exactly, I am very glad that we agreed on this point.
But somehow we cannot agree that this is precisely the reason why sotapanna has a direct knowledge on what here and now his birth depends - namely ignorance - but without supernatural powers cannot have any direct knowledge on what his rebirth depends.
He may know that the rebirth depends on the attitude “I am” but this knowledge depends on faith, and isn’t derived from his own experience.
The realization that birth and death is not my birth and death is, in a certain sense, indeed part of a stream winner’s understanding. I even agree with that. However, the insights of stream winning go beyond that. And I also think that the original intent of Dependent Arising isn’t about this.
When the origination sequence of Dependent Arising talks about understanding birth and its causes, it means literally understanding actual birth and the causes that precede it, those of a previous life. (Note that birth (jāti) is also explained in Vinaya Kd1 as the entry of consciousness into the womb.) It doesn’t mean understanding the origin of the sense of self with respect to birth or the causes for identification with birth. That is a very indirect reading, and I think Bhikkhu Bodhi has rightly critiqued it in an essay Ven. Vaddha linked above.
Most non-rebirth, non-traditional interpretations of DA have a certain pragmatic truth to it. It is not that they are, on the practical level, completely wrong. This is exactly what makes them enticing to many people. As I noted before, I suspect it is exactly this perceived practicality which caused the introduction and proliferation of such interpretations, rather than people actually going back to the suttas.
But I think that perceived practicality is actually a problem. Because, for becoming a noble one, since that requires inquiry into rebirth, such interpretations are of no direct value, even potentially counterproductive imo.
And to the noble ones such interpretations actually lost most practical application as well. To them DO, and its cessation sequence, IS about knowledge of the past and future, about before birth and after death. Hence SN48.50 says noble ones know that samsara has no discoverable beginning. There are some similar indications in the Tipitika, like Sariputta and Moggallana after their stream entry, saying they realized they missed nibbāna for “countless eons”. But I won’t stress this point, as that is not what this discussion is about.
Either way, you don’t need the full-fledged development of the supernatural powers to see this. The standard power of past life memories in the suttas is about being able to recall “with various features and details” one’s past lives. It is also explained as being able to do this to whatever extent one likes. To realize one has existed before birth doesn’t require this full developed power. But it is still a kind of supernatural/supernormal knowledge, hence stream entry is called such as well.
It’s a bit like some people have an out of body experience during surgery. That doesn’t mean they have developed the supernatural power described in the suttas, though, because they aren’t able to reproduce that experience at will.
I think if you take the suttas overall, including those that aren’t specifically about Dependent Arising (but for example about the four truths of the Noble One), then the bigger picture will also appear that the realization of rebirth is a core aspect of right view. Hence it only makes sense that DA is also about this. So I don’t think there are “suttas that indicate dependent origination as a momentary process”. Sure, some parts of the 12-fold link are momentary (contact > feeling, for example), and they are also important to understand. But as a whole that’s not what it is about.
I feel there is no need to see this as opposites because the end of tanha in this very life is also the end of the compulsive arising of a sphere of me, mine and my self in the mind. One can see this as the end of birth as Ego, as me. There is really no problem in doing so.
And it is from this realisation of the complete end of tanha in this very life that the confirmation arises there will also be no condition for rebirth anymore. That same passion that builds or contructs states in this very life is the same as constructs new existences in next lifes. It is the same housebuilder! That is why there is confirmation of the end of rebirth the moment tanha is gone.
In fact what the Path does is making an end to compulsive constuction, and to the cessation of those formations that construct.
Because now one knows what is reliable, the unconstructed, safety, home, protection, the stable, the not-desintegrating, asankhata, Nibbana, one knows that there has always been this safety, this wealth, this stable, but one has always overlooked it.
Buddha taught dependend arising but also what is beyond all this, Nibbana, asankhata, that what is beyond PS, has no characteristic to arise, cease and change.
That what is reliabe. An island. This dimension he talked about in many suttas.
Arguments is far too strong a word here, besides, nothing but a platform for personal views …… the text that have been provided to you, when you come to realise it’s true meanings, and not any moments before, will resolve your query.
The word momentary is used because one needs to see things as they truly are… it’s merely pointing to it but don’t grasp the word. Under DO, it’s where truth is to be realised, to do so, one would need to stop time …… hence the word momentary. But in reality, it’s timeless, beyond time. You see how mundane words are kind of true and false. That’s the difference between conditioned and unconditioned. One must reach the origination to realise the 4NTs…… if one is ready that is!
There are many terms, the stilling of all formations, consciousness without surface, the ALL, unborn, even Nibbana.
What about idea that to the nobles knowledge means that dukkha - the attitude “I am” is dependently arisen on the present ignorance, and this knowledge provides them escape from two wrong views, being and not being? ( MN 11 ) Past and future “I was”, and “I will be” are totally irrelevant to the understanding of my present ignorance.
Regarding thinking about past and future, what you lebel as ariyan knowledge, unfortunately again we are in disagreement, since I suspect that ariyans would call your approach to DO as exercise in ayoniso manisikara.
But, Udāyi, let be the past, let be the future, I shall set you forth the Teaching: When there is this this is, with arising of this this arises; when there is not this this is not, with cessation of this this ceases.
Majjhima viii,9 <M.ii,32>
When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and where will it go?’
“For what reason [is this impossible]? Because, bhikkhus, the noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena.”“>
SN 12 : 20
You seem to promote idea: when there’s this, this will be. Do note that while relationship between birth and death may be seen by puthujana as cause and effect, it can be seen quite differently, namely when there is this (sankhara), this is (sankhata dhatu). Such seeing, unlike the relationship case and effect allows one to see the death as impermanent, determined and dependently arisen on present condition.
What is preferable, to know how rebirth occurs which is really unnecessary if you have sufficient faith in the Lord Buddha, or to see for yourself, here and now immortal state free from death?
I think many times the chain in the second and third truths ends with something like this:
Birth is ill, old age and decay, sickness, death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation, and despair are ill. Not to get what one desires is ill. In short, the five groups based on grasping are ill.
(AN 3.61; tr. Pali Text Society vol. I p 160)
I have trouble interpreting “in short, the five groups based on grasping are ill” as referring to any life but this one.
A favorite for me:
That which we will…, and that which we intend to do and that wherewithal we are occupied:–this becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being there, there comes to be a station of consciousness. Consciousness being stationed and growing, rebirth of renewed existance takes place in the future, and here from birth, decay, and death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, and despair come to pass. Such is the uprising of this mass of ill.
Even if we do not will, or intend to do, and yet are occupied with something, this too becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness… whence birth… takes place.
But if we neither will, nor intend to do, nor are occupied about something, there is no becoming of an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being absent, there comes to be no station of consciousness. Consciousness not being stationed and growing, no rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and herefrom birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire mass of ill.
(SN 12.38; tr. PTS vol II p 45)
My understanding is that the “activities” that follow ignorance in the more traditional formula is a reference to volitional activity of the body, of speech, and of mind. I was interested to find Sujato’s translation of “bhava” was “being”, as in " “craving to continue, to survive, to be” (What is Bhava (becoming)? - #6 by sujato). That makes sense to me with regard to the cankers, translated by Rhy David as “craving for the life of sense”, “craving for becoming”, and “craving for not-becoming” (DN 22; PTS vol. ii p 340)–“craving for becoming” is the craving to be, which makes the “craving for not-becoming” the craving for the ignorance of *being"–ignorance, of course, the first link in so many iterations of dependent origination.
Ignorance of being, of what is, giving rise to the activities, giving rise to consciousness, or as in the passage I quoted the persistence of consciousness.
I get the sense that Gauatama’s teaching changed over time. Certainly, Satipatthana and Maha Satipatthana only match Anapanasati in the first four particulars, and the Anapanasati formulation of mindfulness is the same formulation given in response to the suicide of scores of monks (in SN 54.9), a possible turning point in the teaching.
This is probably my last reply, because I think (and I think you may agree) that we are starting to go in circles a bit. Thanks for the exchange! I learned some new things.
This is true, in one sense, as I said. But in DA there is a whole list of factors between ignorance and birth. It’s not the case that ignorance leads immediately to birth. Nor is it equal to birth. Birth comes from prior existence, which comes from grasping and craving, etc.
The same with consciousness relating to namarupa, this is explained to be about rebirth, most clearly in DN15. (I think it’s clear, anyway )
I gave my thoughts on this before in this thread.
The improper attention (ayoniso manisakara) here lies in the I, and the being (in the sense of a self, as in SN5.10), not in the past or future per se.
What the noble one has seen is indeed “dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena”. But this means the arising of the factors of consciousness, existence, birth, and so on, WITHOUT the arising or existence of an I or true being.
The point of this passage being, if you ask did I exist in the past, it is wrong inquiry. But if you inquire, for instance, did consciousnesswithout a self or I exist in the past: that isn’t wrong inquiry and actually encouraged.
Look at it from this angle. Again and again the Buddha encourages past life recollection and the divine eye that sees future rebirth. As I agree, these full blown powers aren’t necessary for stream entry. But it would be strange if such inquiry into one’s past lives would in this passage be said to be ayoniso manasikara, if elsewhere it is structurally encouraged.
The point again is, if you do have recollections of past lives, the experience should be seen in light of anatta. Not as an I or being but just as the arising of the khandhas.
I think the stream winner understands the escape from birth and death in both ways I mentioned before (which we may call, literally and psychologically). You think they only understand the latter and take the former on faith. I’d say it is preferable to have true understanding of both.
There is also a passage about DA that says the wise still were born, that they still have contact and feeling etc. See my translation here. It seems this sutta can only be interpreted with ignorance and craving referring to that of the past life.
What I’m saying is, the stream winners understand all this directly, not by faith. It seems to me that is what the sutta is also saying.
This isn’t momentary. It’s about when there are no more asavas (sage at peace) there isn’t the condition for rebirth. Since there is no rebirth, one will not age and die again. The parallel backs up this interpretation.
You assume PS is a linear proces and avijja is first. I believe it is really more easy to understand PS as Wheel that is turning with passion and ignorance in its center as its driving shaft.
And if we feed the passions that wheel keeps on turning. True knowlegde makes us see that we must stop the wheel turning, because there is no end of suffering this way.
The wheel has turned in endless lifes before, turns in this life and if we do not arrive at dispassion, and keep feeding this whole system, it will keep on turning.
Also birth . Birth is for endless beings not from an egg and womb.
So PS is not really about human birth. It is about rebirth in general. One can say that some sutta’s portray how birth as humans happens. But for a deva there is no birth from a womb and namarupa does not refer to some psychofysical complex that develops in a womb, and rebirth linking does not refer to a stream of vinnana’s that connects to a fertilized egg to evolve into what we call a human.
If we only understand birth from womb do we understand rebirth?
Yes. The Theravada interpretation is the only one I have found that interprets the second step as intention. The others, like the Sarvastivadins and Dharmaguptakas, interpret samskara as past karma directly - that is, the three kinds of actions that have led to the present situation. When I discovered this, a light bulb lit up over my head, because it explains why samskara was translated to Chinese as “action” (行). It must have been a strong influence on how the word was understood in practice.
But the Sarvastivadins held that dependent origination of suffering could be understood in multiple ways, not just as referring to past life, present life, and future life. There is a sense of past, present, and future involved, but the time frame could change. It could be a past thought-moment, present thought-moment, and future thought-moment in the momentary interpretation. It doesn’t make as much sense to me, but I could see how this could be used to explain thoughts arising and passing away when observed in meditation.
Yes, with this I wholly agree, so my post here also would be probably the last. All I can say, it was a pleasure to disagree with you
I will summarise what akalika approach to DO is, not in hope to arrive at agreement with you, but perhaps make it for you easier to know with what you disagree😁
…let the past be, Kaccāna, and let the future be. Let a wise man come, one who is honest and sincere, a man of rectitude. I instruct him, I teach him the Dhamma in such a way that by practising as instructed he will soon know and see for himself: ‘Thus, indeed, there rightly comes to be liberation from the bond, that is, from the bond of ignorance.’ MN 80
Rebirth depends on ignorance. Liberation from ignorance solves the problem of rebirth.
Dependent arising offers direct knowledge when there is this (ignorance) this is (conceit “I am”).
Puthujjana doesn’t see dependent arising so he uncritically accepts the attitude “I am” and provoked by it, creates self-image of “what I am”. He is not only certain that he is, but has a more or let precise image of himself.
Seeing of the Four Noble Truths leaves the attitude “I am” intact but prevents sekha from creating self-image. In other words one who sees dependent arising is free from attavada. The main difference between him and puthujjana is not the conceit “I am” but the understanding of it.
Puthujjana is certain that “I am”, sotapanna is certain that the attitude “I am” is dependently arisen on the ignorance here and now.
In other words sotapanna sees timeless direct relationship between ignorance and the attitude “I am”.
Now, you seem to say that as long as there is the attitude ‘I am’ there is organization of the five faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. (SN 22 :47) Which of course means rebirth. But this is a direct knowledge of the Buddha, puthujjana who succeeded to see dependent arising merely replaced his certainty of being with direct knowledge that nibbana is the cessation of being now and here.
So our disagreement on the surface seems to be not very important since whether sotapanna knows directly rebirth or not, he can be the victim of it only for seven following existences. Unfortunately any interpretation which doesn’t insist on sine qua non relationship between the items of dependent arising prevents one to see it. (According to Ven Nanamoli Thera and I humbly agree with him).
You call it non-rebith interpretation. But aim of seeing dependent arising is to remove the rebirth by offering the understanding that one’s own birth is impermanent, sankhata or determined and dependently arisen on present ignorance. And only one who thinks about himself as born, can be reborn. Based on this understanding, sotapanna practices Dhamma. But how can puthujjana practice Dhamma properly if he doesn’t see that conceit “I am” is dukkha and it depends on present ignorance?
So as a matter of fact your rebirth-interpretation deserves its name since it leads to rebirth by not taking into account that dependent arising is the structure of being, has nothing common with time, and that it merely restates formula:
All sankharas are impermanent.
All sankharas are dukkha.
All things are not self.
It is so because the first item of dependent arising is always sankhara for the following item which is sankhata dhamma, and as such not-self. The aim of dependent arising is to help one abandon attavada, not to explain rebirth. Absence of attavada guarantee freedom from rebirth. It is enough to read Dr Stevenson’s work to know that there is rebirth, unfortunately however good is his research, it doesn’t help one to abandon attavada.
I don’t know with how many things in this post you disagree, but let that be. However I hope I stated things in this way so you clearly see with what you disagree, which unfortunately wasn’t the case with Bhikkhu Bodhi, who first had created his own interpretation of Nanamoli and Nanavira ideas, and than disagreed with it.*
And in shortest the main idea of dependent arising can be stated as:
To be is to be contingent: nothing, of which it can be said that ‘it is,’ can be said to be alone and independent. But being is a member of the paṭicca-samuppāda as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance.
The destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being. When ignorance is no more, then consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all; for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no more ignorance then it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in MN 22). Nanamoli Thera
Nanamoli Thera on Explanation and Rebirth
What is one trying to do in explaining rebirth? This consciously organized life is like a home garden in an endless jungle the edge of which is like death. To explain death and rebirth is like trying to explain the jungle in terms of the house and garden. Or again, the house is built of bricks and tiles made of clay, and beams made of jungle trees. Explaining rebirth is like trying to explain clay and trees in terms of the familiar made-up bricks and fashioned beams.
*Bhikkhu Bodhi:
An unbiased and complete survey of the Nikáyas, however, would reveal that the problem of dukkha to which the Buddha’ s Teaching is addressed is not primarily existential anxiety, nor even the distorted sense of self of which such anxiety may be symptomatic. The primary problem of dukkha with which the Buddha is concerned, in its most comprehensive and fundamental dimensions, is the problem of our bondage to samsara—the round of repeated birth, aging, and death.
If phrase “distorted sense of self” means something, surely it must mean attavada. But abandoning attavada is precisely what makes puthujjana ariya and is the most important task to perform if one wants to liberate oneself from samsara.
Or Ven Analayo, who’s “learned” article on Nanavira Thera contains such nonsense:
the mistaken notion of a self, held by some contemporaries of the Buddha.
So according to Ven Analayo some contemporaries of the Buddha were victims of attavadupādāna. What about others?
With metta, and see you at the next our disagreement on other subjects
I’m sorry, but there’s nothing in SA 359-361 that defines samskara as cetana. It’s only suggested if we assume those sutras are commenting on the twelve step chain of dependent origination. Also, looking at the Choong book, I can’t for the life of me figure out how he arrived at “intends to do” for 妄想, which means “false perceptions”. 思量 might well translate something parallel to the Pali verbs ceteti and pakappeti, but 量 usually means to weigh or measure, not plan or devise.
This is not to say that samskara is not defined as cetana in definitions of the five aggregates. My sources about samskara being explicitly defined as past karma in dependent origination are readings from Abhidharma commentaries in texts like the Dharmaskandha, Sariputra Abhidharma, Mahavibhasa, etc.
literally and 
psychologically). You think they only understand the latter and take the former on faith. I’d say it is preferable to have true understanding of both.