SuttaCentral
Isn’t it clear from my A B C example?
Leaving out one of the conditions does not affect the logic.
Perhaps you are expecting DO to be a description of every step of a process. I don’t think it is intended to be so detailed.
An extreme example of abbreviation is the second noble truth. Craving is a necessary condition for suffering.
The extract from the book I read now.
There are any number of ways we can analyse our experience; there are a potentially infinite number of categories we can invent into which we can classify our experiences. What is important is that we remember the difference between category and experience, and avoid becoming lost in the category. Our tendency is to get lost in the categories, and in doing so, lose touch with experience. When we create a system of categories we freeze the process of living experience and create a solid something in which our experience must now conform. We now divide our experience into two basic divisions: those experiences which we can fit into our system of categories, and which is therefore valid, real and useful; and those experiences which we cannot fit into our system of categories. Of course, in the act of meditating, we put more attention to our valid, real and useful experiences than we do to the other type. In brief, we become stuck in attachment and aversion, and instead of investigating our experience, we revert to manipulating it. We take the practice of freedom and turn it into a prison. This is inevitably the case when we project reality into the categories of analysis - whatever system we use - and not into the actual, living, stream of experience. Hence we must treat this system with great caution. We must learn to use it, and not be used by it.
http://www.buddhanet.net/knowledg.htm
:reading:
Nice piece of logic but I doubt the Buddha would be so sloppy because there is no implicit conditionality between "permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group " and sense contact, unless that sense contact is solely internal sense contact (mano phasso).
Its like saying seeds are the cause of fruit without mentioning trees. Fruit cannot occur without a tree growing from seed. Seed itself cannot produce fruit.
I think my answer is a good answer, namely, ‘rupa’ (‘form-group’) is synonymous with ‘rūpāyatanaṃ’ & the other āyatanaṃ (following Brahmanistic theory).
If you coukd point out where it is sloppy then that might be interesting.
Of course if you read DO as describing steps in a process rather than as conditionality then that is a different interpretation.
DO does not say “A is the cause of B”. It says A is a necessary condition of B.
Seeds are a necessary condition of fruit but there are many causes.
It appears Dependent origination is a 4d matrix.
In the following video Ven Abhaya says the matrix is 111121*30=76230 permutations and combinations.
Could you give a simple explanation for those of us who niether understand the Sinhala language, nor have three hours to spend watching a video?
It start at counter 5 and going till counter 10. Very short.
He did not give the Sutta reference.
There are 11 limbs in DO.
Then each limb has connection to every other limb. eg: Avijjaya Paccaya Sankhara, Avijaya Paccaya Vinnana etc. So it becomes 1111
Then it appears there are 21 type of ignorance. So it becomes 111121
Then it has a relation to each senses 1111216
Then another five. he did not explain. 11112165=76230
Sorry I can’t help more than this however I understand it.
For example Dependent origination is to be understood with all six senses. So 11*6=66
Aren’t the Six Bases already implied by Contact? After all, Contact is the meeting of the internal base, external base and the corresponding consciousness.
It was Hume who first called attention to the lack of logical necessity in the succession of "causes and events."
Our mavens of logic, who appropriate the concept to their own aura, are certainly leading us again to a dead end, and an everlasting “beating around the issue” kind of journey.
A favorite game among some; wonder why?
The rationale is resumed here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
And now Ven Abhaya matrix logic!?!?
Holy flying cow!
Induction boiled down to the mere relation between words (information) - Hum!, why not? - At least that would be leading us to somewhere.
But would that be “necessary”? - Hum! - Maybe?
Well do you agree at least 11*6=66
Ie: Dependent origination is related to each six senses individually or collectively?
No.
DO explains the causes/conditions and does not omit any crucial causes/conditions.
Agree.
Seed needs soil,water,sunlight,firtiliser, then the tree, bees and many more to make the fruit.
However, I did not use the analogy. @mikenz66 used this analogy to infer there were causes/conditions for suffering the Buddha intentionally omitted.
Sure! - I am very “symbol minded”.
I have also this one on the eight Noble Truths. Do you see how related this is to the nine abodes of beings. And how if you always stay on the left side, the 12 nidanas appear (but for the first row)?
They (
) would not say though, what are the three rows at the top.
A bit like your venerable and his #5. Would that represent the communication “Channel” to somewhere? - The vortex door?
Maybe we could spend more time on that. There is definitely a great deal of ignorance and moha to be pulled out of that.
Possibly, since it states:
‘With contact as condition there is feeling.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no contact of any kind anywhere—that is, no eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, or mind-contact—then, in the complete absence of contact, with the cessation of contact, would feeling be discerned?”
However, DN 15 does not explain how nama-rupa results in/ is a requisite condition for say tongue contact.
In DN 15, nama-rupa seems to be:
qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body
qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the material body
If this is true, how do ‘qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description’ arise before contact?
Surely, there must be contact with the mental body & material body before qualities, traits, signs, indicators & description can occur.
DN 15 sounds like Genesis to me, where the mind is like a god naming its own creation rather than naming things that are pre-existing (sadhatu) external (bāhirāni) objects (ayatana). Therefore, in DN 15, naming seems to be occurring before contact.
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God named the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God named the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
What are eight noble truths?
The position goes back to your insistence that hetu does not equate with paccaya, ventilated at -
I’m still waiting for a satisfactory explanation to the points I raise.
Hi Sarath
Before I analyse the relevant provisions in DN 15, I’d like to bring up MN 38. This sutta is dear to me, as it gives the Buddha’s commentary on the Dependant Arising catechism in SN 12.1. It’s rather different from the analysis in SN 12.2, as that gives a word-analysis of the 12 nidānas. What MN 38 does is very different. Instead of analysing the meaning of the words for the nidānas, it is actually analysing the nature of the law governing the relationship between the nidānas.
It starts with a brief exposition of the first three Noble Truths -
Bhikkhus, do you see: ‘This has come to be’ (bhūtamidaṃ)?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Bhikkhus, do you see: ‘Its origination occurs with that as nutriment’?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Bhikkhus, do you see: ‘With the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation’?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”
Notice, that the past participle bhūta is used. It does not say “this comes to be” (bhavati). The First Noble Truth is framed in terms of a very real phenomenon/event that has happened, and not applied in an abstract fashion.
Next, comes the analysis -
So, bhikkhus, with ignorance as condition, formations come to be; with formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality; with mentality-materiality as condition, the sixfold base; with the sixfold base as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, being; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
“‘With birth as condition, ageing and death’: so it was said. Now, bhikkhus, do ageing and death have birth as condition or not, or how do you take it in this case?”
“Ageing and death have birth as condition, venerable sir. Thus we take it in this case: ‘With birth as condition, ageing and death.’”
“‘With being as condition, birth’: so it was said. Now, bhikkhus, does birth have being as condition or not, or how do you take it in this case?”
…etc etc
Notice how the Buddha first cites the short catechism of Dependant Arising from SN 12.1. Then, He proceeds to analyse it with a very specific modality -
From A, B comes to be. Does B have A as condition or not?
When you ask if B can come to be without A, in syllogistic logic that is asking “Is A a necessary condition for B to come to be?”
Are you with me so far?
If so, you can see how this is repeated in DN 15. The passage in question also starts with a recapitulation of the SN 12.1 catechism, and then proceeds to analyse the relationship of “condition-ness” -
It was said: ‘With birth as condition there is aging and death.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere—that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, and reptiles, each into their own state—if there were no birth of beings of any sort into any state, then, in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?”
“Certainly not, venerable sir.”
“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for aging and death, namely, birth.
I would like to draw your attention to the bit I have italicised. I think you will not disagree that this follows the MN 38 reasoning of using syllogistic logic to assert that birth is a necessary condition for aging and death. What makes it even more exceptional as a syllogism is how the bolded text is expressed in the Pali -
Sabbaso jātiyā asati jātinirodhā
in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth
Jātiyā is the locative case of the noun jāti. Sati is the locative case of the present participle of atthi (exists). Together as one grammatical unit, it called a locative absolute. It forms the language of Stream Entry, when which one awakens to this Dhamma -
Imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati.
Imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati.
Among its several appearances, you find jātiyā asati appearing in SN 12.49-
Atha kho, bhikkhave, sutavato ariyasāvakassa aparappaccayā ñāṇamevettha hoti: ‘imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati. Avijjāya asati saṅkhārā na honti; saṅkhāresu asati viññāṇaṃ na hoti
; viññāṇe asati nāmarūpaṃ na hoti; nāmarūpe asati saḷāyatanaṃ na hoti … pe … bhavo na hoti … jāti na hoti … jātiyā asati jarāmaraṇaṃ na hotī’ti. So evaṃ pajānāti: ‘evamayaṃ loko nirujjhatī’ti.
According to AN 3.61, this is the Third Noble Truth. Can you see that the Second Noble Truth is being “proved” by the Third Noble Truth?
What, therefore can you deduce from these?
The Second Noble Truth is not applied in the abstract, but to “what has come to be” (bhūtamidaṃ) as part of the First Noble Truth;
As such, the Second Noble Truth is not intended to predict what happens when A exists, but to explain that B must have A as a necessary condition to come to be.
Can you now see why it was unnecessary to discuss the Six Bases in DN 15?
Of course, you will find many traditional interpretations of the Second Noble Truth as an exercise in prediction, but all of these stem from the different Abhidharmas.
[quote=“Deeele, post:32, topic:4696”]
MikeNZ66: It says A is a necessary condition of B. Seeds are a necessary condition of fruit but there are many causes.
No. [/quote]
Sure, there are: Water, air, soil, sun.
There are a number of different versions in the suttas and other EBTs, presumably because the Buddha wanted to emphasise particular points to particular students.