with clinging (upādāna)as condition, existence (bhava);
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.1/4.357-4.389
Also translated as grasping/becoming…
Hi friends, looks like the party is still going on in here? 
Some other suttas contradicting solipsism.
DN 5:
He understands thus: ‘This is my body, having material form, composed of the four primary elements, originating from father and mother, built up out of rice and gruel, impermanent, subject to rubbing and pressing, to dissolution and dispersion. And this is my consciousness, supported by it and bound up with it.’
“When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body having material form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not lacking any faculties.
Most excellent, O Gotama, are the words of thy mouth, most excellent! Just as if a man were to set up what has been thrown down, or were to reveal that which has been hidden away, or were to point out the right road to him who has gone astray, or were to bring a light into the darkness so that those who had eyes could see external forms—just even so has the truth been made known to me in many a figure by the venerable Gotama.
And from MN 28:
“If, friends, internally the eye is intact but no external forms come into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.
1 Like
And furthermore, from MN 28 about what internal and external means:
“What, friends, is the earth element? The earth element may be either internal or external. What is the internal earth element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to; that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to: this is called the internal earth element. Now both the internal earth element and the external earth element are simply earth element. .
What, friends, is the water element? The water element may be either internal or external. What is the internal water element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is water, watery, and clung-to; that is, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, spittle, snot, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is water, watery, and clung-to: this is called the internal water element. Now both the internal water element and the external water element are simply water element
“Now there comes a time when the external water element is disturbed. It carries away villages, towns, cities, districts, and countries. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean sink down a hundred leagues, two hundred leagues, three hundred leagues, four hundred leagues, five hundred leagues, six hundred leagues, seven hundred leagues. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean stand seven palms deep, six palms deep…two palms deep, only a palm deep. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean stand seven fathoms deep, six fathoms deep…two fathoms deep, only a fathom deep. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean stand half a fathom deep, only waist deep, only knee deep, only ankle deep. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean are not enough to wet even the joint of a finger.
“Now there comes a time when the external fire element is disturbed. It burns up villages, towns, cities, districts, and countries. It goes out due to lack of fuel only when it comes to green grass, or to a road, or to a rock, or to water, or to a fair open space. There comes a time when they seek to make a fire even with a cock’s feather or a hide-paring
In triple N’s view, only the internal world really exists. Only the perception of external form exists, not external form itself.
Certainly nothing to do with “assuming things are real” - there is quite impossible to translate it like that and B.Sujato had shown it in this topic: Upadana? Let go of clinging
And the rest of buddhist teachings strongly contradict this. It’s simply not how things go in the suttas. These are ideas completely alien to the suttas. If one is looking for a sutta to twist and something to mistranslate to make a case for solipsism, I am sure he can find something even in the bible. But if there is any kind of intelectual honesty such a thing is impossible.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here.
We have these various translations (the first being Bhikkhu Bodhi’s):
upādāna: clinging, grasping
bhava: existence, becoming
SN 12.1 states:
with upādāna as condition bhava;
You seem to be basing your objection to Nananda on the particular translation he uses:
[The Buddha said ] that existence is dependent on grasping.
Bear in mind that what you are reading is a translation by Ven Nananada from his original Sermons, which were in Sinhala. Clearly, in that passage, he is thinking of the standard relationship, that bhava is dependent on upādāna, and he would have looked up the common English translation to express that.
I think you need to separate issues of particular translation choices from what is meant, otherwise you will find yorself objecting to SN 12.1.
Here is Bhikkhu Bodhi’s comment from his SN translation:
Bhava, in MLDB, was translated “being.” In seeking an alternative, I had first experimented with “becoming,” but when the shortcomings in this choice were pointed out to me I decided to return to “existence,” used in my earlier translations. Bhava, however, is not “existence” in the sense of the most universal ontological category, that which is shared by everything from the dishes in the kitchen sink to the numbers in a mathematical equation. Existence in the latter sense is covered by the verb atthi and the abstract noun atthitā. Bhava is concrete sentient existence in one of the three realms of existence posited by Buddhist cosmology, a span of life beginning with conception and ending in death. In the formula of dependent origination it is understood to mean both (i) the active side of life that produces rebirth into a particular mode of sentient existence, in other words rebirth-producing kamma; and (ii) the mode of sentient existence that results from such activity.
So, when you see people (such as Nananada in this case) using the word “existence”, or similarly fraught terms like “reality”, don’t assume that they are talking about ontological statements.
3 Likes
But they do. That’s exactly what they do. They refer to this existence in the ontological sense not the sense of sense-sphare existence, form-sphere existence etc. And then you get “assuming” instead of clinging, grasping. And from this you are told the problem is the postmodernist process of assumption, and that things exist because they are assumed not because they really exist. Only perceptions exist not elements. The fact that elements exist is because of assuming them to be real, because of confusing perceptions for elements when there are no elements in reality. We get to radical solipsism and the idea that other beings are philosophical zombies.
This is what the existentialist interpretation is saying. It’s twisting both the clinging/grasping to mean “assuming” and then twisting sense-sphere existence, form sphere existence etc. to mean ontological existence.
And any pali scholar or course disagrees with such mistranslations and interpretations. And then the postmodernist go and claim that everybody else is an indoctrinated traditionalist, that they are misunderstood artist. That they are the ones who actually got it right and all others are simply too traditionalist to agree with their interpretation.
They claim every scholar or normal buddhist got things wrong before somebody came along and figured it out this should be combined with “the insight of western thinkers” such as Heidegger, Satre, etc. and that’s how the true meaning of Buddha teachings was re-discovered recently.
Postmodernism is known for having tried to use every field of objective science to confirm their postmodernist beliefs. They often spin discoveries in very diverse fields from quantum physics to music and try to show how these fields confirm their postmodernist beliefs. That is also what the Sokall affair was meant to satirize. So I am not surprised postmodernism has infiltrated buddhism too and is trying to make a case for Buddha teachings confirming postmodernism.
Sorry, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about now. The translations you were objecting to were mostly these used by Bhikkhu Bodhi. If you’re not interested in discussing these particular points, but just want to keep writing generalisations, I have nothing to add.
-As long as consciousness ‘works’, sounds, sights, sensations, smells etc. can be felt.
-Where there is no consciousness, there are no sounds, sights, sensations, etc.
-Therefore sounds, sights, sensations etc. are a ‘co-product’ of the conscious mind.
-Hence, they are not self-extant. We are ‘seeing’ from inside of this mind- we are not ‘out there’ in the world- the world has been (re)created inside the mind and that is where we exist (in a manner of speaking).
-oh… and there is no ‘we’. There’s only recreated sounds, sights, sensations, etc. They aren’t the real thing, hence they act as an illusion.
-‘we’ behave towards the illusion as if it were real and crave it or be averse to it, not knowing it is an illusion created in our own mind -like puppet master reacting to her own puppet.
-the dance between consciousness and name-form is likened to that of whirlpool, creating an imaginary ‘Self’.
-dissolution of the whirlpool is the dissolution of the consciousness-name and form interplay. This happens with the death of an arahanth (parinibbana) when these fade away, never to arise.
with metta
Ps- I requested ordination from Ven Nananda twice- he turned me down -I think he was too unwell and not taking any more students. Looking back, I think it was probably the right decision by Ven Nanananda!
6 Likes
-Hence, they are not self-extant. We are ‘seeing’ from inside of this mind- we are not ‘out there’ in the world- the world has been (re)created inside the mind and that is where we exist (in a manner of speaking).
-oh… and there is no ‘we’. There’s only recreated sounds, sights, sensations, etc. They aren’t the real thing, hence they act as an illusion.
Solipsism, philosophical zombies. Contradicted by SN 22:94
-dissolution of the whirlpool is the dissolution of the consciousness-name and form interplay. This happens with the death of an arahanth (parinibbana) when these fade away, never to arise.
So an arahat still has ignorance until death ? I taught there is no more ignorance left after attaining arahantship.
If ignorance ceases tomorrow at 22:45, then in the 1-life interpretation consciousness also ceases at 22:45 not a decade or 2 later.
Sorry, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about now. The translations you were objecting to were mostly these used by Bhikkhu Bodhi. If you’re not interested in discussing these particular points, but just want to keep writing generalisations, I have nothing to add.
The translation I object to is clinging/grasping meaning “assuming”, “existence” meaning ontological existence not sense-sphere existence, formless-sphere existence etc. To say nothing about “birth”, “namarupa”, “aging and death” etc.
Others more knowledgeable in pali (B.Bodhi, B.Sujato, etc.) have already shown how such translations as those used by existentialist have nothing to do with how those words are used in the suttas.
We have suttas about “and what does birth mean?” or “and what does aging and death mean?” etc. It’s not difficult to figure out what they mean if one reads more than just the DO sutta out of 10.000 pag of suta pitaka. But…
Thanks for your nice answer, it did clarify a lot of things to me! Yes, this looks much more like a position I would not oppose, even though there are certainly some suggestions of alternative translations by the Venerable and the whole 1-life theory that I find somewhat dubious. Yet, on the whole, it makes sense. Thanks a lot!
I am still having a couple of questions if you don’t mind, and I mean them as questions, not as criticism:
What is consciousness, especially if we take into account that there is no ‘pure consciousness’, the consciousness is always consciousness of something?
It sounds a lot like radical constructivism to me (cf. with the works by Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela, who was a Tibetan Buddhist by the way, Ernst von Glaserfeld, or Heinz von Foerster). Do you think these two positions are comparable and / or compatible with each other?
Erm… Could you clarify this part a little bit? Do you mean that a sensation is an illusion because it is not a real object but tries to ‘look’ like one? Because one can differentiate between phenomenon and noumenon quite well at least since Kant. And the phenomenon in and of itself is as real as it gets. I just don’t see why it is acting as an illusion (not criticism, I am actually wondering 
)
And a couple more question. Even if we accept that the phenomena are in some sense ‘illusions’, what about the noumena? Is the world out there real? Is rupa the world out there? Is there something in the rupa or the world that corresponds our phenomenal experience? Can the world (rupa?) exist without consciousness? How does rupa interact with consciousness?
Thanks again for your answer, and the very best to you and Ven. Nanananda! 
1 Like
In dependence on the eye element there arises eye-contact; the
eye element does not arise in dependence on eye-contact…. In
dependence on the mind element there arises mind-contact; the
mind element does not arise in dependence on mind-contact.
It is in this way, bhikkhus, that in dependence on the diversity of
elements there arises the diversity of contacts; that the diversity
of elements does not arise in dependence on the diversity of
contacts.”
This is a sutta especially refuting solipsism/existentialism.
Well, OK, that’s different to what you said up here:
Which was a statement perfectly consistent with SN 12.1
with upādāna as condition, bhava ;
Purely from my experience, consciousness is what arises from nama and rupa impinging on the sense bases I.e. It is causally arisen. These three then give rise to contact (phassa). It arises at that point and dies just as quickly. As it is causally arisen it is not self-extant.
There is no lasting consciousness- it’s arising and passing away is rapid so that it could be made sense of as being more like a waterfall (water drops appearing and falling away quickly so it has the appearance of a singular object from a distance), than a pond (where the water persists).
With metta
Mat
I have used the idea of a mind (and a being) as a ‘relative truth’ to convey what I wanted to say - the Buddhist truths go deeper than this. I don’t know a lot about radical constructivism, but it seems to reflect the idea that some degree of reality is constructed within the mind. Modern psychology would agree with this, as would Buddhism. However we know that Not-Self is not mentioned in radical constructivism.
With metta
I do not know if solipsism is a generally accepted world-view in the field of psychology. But even if it would one day become the general view, that would only show how people investigating the mind end up thinking all is mind-made. Just as scientist who investigate form, believe everything is made by form and are generally materialist.
consciousness is what arises from nama and rupa impinging on the sense bases
And on what do sense bases depend ? Why do sense bases arise ?
There is no lasting consciousness- it’s arising and passing away is rapid so that it could be made sense of as being more like a waterfall (water drops appearing and falling away quickly so it has the appearance of a singular object from a distance), than a pond (where the water persists).
I agree and this is the problem explained by Buddha to the fisherman son who believed it is the same consciousness transmigrating from one body to the other. I’ve tried explaining it in a drawing here: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)
Thanks for your answers!
1 Like
I’d also be interested to know how rebirth happens in the existentialist buddhist view. I know that unlike other proponents of 1-life interpretation, existentialist do believe in rebirth. I’ve asked long term existentialist in the past how do existentialist explain rebirth and they said they take it on faith and on “categorical intuition”. They said re-birth is not explained in the suttas.
Is this the official view of Nanananda ? That rebirth is not explained but just taken on faith and “categorical intuition” ?
I am using a biological model here to convey the meaning (which Kant possibly didn’t know about in the 1700’s). This model is again a relative truth, but a truth nevertheless. The eyes pick up images from the ‘external world’ and convey it to the brain where it recreates a 3 dimensional world. How accurate it is we cannot tell. It is not possible for us to sense the world without these organs functioning properly. So our experience is recreated or created (e.g.: hallucinations) inside our brains. It is not the actual external object that we can sense. Some of it’s unreality can be sensed when mindfulness and samadhi is at a high level. The sense impressions can be seen through these heightened faculties to be insubstantial (see Phena sutta). Another reason why they do not seem to be very real is that as soon as they arise they pass away (in deep vipassana) when if they were real, they should persist. The Buddha said however since phenomena do arise, the external world could not be said not to exist.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.15
The practitioner can switch between conventional and ultimate truth, without confusion when they have seen it through vipassana for themselves.
As for things which cannot be sensed (noumena) there are many in Buddhism. The range of the Buddhas, the range of the jhanas, the range of kamma are all said to be unknown.
We might add wifi to that list!
1 Like