Yes, there’s different situations and areas where DO can be broken, or even entirely averted. See the PDf I linked earlier by B. Buddhadasa where he goes over all the variations of DO.
1 Like
So when in SN12.2, where it seems to give the definition of terms for DO and there are actual beings being born and getting old, your view is that this is mundane right view, and not as it suggests in the sutta DO?
1 Like
By the time one has reached bhava, it’s already too late, mundane view has taken over, so they see beings which are born and age, hence
The old age, decrepitude, broken teeth, grey hair, wrinkly skin, diminished vitality, and failing faculties of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings.
This is a result craving, upadana and bhava. Without these things you can’t have jati (birth), aging, and death.
However if you have Supermundane right view, when contact is made, then tanha, upadana, and bhava don’t arise, neither does birth, aging and death.
Once Bhava has arisen it’s too late, suffering must follow until that turn of dependent origination has completed.
Does that make sense?
Best case scenario: ignorance doesn’t arise ever again (arahantship), second best case scenario DO is stopped at contact, third best case scenario DO is stopped before bhava.
Worst case scenario: bhava isn’t stopped and thus suffering must follow.
1 Like
it means the expansion, differentiation; it may also refer to the ‘phenomenal world’ in general, worldly.
“Whatever man conceives (vitakketi) that he differentiates (papanceti); and what he differentiates, by reason thereof ideas and considerations of differentiation (Papanca-sannn-sankha) arise in him.”
“This Dhamma is for one who delights in non-diffuseness (the unworldly, Nibbana); it is not for him who delights in worldliness (papanca).”
4 Likes
No. Not at all. But I’ll leave it there
3 Likes
Papanca as differentiation is interesting. Does this mean differentiating self from other, or is it the perception of diversity?
1 Like
perception of diversity, this is why it expands. whatever in the mind, manifested in the external world, all these worldly endeavors are the opposite direction for nibbana.
4 Likes
Could you elaborate on what perception of diversity means? Is it for example recognising the difference between two colours?
Though the suttas don’t describe DO stopping at contact, they describe a progressive cessation of the nidanas.
“With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of formations…” and so on through to the cessation of aging and death.
I think the physical descriptions of birth, aging and death in SN12.2 are a problem for some interpretations of DO.
1 Like
Not always, this is why for the third time I’m saying to check the pdf I linked that has all the different variations of dependent origination.
There’s some suttas where DO goes to craving and then reverses and ceases back to ignorances without ever passing craving.
There’s also another variation in Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta which starts in the middle at craving and ends in the beginning.
There’s another that starts at feeling and ends at death/suffering.
Bhikkhu Buddhadasa writes
The determining factor of the appropriate form used was the needs, as perceived by the Buddha, of the people listening to him.
The Visuddhimagga has a very good simile to explain why there are different forms of dependent origination. Suppose there are four
people, each wanting a creeper or climbing vine for different purposes. The first person might cut the creeper at its base and pull the whole thing away to use as he needs it. Another person may grab the tip and pull the whole thing out and away to use as he needs it. Yet another person may come along and cut the creeper in the middle and pull it out from its base. Still another will cut the middle and pull only the half from where he cut it to the tip for his needs. Cutting
creepers for various uses depends on the individual’s needs. Each may cut the creeper in a different way, but each gets the use he needs
of it. This is a simile used by Buddhagosa to explain the four different forms of paṭiccasamuppāda as described above.
yes. more generally speaking/in abstract way, it is an effort to drag/extend consciousness into this world onto some object, this is becoming of new dhamma, then the world expands. like our universe is acceleratingly expanding, is because dark energy keep pumping into our universe. this proliferation may increase attachment to the world. for nibbana purpose, we should always retract our mind from the world, always fix our mind on nibbana, this is the non-attachment (nibbidā) practice.
2 Likes
I’m familiar with Bhikkhu Buddhadada’s interpretation of DO, but don’t find it entirely convincing. It’s true that different versions of DO can be found in the suttas, but the majority follow the standard 12-link formula. See for example the suttas in SN12, which is the main treatment of DO in the suttas.
The majority of DO suttas describe a progressive cessation of all the nidanas, and that is not easy to interpret. The aggegates all appear somewhere in the nidanas, so does this mean the aggregates cease along with the nidanas? And what does this say about the Arahant’s experience? Awkward questions like this are often sidestepped, or glossed over.
There are various interpretations of DO, but they all have problems, IMO, including Buddhadasa’s interpretation.
I struggle with the idea of jati as the birth of self-view, particularly because in DO birth leads to aging and death, which are clearly described in physical, bodily terms. Also because self-view seems more like a deep-seated assumption, rather than something which is continually “reborn”, which would also mean that self-view has to continually “age” and “die”. 
At the same time, I can see that a lot of suffering is involved with the assumption of “my body”, which leads to a lot of mental anguish about aging, disease and death (as in the second arrow of the Arrow Sutta). The suffering comes from “my aging” and “my death”, but IMO these are a consequence of self-view, not a description of it.
You’re asking some questions that I’ve already answered like the one about arahants not experiencing things which I already said that that DO is about the origination of suffering not experience.
So for the sake of not going in circles, I will try to answer your underlying motivation.
My beliefs and interpretation are not entirely one monks interpretation, instead it’s something that has evolved over years of studying the dhamma. What changes my beliefs is finding caveat suttas that eliminate interpretations that contradict them.
One of the suttas that changed my interpretation is:
Well sir, I can’t even recall with features and details what I’ve undergone in this incarnation. How should I possibly recollect my many kinds of past lives with features and details, like the Buddha? For I can’t even see a mud-goblin right now. How should I possibly, with clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, see sentient beings passing away and being reborn, like the Buddha? But then the Buddha told me, ‘Nevertheless, Udāyī, leave aside the past and the future. I shall teach you the Dhamma:
“When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises. When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases.”’
- mn 79
So here the Buddha is telling people who have no psychic abilities about dependent origination. If it were the case that dependent orgination was about rebirth then every sotapanna would need to have the supernormal power of seeing beings arise and ceasing, and as we know not even all Arahants have that power.
The Buddha tells the Kalamas not to go by tradition, logic, scripture, authority, etc… and to go by seeing for themselves what is good and bad, and then goes into the 3 poisons.
So dependent origination is something that someone who has no psychic powers should be able to see, which means they don’t have jhana mastery, and it should be tied to the 3 poisons because that’s what the Buddha expects you to see without relying on tradition, authority, logic, etc…
In AN 10.92 the Buddha states that one l
of the factors of stream entry is
he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out the noble method
…
“And which is the noble method that he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out through discernment?“There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones notices: When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn’t, that isn’t. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
“In other words: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications (sutta continues with DO formula)
So how can DO be about rebirth?
- The Buddha states that sotapannas have seen the noble method (DO) for themselves
- The Buddha states you should “see” for yourself and not rely on authority
- We know a sotapanna barely has jhana mastery, let alone psychic powers, and that not even all Arahants have the psychic power of seeing beings reborn
- The Buddha tells Udayin, someone who explicitly claims he has no powers, dependent origination, so he obviously expects people like Udayin to understand and see it
- If DO was about rebirth, and if the Buddha doesn’t expect you to go by authority and instead to see for yourself, and if the average person doesn’t have psychic powers, then how is one supposed to see dependent origination for themselves?
To me DO as an interpretation of literal rebirth makes less sense than anything else.
1 Like
I’m not arguing that DO is about rebirth, and I see problems with the 3-lives model too.
I’m saying that Buddhadasa’s interpretation isn’t suported by the DO suttas. A couple of examples:
- His idea of jati as the birth of self-view isn’t supported by the physical descriptions of birth, aging and death in SN12.2.
- His interpretation isn’t consistent with the majority of DO suttas, which describe liberation as a progressive cessation of all the nidanas, not some sort of partial stopping.
I don’t know about Buddhadasa, but I said that Bhava is the birth of mundane view aka classification/convention. This not easily understood by people and I don’t think anyone understood what I was trying to say when I quoted the sutta that Stu linked, so let me elaborate:
So the physical description of aging is rotting teeth, wrinkly skin, etc… this is also a classification/convention.
An ordinary person has mundane view, which is the view of beings being the 5 aggregates, whereas Supermundane view is the view of beings being the 3 poisons. That means for an ordinary person the body = me / a being, but for an ariya the body = not me (no self).
So if one reaches bhava, at that point they’re entrenched in mundane view, they believe a body = me/being. So when they reach aging, of course they see broken teeth and wrinkly skin,. they’re already entrenched in mundane view, whereas an Arahant won’t even reach the point of bhava let alone aging, he won’t even identify with the rotting teeth, it has nothing to do with him.
You can see this in the suttas where people constantly tell Sariputta how amazing he is because he doesn’t even identify with his attainments (i.e because he has no bhava).
Sure but whatever interpretation you do hold should align with the rules I posted
- DO must be visibile to oneself without relying on authority
- DO must not be based on time
- Seeing DO doesn’t require psychic power
- DO seems to be connected to the 3 poisons, as they’re both the root cause of suffering, therefore we can assume that DO is a Supermundane view and not a mundane one.
So if you have a good interpretation, please share it
Since you posted the Buddhadasa article, I assumed you were promoting his interpretation.
Anyway, I agree that identification with the body as “me” and “mine” is a major source of suffering.
I don’t see how bhava is a view though, or the birth of a view. Bhava seems to be a process which leads to “physical” birth, aging and death.
Bhava is described as the classification of beings, that means before there is birth one needs to hold onto conventions/classifications.
Nibbana is defined as the cessation of bhava, that means classification cannot happen if one attained Nibbana.
I post articles from many sources as I adopt beliefs from many sources, doesn’t mean I’m a blind follower. As the suttas state, don’t go by authority alone.
Bhava is described as three realms of existence or becoming, and these result from clinging.
Classification of beings isn’t mentioned till the jati nidana.
2 Likes