[Breeriacoirl]

From Ajahn Sucitto's "Kamma and the End of Kamma", page iv:

Variously translated as ‘formations,’ ‘volitional formations,’
‘fabrications’ (and more) I render sankhara as ‘programs and
patterns.’ Some of these programs are functions, such as
metabolism, that are bound up with the life-force (ayusankhara);
some are carried by the consciousness that is generated from
previous lives; and some are formed through this-life interactions. Did the Buddha actually teach this? Isn't Sucitto just repeating (rebirthing?) the bhikkhu Sati's heresy (MN 38) here?

What do you think?

[buIf6yoW]

Welcome to the group, soundtrack !

I'm adding a link to "Kamma and the End of Kamma" and your quote is from the Preface to the main text, in case anyone wants to read it at the source for themselves.

http://www.forestsangha.org/index.ph...-ajahn-sucitto


with kind wishes,

Aloka-D

[SasV7ReJ]

Greetings Soundtrack,

Welcome.

What do you think?

Metta,
Retro.

[radikal]

I'm adding a link to "Kamma and the End of Kamma" and your quote is from the Preface to the main text, in case anyone wants to read it at the source for themselves.

Thanks friend, I read the guidelines just a few minutes before posting the thread but apparently I didn't have enough coffee this morning.

[alegsghed]

Did the Buddha actually teach this?

welcome Soundtrack

personally, i am not familiar with the Buddha teaching in such a way

the Buddha taught when ignorance arises, formations arise with that ignorance; then when formations arise, consciousness arises with those formations

for example, due to ignorance, a thought formation arises based on a memory (mental formation) about an event in the past. consciousness arises & generates with those formations and consciousness is pre-occupied with & drawn into those formations

regards

element

[Aafimoq]

From Ajahn Sucitto's "Kamma and the End of Kamma", page iv:


Did the Buddha actually teach this?

No.

Isn't Sucitto just repeating (rebirthing?) the bhikkhu Sati's heresy (MN 38) here? Yes.

What do you think? I think Sucitto should just paint a red dot on his forehead and be done with it...

(Sucitto):

Rebirth and kamma
The agency of samsara is not a body or an identity.
Bodies endure dependent on conditions for one lifetime
only. Identity – as daughter, mother, manager, invalid and
so on – arises dependent on causes and conditions. What is
above referred to as ‘transmigration’ is not ‘rebirth’ but the
process whereby a persisting current of grasping continues
to generate sentient beings. Moreover, this current isn’t
something that only occurs at death, but is continually fed
by kamma in the here and now. Through an inclination
called ‘becoming,’ kamma forms something like a psychological
genetic code. This code, which is the pattern of each
individual’s kammic inheritance, is formed through dynamic
processes called sankhara. Like one’s personal genetic code,
the sankhara retain our kammic blueprints, and so from day
to day we remain the same person in relative terms. "Sankhara" as Atman. I love playing "Find the Atman"....

[PristisoliTer]

Isn't Sucitto just repeating (rebirthing?) the bhikkhu Sati's heresy (MN 38) here?

What do you think?

I don't think so. Sati's heresy lay in claiming "this same consciousness" transmigrates from life to life -- i.e. that consciousness is some sort of permanent entity.

Ajahn Sucitto speaks of consciousness being "generated" from previous lives; in other words, because of a causal relationship. In a similar way, the 5-year-old "me" gave rise to the 20-year-old "me", and eventually the current 45-year-old "me", but the process doesn't require an Atman. It can be explained via causality and dependent origination. So "generated" actually strikes me as a fairly appropriate word.

There may be good reasons for skepticism about rebirth, but purported conflict with MN 38 isn't one of them -- in my opinion.

[Almolfuncomma]

I think Sucitto should just paint a red dot on his forehead and be done with it...

...and I think you should refrain from making unneccessary personal comments about people, Stuka.

I am now banning the use of this recurring red dot remark in our discussions - and that also includes it being used by Element, or anyone else who's a member of the group.

Thanks.

[TeksPaisimi]

the process doesn't require an Atman. It can be explained via causality and dependent origination. So "generated" actually strikes me as a fairly appropriate word.

I agree with that Lazy. Seems he's looking at the process itself and not some eternal 'whatever'.

[CializCialiscsqw]

I don't think so. Sati's heresy lay in claiming "this same consciousness" transmigrates from life to life -- i.e. that consciousness is some sort of permanent entity.

That is an often-quoted and commonly-held misconception, but that is not at all what the Buddha objects to in the sutta. He does not say, "have I not taught that consciousness is impermanent?" and then go on about how "consciousness" carries the results of actions from life to life, etc, like rebirthers would have it.

The Buddha's objection is to the whole shebang, and he immediately goes into a long and detailed explanation of his the six forms of consciousness as sense awareness through each of the sense doors.

Ajahn Sucitto speaks of consciousness being "generated" from previous lives; in other words, because of a causal relationship. In a similar way, the 5-year-old "me" gave rise to the 20-year-old "me", and eventually the current 45-year-old "me", but the process doesn't require an Atman. It can be explained via causality and dependent origination. So "generated" actually strikes me as a fairly appropriate word. That is also an often-repeated pseudo-argument, but the causal relationship between the young me and the older me does not provide or support a claim of any sort of mechanism of continuity from one life to another.

There may be good reasons for skepticism about rebirth, but purported conflict with MN 38 isn't one of them -- in my opinion. Sure it is. One has to read the whole sutta, rather than equivocating over a single word or repeating what one reads on DW.

[StethyEntinic]

I don't see where the Buddha objects to "the whole shebang", as you put it. What he objects to is Sati's rejection of conditionality.

Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen? Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me..

By contrast, Sati believed that:

this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else

The disagreement here isn't about rebirth per se. In Sati's view consciousness is some sort of independent entity which goes floating along from life to life, body to body. But in the Buddha's teaching, it arises (and re-arises, on and on until the cycle is broken) as part of dependent origination.

the causal relationship between the young me and the older me does not provide or support a claim of any sort of mechanism of continuity from one life to another. I agree, but that's a different issue. The question here isn't "is rebirth plausible?" but "is it consistent with MN 38"?

My point is that "generation of consciousness over many lives" follows exactly the same principle as "generation of consciousness over one life" and that both are in line with the Buddha's teaching.

[duncanalisstmp]

I don't see where the Buddha objects to "the whole shebang", as you put it. What he objects to is Sati's rejection of conditionality...

The Pali word is "Samsarati". Here is Bodhi's translation:

‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?” By contrast, Sati believed that You have to read more than one line. The Buddha also disagrees here:

"Sati, what is that consciousness?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

The disagreement here is not about rebirth per se. Sure it is. Sati is using vinnana as a vehicle of reincarnation, the Buddha teaches that consciousness is momentary sensory awareness.

In Sati's view consciousness is some sort of independent entity which goes floating along from life to life, body to body. But in the Buddha's teaching, it arises (and re-arises, on and on until the cycle is broken) as part of dependent origination. In the Buddha's teaching, an instance of consciousness arises and fades away, never to "re-appear" again. Your asssersion is a reincarnation strategy, just as Sati's is.


I agree, but that's a different issue. The question here isn't "is rebirth plausible?" but "is it consistent with MN 38"? The question was whether Sucitto was repeating Sati's reincarnation heresy. He is. And it is clear that reincarnation/"re-birth" is not at all consistent with MN 38.

My point is that "generation of consciousness over many lives" follows exactly the same principle as "generation of consciousness over one life" and that both are in line with the Buddha's teaching. Making consciousness an Atman, the very sort of homunculus argument that the Buddha is refuting here. The Buddha never described vinnana like that. You are simply regurgitating Sati's heresy yourself.

[haittiweerved]

homunculus

•A diminutive human.
• A miniature, fully formed individual believed by adherents of the early biological theory of preformation to be present in the sperm cell.



Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/homunculus#ixzz1YuZbYTSh

[dittygari]

Try "homunculus argument"...

[PHOTOSHOPoem]

thanks

the assumption here is that there is a 'little man' or 'homunculus' inside the brain 'looking at' the movie

[voksveta]

You have to read more than one line. The Buddha also disagrees here:

Sati, what is that consciousness?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

But again, the problem here is not kamma and rebirth. The problem is that Sati has fallen into one of the two extremes rejected by the Buddha: namely, that the one who experiences the result of kamma is the same as the one who produced the kamma. The Buddha discusses this in the Aññatra Sutta:

In the Buddha's teaching, an instance of consciousness arises and fades away, never to "re-appear" again.

True, but each instance of consciousness conditions a succeeding instance of consciousness; thus there is continuity. Otherwise our experiences would be very strange indeed.

Making consciousness an Atman, the very sort of homunculus argument that the Buddha is refuting here. The Buddha never described vinnana like that. You are simply regurgitating Sati's heresy yourself. I have made no such argument -- quite the opposite. The point is that an Atman is unnecessary. You seem to be arguing that kamma/rebirth can only be explained in terms of an Atman or homunculus -- a stance which contradicts the Buddha's presentation of the Middle Way.

[UtidaBrar]

//“that are bound up with the life-force (ayusankhara); some are carried by the consciousness that is generated from previous lives”// – Believe this part of the sentence is make with reference to the “Bhavanga-sota”, the subconscious life-stream found in the Abhidhamma.

[VZF74G0M]

But again, the problem here is not kamma and rebirth.

Sure it is.

The problem is that Sati has fallen into one of the two extremes rejected by the Buddha: namely, that the one who experiences the result of kamma is the same as the one who produced the kamma. The Buddha discusses this in the Aññatra Sutta: The Buddha does not address "the same one" in NM 38. The Buddha addresses vinnana and how it arises and ceases and is not the entity that reincarnates and is subject to karmic retribution as Sati and you claim.


Sati believes that "the same consciousness" transmigrates from life to life, producing kamma and experiencing vipaka. This is clearly the first extreme mentioned above. The Buddha is addressing speculative views in the Aññatra Sutta, in the same way that he addresses other speculative views in, for example, the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta. It is not the same thing.


Both these suttas are similar in that they concern wrong views based on a notion of self, while setting forth the Buddha's distinctive teaching of dependent origination. What do you think a "notion of self" is?

True, but each instance of consciousness conditions a succeeding instance of consciousness; thus there is continuity. This is not what the Buddha teaches. You are assuming an "abhidhammic" notion of "continuation of consciousness".


Otherwise our experiences would be very strange indeed. What makes you think it's not?

I have made no such argument -- quite the opposite. Yes you have. It doesn't matter how much equivocating, making up, and playing shell games you do over the definition of the "entity" that supposedly reincarnates and how, you are still stuck with a need for an entity, a "you", that reincarnates.

The point is that an Atman is unnecessary. You seem to be arguing that kamma/rebirth can only be explained in terms of an Atman or homunculus I am pointing out that however you want to make up the story in order to try to make it look like it fits into the Buddha's liberative teachings, it is still a made-up story.

-- a stance which contradicts the Buddha's presentation of the Middle Way. Not at all.

[Koayrbzh]

//“that are bound up with the life-force (ayusankhara); some are carried by the consciousness that is generated from previous lives”// – Believe this part of the sentence is make with reference to the “Bhavanga-sota”, the subconscious life-stream found in the Abhidhamma.

...which is made-up Braminist nonsense the Buddha never taught.

[selayeffethy]

thanks

the assumption here is that there is a 'little man' or 'homunculus' inside the brain 'looking at' the movie

....or, as applied here, a "little self" of one form or another -- defined and re-defined through an arbitrary and pathological process of "make up as one goes along" story-telling -- that somehow magically transfers from a dead body to a living one, along with a boatload of karmic baggage.