The Paticca Samuppada concept is central to re-birth. It defines the underlying process involved.
You seem to assume the Buddha borrowed not just the idea of re-birth but the Sanskrit term pratītyasamutpāda from the Veda as well.
The Veda is the Hindu Cannon. This is similar to our Tipitaka. However, re-birth or re-incarnation is not mentioned anywhere in the Vedas. See → here.
The reincarnation begins to get mentioned in the Upanishads much later. The Upanishads are their commentaries similar to the Visudhimagga. These obviously follow the Vedas. However, unlike the Visudhimagga, no one knows when the Upanishads were written or by whom.
So the Hindus adopted the concept of Paticca Samuppada and corrupted it as pratītyasamutpāda later.
Not just pratītyasamutpāda but other concepts such as Karma have been borrowed from either Buddhists or Jains. There is just no other plausible explanation.
I didn’t assume that, I used the word pratitya to show how the adjectival suffix -tya is used in Sanskrit to form adjectives and adverbs from other words and how it corresponds to Pali -cca. I didn’t talk about concepts at all, I was merely interested in the form of the word. I mean, you don’t want to dispute that Pali paṭicca corresponds to Sanskrit pratitya, but when it comes to nicca - nitya, the analogy magically stops working. Because language is not a system and works arbitrarily, I presume. Or maybe because reasons.
There are ancient Sanskrit texts parallel to the Pali recension using the words anatman and anitya, there are Gandhari texts with anatva and anica, there are Chinese texts the corresponding Chinese variants. Not a single text in these languages, long before the Europeans even heard about Buddhism - and possibly long before the Anglo-Saxons first came to Britain, let alone Sri Lanka, - had variants corresponding to ‘futile’ and ‘undesirability’ or what have you. It is always ‘not-self’ and impermanence. Always.
I mean, you said yourself: ‘My only source is Tipitaka, and the discourses of Waharaka Thero who pointed out the connections between Pali and Sinhala words.’ The science doesn’t work this way, the science doesn’t ignore all other sources apart from the word of your teacher and one single recension of a textual tradition. It doesn’t ignore the dilectal Vedic etymology of Pali words, it doesn’t ignore parallel text versions in other languages. It doesn’t ignore lexicographical evidence based on reasearch of hundreds and thousands of texts (like the meaning of sāra). It doesn’t ignore glaring grammatical inconsistences in your theory (a grammatically masculine or neutral word suddenly becomes feminine for some vague unspecified rhythmical reasons, vowels are lengthed or shortened at will, a noun becomes an adjective, etc.) without even trying to explain them with the Pali grammar or grammatically analagous Pali words. It doesn’t ignore evidence that directly contradicts your 1800-s European theory just because ‘well, I don’t know about that’: mind you, not explaning why Coemgenu’s argument is invalid, but merely stating ‘I dunno’. The science will never be able to even start considering your theory seriously before you address all these issues in a consistent and coherent manner.
[quote=“Vstakan, post:106, topic:4986”]
The science doesn’t work this way, the science doesn’t ignore all other sources apart from the word of your teacher and one single recension of a textual tradition.
[/quote]Indeed, a lot of these claims rely on “my guru told me so” as their only evidence.
I just demonstrated to you how Buddhist idea of rebirth predates Hindu reincarnation. I don’t think you can ignore it. I will point it to you again → here.
So the burden of explaining why the Brahmin did not comply with the authentic meaning of nicca falls on the Sanskrit world - not to the Buddhists or the Pali cannon.
The word nitya is found in the Rigveda, a text substantially older than any Buddhist writings and the Buddha himself. There it has the meaning ‘eternal’ among other things. It pre-dates the Buddha by at least a 1,000 years and is written in a language that is not Sanskrit, so if anyone it was the Buddha who changed the meaning of this word. You are absolutely correct in saying that the reincarnation is not a Vedic concept, but the word nityais Vedic, it means exactly the same thing as the traditional interpretation of nicca in the Buddhist exegesis (‘eternal, constant, permanent’), and the regularly derived Pali form of nitya would be nicca; just as the word pratītya is Vedic too and the regularly derived Pali form would be paṭicca. The Buddha didn’t invent these words, he took them and integrated them into the Dhamma. Saying that the authentic meaning of nicca comes from Him is like saying that when a Christian church father writes ‘Jesus is eternal’ he invents the authentic meaning of the word eternal, and it has nothing to do with the earlier Latin aeternus. The word eternal means exactly the same thing aeternus meant in the Latin language even before Jesus’ birth. What is specifically Christian is the context, in which eternal is used, the entire idea it comes up in. What is specifically Buddhist is not the particular words nicca or paṭicca, it is the context these words and words derived from them are used in, the entire concept of sabbe sankhara anicca and paticca samuppada.
In Vedic iccha and nitya are two unrelated words that are not grammatically, semantically, and etymologically related. So they are in Pali as well, iccha is not related to nicca, just as the English word owl is not related to fowl,rook is not related to crook, and rest is not related to breast.
At the same time, if Vedic iccha has the same meaning as in the Buddhist usage, it means that the Buddha didn’t invent words and their meanings, he took them from the existing language and used them in expounding the Dhamma and his new concepts yet unheard of until then. Just so, when a Christian priest says ‘do not follow your carnal desires’, he does not invent words carnal and desire or modifies their meaning. So, if Vedic nitya predicts Pali nicca by normal consonantal substitution (and it does), it is highly probable the resulting Pali word will have the same basic meaning as in Vedic, and in Vedic it means ‘eternal, constant, permanent’.
[quote=“Vstakan, post:111, topic:4986”]
it is highly probable the resulting Pali word will have the same basic meaning as in Vedic, and in Vedic it means ‘eternal, constant, permanent’.
[/quote]This is highly probable, in fact, “highly probable” is an understatement, but what is not highly probable, even more so, is that the Pāli nicca would inexplicably fuse with icca and develop its own irregular inflections that involved mutation of the initial consonant (the proposed iccanicca grammatical feature), a feature common in Gaelic and Celtic-related languages, but not in the language in question, and probably utterly unprecedented for a language in this region and time period.
The first word in this pair is actually attho as you pointed out multiple times, not atho (there is either one t or two, it cannot go both ways), the second one is actually nātho. That is the second word has a long vowel and a non-geminate plosive, the first one has a short vowel and a geminate plosive. Following this logic, the counterpart for iccha/icca should be nīcha/nīca. It doesn’t happen for some reason. Why doesn’t it happen? What other words with the Pali prefix n- can you show as examples? What is the etymology of this suffix, where did it come from, what did it mean earlier, what is its counterpart in the Vedic language?
Look at this example from English: right (correct / entitlement) - bright (clever, able to figure out the correct meaning) rest (having some nice time not working) - breast (one have nice time by laying their head on it)
So, the English language has prefix b- denoting the means, by which one achieves something: one finds out what is right by being bright, one can have some rest by laying their head on someone’s breast. I didn’t do anything you didn’t do when interpreting Pali words. An noun becomes an adjective? Check. Ignoring the established etymology? Check. Not using the related Germanic languages? Check. Not checking the translations of parallel texts in other languages? Check. Ignoring different spelling of vowels? Check. Now, do you think that my little theory about the English prefix b- is correct?
At the same time derivation from Vedic words is perfectly regular and explains all sounds changes without any difficulty. Like, at all.
So, the English language has a prefix s- ascribing to a word a negative meaning.
And the word night in the song Silent night, holy night was spelt wrong all along. It should actually be spelt knight: Silent Knight, holy Knight (an angel guarding the Sacred Infant, I assume). And in German it was Stille Knecht, heilige Knecht (nevermind the weird wrong grammar, it is rhythmically more convenient), but Knecht doesn’t mean servant but rather knight as in Modern English. How can one prove that I am wrong?
This conversation is getting rather long, and since the topic has migrated into a linguistic exploration, I’d suggest moving or having this conversation in a new thread.
Sure, I agree I would even suggest having a private conversation rather than a public one. Both @Rajitha and @Lal are welcome to PM me any time they want - or not, if they so desire Provided there is a mutual agreement between all parties concerned, other people having any interest could also join this conversation
There are many passages in the Tipiṭaka that unambiguously show nicca and anicca to mean ‘permanent’ and ‘impermanent’, and where the substitution of your (or your late guru’s) revised rendering would be quite untenable. A few examples…
At the conclusion of the Aggivacchagottasutta, Vacchagotta says to the Buddha:
“Master Gotama, suppose there were a great sāla tree not far from a village or town, and aniccatā [the noun form of anicca] wore away its branches and foliage, its bark and sapwood, so that on a later occasion, being divested of branches and foliage, divested of bark and sapwood, it became pure, consisting entirely of heartwood; so too, this discourse of Master Gotama’s is divested of branches and foliage, divested of bark and sapwood, and is pure, consisting entirely of heartwood.”
(MN. i. 488-9)
Needless to say, the leaves of a sāla tree do not fall off because they “cannot be maintained to one’s satisfaction.” They fall off because they are not permanent.
Then in the Vinaya’s seventh rule of the Acelakavagga we meet with the term nicca-pavāraṇā. A pavāraṇā is a householder’s invitation to a bhikkhu or bhikkhunī to make known his/her need of any of the four requisites. Under the terms of this rule such an invitation is held to expire after a period of four months, whereupon it becomes an offence to ask the householder for anything. There is an exception, however, in cases where the householder has stipulated that the invitation is “lifelong” (yāvajīvaṃ). In these cases the invitation remains valid so long as the householder and the monastic both live. Such an invitation (one without an expiry date) is called a “permanent invitation” (nicca-pavāraṇā).
Then in the Kulasutta the Buddha tells the village headman Asibandhakaputta:
“There are, headman, eight causes and conditions for the destruction of families. Families come to destruction on account of the king, or on account of thieves, or on account of fire, or on account of water; or they do not find what they have put away; or mismanaged undertakings fail; or there arises within a family a wastrel who squanders, dissipates, and fritters away its wealth; and impermanence (aniccatā) is the eighth.”
(SN. iv. 324-5)
The adverbial niccaṃ in the Siṅgāla Sutta:
Na divā soppasīlena, rattinuṭṭhānadassinā, Niccaṃ mattena soṇḍena, sakkā āvasituṃ gharaṃ.
One whose habit is to sleep in the day while viewing night as the time to get up, and who is permanently drunk and lecherous: by him a home cannot be maintained.”
(DN. iii. 185)
In the Abhidhamma’s Vibhaṅga, ‘death’ in the context of paṭiccasamuppāda is defined:
Herein, what is death? That which is the destruction, falling away, breaking up, disintegration, impermanence and disappearance of these or those dhammas: this is called ‘death’.
(Vibh. 145)
And on a final note, may I remark that your guru’s reinterpretation anicca would seem to have the unwished for effect of nullifying any distinction between aniccasaññā and anicchāsaññā. That these two perceptions are in fact to be viewed as distinct can be seen from the Girimānandasutta:
“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of impermanence? Here, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty hut, a bhikkhu reflects thus: ‘Form is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, perception is impermanent, volitional activities are impermanent, consciousness is impermanent.’ Thus he dwells contemplating impermanence in these five aggregates subject to clinging. This is called the perception of impermanence.
“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of wishlessness regarding all conditioned phenomena? Here, a bhikkhu is repelled, humiliated, and disgusted by all conditioned phenomena. This is called the perception of wishlessness regarding all conditioned phenomena.”
(AN. v. 109ff.)
Many other comments, especially following the above comment, above fall within this issue, directly or indirectly. Hopefully, the following answer will shine some light on this general issue. This could be a bit long, but I want to do this just once.
There is an important issue that one needs to resolve first: Is one interested in finding out what the Buddha taught? OR one is just interested in exploring all philosophical and religious doctrines?
I myself started out with the second approach. When I retired, I read on different philosophies and religions. Since I had a decent level of understating of Buddha Dhamma, I could easily see the value of it compared to all others.
But I was not fully satisfied, because some interpretations in conventional Buddhism were not consistent with the overall picture. It was only when I came across the discourses by the Waharaka Thero that I was able to finally sort things out.
Once one comprehends the real teachings of the Buddha, one can clearly see that it is not worthwhile to spend time on others. Indeed, one wants to disentangle from any “contaminations” that took place over the 2500 years since the Buddha. But I do understand that one needs to get to a certain point to see the value of the “true teachings” of the Buddha.
Another aspect that is very hard to comprehend for many, is the concept of a Buddha who “knows everything” about this world. He taught that in additions to the animal and human realms we “see and experience”, there are 29 more realms (some of you may not know that). So, his world view is much broader. Then when one takes into account rebirth anywhere in these realms, it gets very complex.
And that concept of a Buddha attaining Enlightenment over a single night and discovering all that knowledge, is very different from modern science. Science makes incremental advances. Even though Newton was a great scientist, these days a high school student may have more knowledge in physics than Newton.
But what the Buddha taught 2500 years remains far more advanced than any science today. I am a physicist by training, but I also try to keep up with other areas of science so I know how far behind science is. For example, the Buddha talked about an infinite number of planetary systems (that undergo birth and destruction). In comparison, modern science thought that the universe was Earth-centered even a few hundred years ago. Even Einstein, only a hundred years ago, thought that the universe was in steady state. But now we know that any star system in the universe will be destroyed in several billion years. For those who are interested, there is a “Dhamma and Science” section at the website and may want to at least read:
Even though Hindu Vedic teachings were there before the Buddha, it is not correct to assume that Buddha Dhamma evolved from it. This is the mistake made by those early Europeans too. Buddha Dhamma is completely different from such early concepts. A Buddha discovers the true nature of this world by himself and that ultimate truth does not change over time. That is why the desire of many (who realize the true value of the Buddha Dhamma) to find those original teachings.
As for any evidence for such a grand statement, I provided a glimpse of that in the above paragraphs. But if one studies Abhidhamma, one will realize how much the Buddha knew about our minds.
Anyway, it is up to each person to examine the evidence and come to his/her own conclusions. All I can do is to provide some material for those who are interested. But I don’t have time to do that in two places, here and at my website, basically repeating here the stuff that is already there at the website.
So, hereafter, I am going to respond only to questions that refer to the material at the website. If there are questions on a certain post at the website, please refer to the post and quote from it. This is not an attempt to get people to read my website. Buddha Dhamma is not for “selling”. It is to be pursued with respect based on one’s ability see the value of it.
I hope you all can also appreciate the fact that I do not have time to repeat the material that is already there at the website. Still I also saw the need to at least get more people exposed to the correct interpretations. Now I have provided enough material to think about. Those who don’t agree can just disregard and forget about what I said. No need to get upset about it, because that will not do any good to anyone.
Of course, for those who are interested, I can suggest which posts to read at the website, if a request is made on a certain topic. For example, the historical background that I have mostly talked about here, is discussed in the links that I have given in earlier comments.
SUMMARY
1.Buddha Dhamma did not evolve. It was discovered by the Buddha overnight, even though he went through a hard struggle.
2. If one does not yet believe that, I do not have time to steer someone there through debates in discussion forums, even though there is a lot of introductory material at the website. It is up to each person to spend the time and convince oneself that it COULD BE TRUE.
3. If one does believe that premise, then one can also see it is futile to try to find roots of Pali words in Sanskrit or any other language. One realizes that what is in the Pali Tipitaka is the pure Buddha Dhamma. Then it becomes a matter of clearing out meanings of those Pali verses.
4. The real effort should be on finding a set of inter-consistent explanations (that is how science confirms a given theory too); all suttas and Abhdhamma material in the Tipitaka must be self-consistent. That is what I try to do at my website. I do believe that everything at the website is self-consistent (even though I have much more to add) and is compatible with the Pali Tipitaka, which has remained intact through the ages. I would be happy to discuss any inconsistencies that anyone can point out.
5.By the way, I note that no one has yet contradicted what I have pointed out in previous comments with examples. I now see a new comment.[quote=“Dhammanando, post:118, topic:4986”]
There are many passages in the Tipiṭaka that unambiguously show nicca and anicca to mean ‘permanent’ and ‘impermanent’,
[/quote]
I have addressed this before. I am not saying things are not impermanent. They are. But anicca encompasses that and more. Anicca is a perception in one’s mind. Impermanence what happens to any sankata. The viparinama lakkhana of a sankata (that it changes unexpectedly) is, for example, says more than just about impermanence.
6.Finally, another important point is that when one finds true Buddha Dhamma, and follows it, one can start experiencing a “cooling down” in one’s mind that goes all the way to Nibbana.
Bhante, I was alluding to the sutta numbering / ID .
DN. iii. 185 is not automatically linked here in D&D for this numbering system is not mapped. I risk saying the right numbering should be DN31. To find it I had to refer to the third column from the left found in the link: https://suttacentral.net/dn/full
nicca grammatical feature), a feature common in Gaelic and Celtic-related languages, but not in the language in question, and probably utterly unprecedented for a language in this region and time period.
I would even suggest having a private conversation rather than a public one. Both 
