[pumpineemob]

A gray area for me has to do with the relationship between sankhara (formations) and consciousness. It would seem to me that consciousness should arise prior to mental/volitional/kammic formations, and not the other way around -- and so the sequencing is not exactly compatible with a one-lifetime model. Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact.

Dependent on the ear & sounds...

Dependent on the nose & aromas...

Dependent on the tongue & flavors...

Dependent on the body & tactile sensations...

Dependent on the mind & mind objects there arises consciousness at the mind. The meeting of the three is contact.


MN 148: The Six Sextets

[herawaq]

Why is it, good Gotama, how does it come about that sometimes sacred words I have long studied are not clear to me, not to mention those I have not studied? And how is it too that sometimes other sacred words that I have not so studied are clear to me, not to mention those I have studied? Well, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by sensual desire and does not know, as it really is, the way of escape from sensual desire that have arisen, then he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, nor can he know and see what is to the profit of others, or of both himself and others. Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied.

Imagine, Brahman, a bowl of water [consciousness] mixed with [coloured with; obscured by] lac, turmeric, dark green or crimson dye [formations]. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was.

In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by sensual desire... then he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of others, to the profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied.

Again, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed with ill-will... then he cannot know or see...

Imagine a bowl of water, heated on a fire, boiling up and bubbling over. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was...

Again, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by sloth-and-torpor... then he cannot know or see...

Imagine a bowl of water covered over with slimy moss and water-plants. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was...

Again, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by worry-and-flurry... then he cannot know or see...

Imagine a bowl of water ruffled by the wind, so that the water trembled, eddied and rippled. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was...

Again, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by doubt-and-wavering... he cannot know or see...

Imagine a bowl of water, agitated, stirred up, muddied, put in a dark place. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was.

In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by doubt-and-wavering... then he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of others, to the profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has studied.

But, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart not possessed, not overwhelmed by sensual desire ... ill-will... sloth-and-torpor... worry-and-flurry... doubt-and-wavering... [like the five bowls of water not as previously described, but 'clear, limpid, pellucid, set in the open']... then he knows and sees, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of others, to the profit of both himself and others. Then even sacred words he has not long studied are clear to him, not to mention those he has studied.

Sangaravo Sutta

If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocted, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

Upaya Sutta

[Enfonebew]

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact.

Dependent on the ear & sounds...

Dependent on the nose & aromas...

Dependent on the tongue & flavors...

Dependent on the body & tactile sensations...

Dependent on the mind & mind objects there arises consciousness at the mind. The meeting of the three is contact.


MN 148: The Six Sextets

Thanks, Element.

But aren't these contact and the six-fold sense base? How do they apply to "consciousness" in the third link of the chain?

From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact... If we say that consciousness here arises from the senses and contact, then we seem to be going in circles (?).

[Emedgella]

hi Lazy

MN 9 describes dependent origination clearly, in that all of the conditions arise together or closely together

for the DO, in relation to the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th links, the Buddha was forced to teach in a certain order

but this does not necessarily imply they always arise in that order

because DO moves from the "internal" to the "external", from the few (mind-body) to the multiple (sense bases), naturally the Buddha included the sense bases before contact

but, again, in reality, things do not always necessarily occur in that order

for example, when ignorance produces a sankhara (eg. thought formation), consciousness arises in relation to that sankhara. that sankhara is a mind-object. already, one set of sense media, namely, mind, mind-object and mind consciousness, have come into play

the sense bases more appropriately arise before consciousness (although, in reality, the arise together, simultaneously)

but, in DO, for the most part, the Buddha is describing how ignorance conditions the sankhara which then condition (stimulate, colour, etc) consciousness/mind/body to seek sense gratification externally via the sense organs

so naturally, the Buddha places the sense organs after consciousness & mind/body

for example, if the sankhara arises ("watch TV"), that is mind contact but intention may decide: "I am not going to watch TV". so the eye and ear sense base do not arise

but if the decision is made to watch TV, then the eye and ear sense base would arise and the TV contact, TV feeling, TV craving, TV becoming and TV birth would arise

so, to end, it is not always as linear as it appears on paper

the sankharas themselves are (internal) sense objects. as sense objects, they are arising at the 2nd link & known at the 3rd link

however, the Buddha puts the sense bases at the 5th link because he wishes to highlight the sense bases as being the "doors" or "windows" [as illustrated in the Tibetan Wheel of Life] to the external world

when the sankharas are thoroughly known (with mindfulness & clear comprehension) at the 2nd link, this is no longer DO. instead, it is Satipatthana (meditation)

regards

Element

[wmtravelservice]

Thanks Element,

Seems there are to two key issues, this:

when ignorance produces a sankhara (eg. thought formation), consciousness arises in relation to that sankhara. that sankhara is a mind-object. and this:

the sankharas themselves are sense objects. as sense objects, they are arising at the 2nd link & known at the 3rd link

[PetraCromlich]

Very interesting thread. Some good input here.

[hieklyintinee]

Thanks, Element. Good explanation, and very practical.

It seems to me, on further reflection, that we already have mind-consciousness implied at the first link (ignorance), because there has to be something that is capable of being either ignorant or enlightened. A non-sentient object, say a rock, isn't "ignorant" -- the term simply doesn't apply.

What do you think?

[gechaheritt]

What we have are ignorant elaborations which are at the first link, or what the first link is about, as my ignorance understands it.

[LeviBrawn]

Ignorance conditions sankhara (avijjapaccaya sankhara). Sankhara arise with and without ignorance.
When ignorance conditions (influences) sankhara, the end result is misery/suffering.

When ignorance does not condition/influence sankhara, suffering does not arise.

This is just as true for an ordinary, untaught person as it is for an arahant.

For an ordinary person, this is largely a matter of chance.

For an arahant, and for a noble disciple, it is a matter of practice.

[hiedeemom]

It seems to me, on further reflection, that we already have mind-consciousness implied at the first link (ignorance), because there has to be something that is capable of being either ignorant or enlightened.

Your point seems still established in meta-physics and alaya-vinjana

It is the mind (citta) that has ignorance (and not mind-consciousness)

also, D.O. is not about the meta-physical existence (arising) of consciousness

D.O. is about how consciousness, as one condition (paccaya), is stimulated / generated/garnered / coloured / affected by ignorance in a way that contributes to suffering [per Sangaravo Sutta above]

When D.O. ends, liberated consciousness (and mind) remain [per Upaya Sutta above]

Kind regards

[ftpsoft]

that we already have mind-consciousness implied at the first link (ignorance),

Being in agreement with Element's above post, Lazy, I feel, "between the lines" that you harbor the idea of a consiousness that is before an existing process and that, in the end, leads to the unavoidable consequence, of a fabricated idea of an Atman. I'm I right here?

[Dstyeglm]

Being in agreement with Element's above post, Lazy, I feel, "between the lines" that you harbor the idea of a consiousness that is before an existing process and that, in the end, leads to the unavoidable consequence, of a fabricated idea of an Atman. I'm I right here?

LOL. Talk about a loaded question!

Actually, without a fabricated Atman, what we have is simply the arising and recombining of aggregates. That's closer to what I had in mind. Are you perhaps harboring an idea of Atman as equivalent to the physical body and its lifespan?

My question was whether the sequencing of the links implicitly points to D.O. as kind of self-perpetuating loop, or complex of loops -- with each instance conditioning others, as well as being conditioned by others, on and on unless the chains are broken (via the eightfold path). "Self-perpetuating" is an apt word here because the illusion of self is one of the byproducts of the process.

I was just reading, btw, an interesting essay which argues that any view of dependent origination as a linear, temporal model runs into logical problems -- and that includes Buddhaghosa's "three life" paradigm, a one-lifetime version and even "moment-to-moment rebirth". All of them trip up in the face of dependent cessation (paticcanirodha).

I remember Stuka has raised this issue before in relation to Buddhaghosa.

[gambleingsites]

Brasington's sole argument against PS in the moment, that "there is a good bit of evidence in the Suttas to indicate that the Buddha had physical Birth and Death in mind", completely ignores the phrase "sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair: in short, the entire mass of suffering" and treats it as if they were not part of the paticcasamuppada at all.

This is a typical argument of omission we hear form re-birthers....

[AK47rulz]

LOL. Talk about a loaded question!

No intention of loading anything Lazy, just the impression it gives me your statement. That is all.

Are you perhaps harboring an idea of Atman as equivalent to the physical body and its lifespan? No. I do not harbor any idea of an Atman. That is why I found the Khandha doctrine quite clear. What I can see are the aggregates and, yes, this is the only lifespan that this aggregates are about to endure. This, far for troubling, stills the mind.

My question was whether the sequencing of the links implicitly points to D.O. as kind of self-perpetuating loop, or complex of loops -- with each instance conditioning others, as well as being conditioned by others, on and on unless the chains are broken (via the eightfold path). "Self-perpetuating" is an apt word here because the illusion of self is one of the byproducts of the process. Too elaborated for what the teachings of the Buddha are about. Seems some kind of personal (not you) elaboration taken from Complex Systems field research. There are a bunch of them out there spread on the internet. Don't seems to lead to stillness of mind.


I remember Stuka has raised this issue before in relation to Buddhaghosa. It can be a good idea to have it here if you can find it.

[aspinswramymn]

Brasington's sole argument against PS in the moment, that "there is a good bit of evidence in the Suttas to indicate that the Buddha had physical Birth and Death in mind", completely ignores the phrase "sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair: in short, the entire mass of suffering" and treats it as if they were not part of the paticcasamuppada at all.

That is a very good point.