That’s because upadana is wrongly translated! 
Rebirth (punabbhava) happens because we do it. We take the next life. If we’d be totally passive at death then there’d be no rebirth.
(trying to get things back to the topic a bit)
3 Likes
No, it’s analogous to claiming that pumpkin seeds planted in New England will result in pumpkins sprouting. Where they sprout is irrelevant, but in the right conditions, sprout they will.
It’s not about the mechanism of rebirth, but the meaning. It is a hypothesis to be tested, like any other, through evidence and inference.
And anyway, even if it is, to your mind, an unsatisfying explanation, that does not mean that it magically becomes about something else. If it is a bad explanation of rebirth, let it be so.
5 Likes
Good idea to get back to your topic, Sunyo. But again, I would have to stand by the claim that these are assertions and not explanations. How does one “take” or “take up” a next life? How does what you want or crave at the moment of death affect what happens with the conception of some future human organism? Or in any other realm? After all, I may want Aishwarya Rai to feed me breakfast in bed, but that doesn’t make it happen.
1 Like
Well, what I had in mind with the pumpkin example is that the karmic seeds I have planted are supposed to yield their fruit in the life of some other being who might be very distant from me in space. Also, it seems very curious that these seeds would produce their results in the life of one specific being. After all, I have been doing kamma my whole life. If that kamma bears fruit in the lives of others, what singles out one specific being to inherit it all?
I have no problem with the idea that my kamma bears fruit in people’s lives after my death. If I engage in hostile and greedy acts, that negativity affects the lives of all of the people around me. Even if I’m a hermit, my misery can put the other animals around me in a bad and fearful mood. And many of those beings will outlive me. The good and bad effects I have on others’ lives might even impact how they raise their own children. Someone might then want to say that I have been “reborn” or “live on” as a result of these impacts I have had on beings. But I take it that the traditional doctrine of rebirth is supposed to include more than that, and that these other effects are only only figurative kinds of rebirth. The traditional doctrine, as I understand it, is that there will be some specific being who inherits all my kamma, and it is a being who is born after I die, and thus has had no direct causal interactions with me.
2 Likes
On the original topic, Sunyo, isn’t there a problem with relying on “taking up” as the sole translation in that it doesn’t capture the cases where the problem is not taking something up in the first place, but adhering to it or holding onto it after it has been taken up? For example, one might initially take up some practices and behaviors, but isn’t sīlabbatupādāna more a problem of hanging onto them as a kind of habit or crutch?
2 Likes
Dear Ven. @sunyo SN 12.52 Upadana Sutta
Just as if a great mass of fire of ten… twenty… thirty or forty cartloads of timber were burning, and into it a man would time & again throw dried grass, dried cow dung, & dried timber, so that the great mass of fire — thus nourished, thus sustained — would burn for a long, long time. In the same way, in one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena, craving develops. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering & stress. (Bh. Thanissaro’s transl).
So, how would you translate the phrase in bold: upādānīyesu dhammesu assādānupassino viharato taṇhā pavaḍḍhati
We could easily choose to render the other key terms as follows: taking up, existence, rebirth, aging etc.
Maybe: For one who keeps focusing on the gratifying aspects (however you choose to render assāda) of things that act as fuel …
And of course the reverse happens for one who focuses on the ādīnavā (drawbacks).
The same applies to ditthi, I think. “Attachment to views” says more than “taking up views”.
2 Likes
“Here, bhikkhus, one seeks delight, one welcomes, one remains holding. And what is it that one seeks delight in, what does one welcome, to what does one remain holding? One seeks delight in form, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As a consequence of this, delight arises. Delight in form is clinging. Yā rūpe nandī tadupādānaṃ. SN 22.5
I believe “clinging” has been chosen (by Bhikkhu Bodhi and Piya Tan among others) because of its affective overtone. In psychoanalysis we speak of “cathexis” whereby an object or person is being invested by emotional and mental energy and therefore experienced as a part of self (Gabriel’s “identify with” proposal for upadana would capture that).
How would you raher translate the term here?
I also found Piya Tan’s discussion of this Sutta sheds some light on the issue “this lifetime, multiple lifetimes” perspectives on the khandhas and upadana. Thank you for this opportunity to reflect and learn.
2 Likes
Maybe: For one who keeps focusing on the gratifying aspects (however you choose to render assāda) of things that act as fuel …
Something like that I think is more appropriate because the simile is about fuel.
Perhaps: things that be taken up (and then act as fuel)
My goal here is not to make the most beautiful translation but to get at the meaning of the Pali terms. I don’t think you can translate this sentence into English 100%. The double meaning of upadana which had no English equivalent is the cause of that.
1 Like
On the original topic, Sunyo, isn’t there a problem with relying on “taking up” as the sole translation in that it doesn’t capture the cases where the problem is not taking something up in the first place, but adhering to it or holding onto it after it has been taken up? For example, one might initially take up some practices and behaviors, but isn’t sīlabbatupādāna more a problem of hanging onto them as a kind of habit or crutch?
Hi
the four types of upadana are interesting, but I haven’t studied it much yet. They are not super common as far as I know. Also the list seems at first glance quite random and does not include all things people cling to. Also, the ten fetters are a similar list.
So I was thinking that maybe the case connection in the compounds is not gentive (upadana of views, for example) but causative (upadana because of views). I haven’t looked at it in enough detail to write much more about this.
Also we have to consider that psychological terms are very language dependent. Clinging to things sounds sensible in English but mostly because it is in common use.
Metta,
Sunyo
2 Likes
A puzzling thing here is that the Buddha says that questions regarding one’s present existence are itself deluded. In SN 12.20, for example: This being - where has it come from, and where will it go ?. It’s seemingly the most logical and obvious question that I can ask about myself and there is no obvious answer except biology.
However, once paticcasamuppada is seen and understood, then this question is supposed to become meaningless and one would no longer view existence in the same way as other deluded beings (billions and billions of them). Once this (what ?) happens, one is no longer a puthujana and such a person has removed some key piece of ignorance and delusion in the mind. I wish I had even an inkling of what this radical departure entails…
Moreover, even more than suffering, paticcasamuppada explains birth. And the explanation is very non-obvious, despite all the essays and books written on this subject, using lofty words like ‘key doctrinal message’ etc. Even something seemingly simple as desire becomes confusing. Can I weave a unique thread in the whole tangle of existence and consider it as the lineage of a single being that is sustained by craving ?
And yet, this is the question that torments every individual, sometimes acutely so: Why have I come to be ? The Buddha’s explanation that this question is based on the delusion of a self can be understood and consequently, the question can be discarded. But, the question Why is anything happening at all ? is also categorized as unfruitful using the simile of the poisonous arrow. And the question of the existence of a being (which I tell myself I am asking in an impersonal way) is also branded as deluded. What’s left ?
I think we have lost the meaning of paticcasamuppada altogether.
3 Likes
The problem is there is no one ‘being born’- or to put it in another way there is birth, but to give it selfhood is to go beyond what the five aggregates can do.
Craving ‘transmits’ information. This results in a domino string of factors arising and passing away, but causally linked, passing and altering information all along the way about the object and the setting in which it existed in the past. Craving for a sensual object results in a birth in a sensual realm.
‘Did I exist’. The answer requires a response in terms of an ‘I’ - either in terms of past existence or non-existence. This question cannot elicit an answer where an ‘I’ doesn’t play a leading role- hence leading to delusion. It is valid to ask ‘how did suffering come to be?’. The Buddha said this should be contemplated (yonisomanasikara) in terms of the paticcasamuppada, before it is seen for oneself in Vipassana.
With metta
Matheesha
3 Likes
I see this nanavarian 1-life interpretation come up so often nowdays. The way to show it is wrong is not through translation, otherwise people would abandon it because of the “javi” or “aging and death” or the “nama” from namarupa. There are many problems of the modern 1-life interpretation but most powerful are:
-
This means the arahant 5 aggregates vanish at the moment of achieving arahanthip. If DO happens in a single moment, if it is structural not termporal, then all the links disappear in the very moment when ignorance disappears. If a person achieves arahantship at 22:45 tomorrow, then at 22:45 volitional formations disappear, then consciousness+name&form, then contact disappears, then the 3 other aggregates that depend on contact (feeling, perception, volition) disappear too at 22:45. This means the arahant vanishes into thin air at 22:45.
-
The other obvious problem is solipsism. Been based on Heidegger and other postmodernist, this leads to solipsism. For those who do not know what they are dealing with: nanavira/nanamoli/nanananda are simply postmodernism with DO added. I have been into this kind of interpretation in the past before starting reading the suta pitaka and the problem I always found a little strange was solipsism. The fact that your family are philosophical zombies is certainly not in line with Budha teachings. (I’m from a country where postmodernism does not exist so I did not even know what postmodernism is at the time)
-
Been postmodernist, they claim things don’t really exist. This is refuted by SN 22.94. Other suttas to bring up are SN 14.7 , SN 24.1 , AN 6.41, DN 6, MN 28 They claim perceptions do not require elements to exist. They claim only perceptions exist and that the “putijhana” is deluded into thinking elements exist through the process of assumption when in reality only perceptions exist. And when you stop believing elements exist then you become a sotapanna.
So when debating the 1-life interpretation just bring these first 2 problems up. They are the 2 unanswerable questions by the 1-lifers. I’ve had a topic critical of nanavira on another forum and in many pages, nobody was able to answer these 2 questions. I did not lose time with monstruous mistranslations of Nanavira since that is not how you convince people. I have been into this in the past for 6 months and know how it should be refuted. For a proper refutal check B.Bodhi “a critical note on nanavira 1-life theory”. The reason people find it so hard to leave it is because they tell you that you become a sotapanna when you become a simple postmodernist. So there is very strong mental conditioning to go with the their intepretation. Also, unlike in continental europe, in the englishworld postmodernism somehow got to be the main view in society and especially in collages. When buddhism is introduced into a new space people try to make it fit with their already established beliefs. And that’s who we got to secular buddhism and postmodernist buddhism.
2 Likes
I don’t understand this. What ‘information’ is transmitted ? paticcasamuppada explains the conditional arising and cessation of phenomena - I don’t see where it suggests that parcels of information are passed along using a string of factors…
That the notion of ‘I’ is a delusion can become somewhat clear when reflecting and pondering, although it doesn’t go away . But, the Buddha does give a cryptic explanation of ‘a being’ in SN 23.2 and says that ‘if there is craving for the khandhas, one is said to be a being’.
2 Likes
SuttaExpert, it seems to me your account runs a number of distinguishable issues together. No doubt there are many different interpretations of paticcasamuppada that would qualify as “one-life” interpretations, but what many of the most prominent have in common is that they interpret the nidānas as phases in some kind of process of ego construction or identity formation, a process which in turn is responsible for our misery. So there is no reason to think that the Arahant “vanishes into thin air” when these processes of ego construction come to an end. Rather, the Arahant has been psychologically transformed, and all that comes to an end are the deep psychological conditions of of misery-production: i.e. unwholesome volitions, attachments and grief, longing and lust, the other defilements, etc. Since paticcasamuppada has been interpreted as a process of psychological construction, not the actual physical construction of a person’s body, there is no reason to think that either the Arahant’s body or purified mental states come to an end.
I really don’t see what this has to do with Heidegger or postmodernism. Surely there are other general philosophical frameworks which are just as good, or better, foundations for understanding the various one-life interpretations. In any case, even if there is a best philosophy or metaphysical framework for interpreting the Buddha’s path, there is no reason to think any level of spiritual attainment depends simply on intellectually adopting some philosophical framework - for example, “becoming a postmodernist”. Spiritual attainments depend on the long, disciplined practice of moral and mental culture bringing about profound changes in how one perceives and experiences the world, engages in it, and is psychologically embedded in it. These changes can’t occur simply because one comes to know certain things about the world, or has a certain kind of theory of the world.
Also, it seems to me that none of the later metaphysical theories about such things as whether the world should be seen as either “mind-only”, or a magic show of phenomena totally lacking in “own-nature”, or a stream of independent “mind-moments”, etc. are fundamental in any way to the practice of the Buddhist path, whether it is seen in one-life or many-life terms. The path is about releasing one’s attachments to phenomena that, however they are conceived, are clearly impermanent, and so an unreliable basis for enduring happiness. Clogging up the practice of liberation with a lot of unnecessary philosophizing seems misguided to me. Part of the goal is to see things the way they are. That’s very different from simply knowing about the way things are.
Also, I don’t think it is fair to see all one-life interpretations of both the path and paticcasamuppada as tantamount to Stephen Bathelor’s “secular Buddhism”, which has a very worldly, anti-religious and practical psychotherapeutic flavor. One-life Buddhism can still extol nibbana as the highest aim for human beings, and understand nibbana as lying in a direction that requires a spirit of renunciation and moving against the grain of worldly life and its concerns. It can value the rituals and forms of life of Buddhist religious and devotional practice, and venerate those who have made the supreme commitment to go forth and lead the holy life. Even if we only have one-life within which to attain nibbana, that doesn’t eliminate the value that attaches to it, or to the non-worldly, anti-secular orientation that sees the total liberation from worldly concerns, attachments and ends, and not the gratification of those ends, as the highest goal.
5 Likes
Hi Sujith
If we consider what portion of the paticcasamuppada (DO) that can be sensed now (to see how it works) we could use sense bases-contact-feeling-craving bit. Now this is a basic arrangement and if we are to see a real live example of it it would look like the eye- (light from the object of a flower falls falls on sense base)-eye contact (sees flower), feeling (pleasant feeling on seeing a flower), craving (desiring a beautiful looking flower). This shows how while each step lasts only a moment, just to give way to the next step, there is a flow of information (an amplification really) of the basic image of a flower.
With metta
Matheesha
1 Like
-
No, pattica is not about the construction of a self. And neither is it about construction of airplanes or helichopters. The 5 aggregates that make up a being are included in pattica (form, consciousness etc.) If you claim it is a process that is structural not temporal, that means that when 1 single chain of the 12 links is broken down, then all of it falls apart in that very moment. (remember it is structural not temporal in the 1 life interpretation). That means consciousness, form, volition etc. all vanish into thin air when ignorance is removed. This is the most obvious problem of the 1 life interpretation. Do arahants lose consciousness or vanish into thin air in the suttas ?
-
You don’t see what is has to do with Heidegger, Satre, etc. ? Nanavira&nanamoli themselves claim “this is an existentialist approach to buddhism” and claim they have rediscovered the true meaning of buddhist teachings by combining them with the insight they had because of studying Heidegger and other postmodernist in collage. That is why you will see Heidegger, Hussler, Satre etc. quoted much more times than the suttas in their book. About Nanananda, he does not quote postmodernist in his book but simply has the same understanding.
-
You think none of the theories about how a being or this world work have anything to do with liberation and only “practice” is important ? Then I remind you we are speaking here about Theravada not about Zen. Therevada follows the teachings of the historical Buddha. In the teachings of the historical Buddha, right view “is the forerunner of them all”. From wrong view comes wrong practice. One who lacks right view will not practice well no matter how much effort he puts in. Also, all who ever achieved steam entry in the suttas did so after contemplating higher teachings. There was even a serial killed who achieved stream entry through contemplating higher teachings and understanding them. One who lacks right view can not progress too much on the buddhist path. There is not a single mention in the suttas about something like “he went into the forest, started meditating and achieved steam entry”. Also, Mahashi or Zen meditation techniques are not based on the suttas. The meditation used in the sutta is Anapanasanti witch has 16 steps.
-
I do not consider them secular buddhism, I consider them postmodernist buddhism. Their official explanation of rebirth is taken on faith. Yes, this is the official explanation - “we take that based on faith”. It’s just like buddhadasa only with faith in rebirth put in it. And also, what does postmodernist mean ? Postmodernism = nothing really exists, solipsism, anti-logic and pro-intuition etc. Buddha simply disagreed with all these postmodernist ideas, with all of them. I have no problem with people been postmodernist, my problem is with people claiming that Buddha was a postmodernist. Just like secular buddhism claim Buddha was a materialist. It is simply not so.
I’ve noticed this is actually in the tanslation section. It would be good if this could be split into another topic called “Criticism of existentialist buddhism” in general discussion section or maybe I should start a new topic not to delay the translation debate
2 Likes
You are just reasserting the interpretation you gave before, which seems to hinge on reading both rupa as the actual material constituents of living bodies, and namarupa as something like a mind-body complex. That is one way of interpreting these terms, but not the only way.
I have never read the Nanavira and Ñanamoli book you are speaking of, but have read some of Ñanananda’s work in translation. I have also read many other scholarly articles and books of various kinds in which the interpretation of paticcasamuppada is discussed. There seem to be very, very many interpretations. Whether Nanavira and Ñanamoli relied on mid-20th century phenomenology and existentialism to develop their own personal view of paticcasamuppada isn’t that important when considered in light of the many possible readings that are out there. The same applies to postmodernism, and any possible uses relatively recent scholars might have made of it. I myself am not a postmodernist, and never had much sympathy with it. It is a mistake, I think, to try to lump all of the various possible one-life and/or psychological readings of paticcasamuppada into that one category.[quote=“SuttaExpert, post:56, topic:4158”]
Therevada follows the teachings of the historical Buddha. In the teachings of the historical Buddha, right view “is the forerunner of them all”.
[/quote]
There are texts in the canon that seem to elevate right view to a very high status, but others that do not - and that even denigrate the cultivation of views altogether. My personal view of the best way to harmonize this conflict is to assume: (i) the Buddha was a wandering renunciant who sought liberation and release from suffering, and achieved this through spiritual practice; (ii) afterward, he began to teach, which required some minimal instruction to learners on views conducive to progress on the path; (iii) there are some differences between the Buddha’s teachings about the path at earlier points in his teaching career, soon after his attainment of the goal, and at later points; and (iv) the texts we have include a lot of back-projection onto the Buddha of the preoccupations of wrangling scholars and philosophers of later generations, and are the products of the incessant verbal disagreements and battles with Jains, Brahmins, Ajivikkas and other Buddhists about “doctrine”.
I agree that one needs, to some extent, the right outlook on life and the goal of spiritual practice in order to practice well, but I think the needed content is very minimal. It mainly consists in avoiding various grossly wrong conceptions of the goal. Otherwise the practice is based on the ability to cultivate calm, absorption, careful attention and the skill of letting go that comes mainly from coming to understand the causes of suffering by observing them at work in the cauldron of one’s own mind. The various lists and discussions of systematized doctrine in the texts are provisionally useful considerations for interpreting one’s evolving experiences, as one advances into territory where books and doctrine ultimately can’t help, but they are not something to be held onto.
3 Likes
-
Ok, you solved form. Now how do you solve consciousness ? Does a person lose consciousness when attaining arahanthip ? Were Buddha, Sariputta, Kasappa etc. unconscious ? Also keep in mind that losing consciousness means also losing feeling, perception volition because they depend on contact. If ignorance disappears at 22:45, consciousness also disappears at 22:45
-
No, all sutta praise right view. The sutta you are speaking about blame attachment to views. There can exist attachment to right view just like there can exist attachment to wrong view. This does not mean right view is the same as wrong view. Right view is the nr1 step of the noble 8thfold path and considered the most important because it is from right view that everything else comes from. If there is wrong view, then there is wrong action… wrong minfulness, wrong concentration etc.
-
About Nanananda been a postmodernist:
The world appears as real to one who is fettered to delusion. He imagines it to be reliable. And so the fool, relying on his assets, is encompassed by the darkness. To him the world appears as eternal. But the one who has the right vision, knows that in reality there is nothing.
http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana05.htm#_ednref32
If you would die tomorrow, would your family, your city etc continue to exist ? Yes/No/Confused ?
1 Like
Yes, that’s a plausible way of attempting to harmonize the texts. But it involves some strain. Here are three translations of Atthakavagga 4.5. They differ slightly, but it is hard to avoid accepting that they all instruct the bhikkhu to relinquish views altother, rather than to hold correct views in some kind of unattached manner.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.05.irel.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.05.than.html
1 Like
How about question nr 1 and 3 ?
- Does a person lose consciousness when attaining arahantship ? If a person attains arahantship at 22:45, does consciousness also disappear at 22:45 or at a later date ?
- If you die, will your family, your city etc continue to exist ?
1 Like