[EtellaObtaite]

why is the argument"Ethics must have...." "demonstrably weak?"

In the case of the Dhamma (meaning without making this point to a Western philosopher) I would say that since metaphysics are rejected, ethics which rely on a metaphysical assertion of any kind must also be rejected. Therefore, any ethics which we do not immediately discard must be based elsewhere than in a realm of ontology, et al.

(Such an ethics is discerned using epistemology, instead of metaphysics. It's a sort of Moral Naturalism, although to be precise I would argue for a Moral Particularism - and I would require the mind be considered a sense; Western epistemology often treats the mind as separate from the five sense, but the Dhamma does not make such a move. Altogether with these preliminaries, Buddhist Ethics can be constructed.)

It is a field rife with debate, so of course I'm not "right"; metaethics is a good introduction.

The philosophical gyrations might seem excessive, but replacing "god did it" or "kamma-as-moral-gravity" with a robust moral construction takes some careful work.

[67Irralphaisa]

Maybe l'm being a little dense here ,but why is the argument"Ethics must have...." "demonstrably weak?"

It is weak because if one wakes up one morning and realizes, "hey, all that rebirth crap is just mumbo-jumbo", or "hey, all that God-crap is just a hokey tale", the ethics that the tale or the mumbo-jumbo supported comes tumbling down right along with it.

In catholicism, they call this a "crisis of faith".

Imo if we have a clear understanding of Anatta then we have a clear understanding that there is no self to become a "bodhisattva" no self to become enlightened,in fact no issue.

The Buddha's teaching of Anatta is not "There is no self".

If karmma does not have consequences why are we even discussing the matter.

Because so many people think, errantly, that the Buddha's teachings are all about karma and reincarnation. And they are constantly being told, errantly, that the Buddha's teachings are all about karma and reincarnation by monks who think, errantly, that the Buddha's teachings are all about karma and reincarnation, because they have been told, errantly, that the Buddha's teachings are all about karma and reincarnation. If they aren't shown otherwise, how are they going to discover the truth?

Why did Buddha make karmma such a issue.

He didn't, not in his own teachings. But a lot of other people believed in it, so they wanted to talk to him about his opinions of it. He called it "right view that based in the defilements", and distinguished it from his own teachings, which he called "Noble Right View that is without defilements, world-transcending ("world" having a very special, phenomenological meaning), a Factor of the Path".

In fact if karmma is of no consequence then the same could be said of Dependant Origination.

That does not follow at all. Dependent Origination is a "karma/reincarnation-free zone", and it can be demonstrated and seen here and now by anyone. For example:



An example of Dependent Origination in everyday life

Let us take a simple example of how the principle of Dependent Origination operates in everyday life. Suppose there are two school chums, named 'John' and 'Ian.' Whenever they meet at school they smile and say "Hello" to each other. One day John sees Ian, and approaches him with a friendly greeting ready, only to be answered with silence and a sour expression. John is peeved by this, and stops talking to Ian. In this case, the chain of reactions might proceed in the following way:

1. Ignorance (avijja): John is ignorant of the true reason for Ian's grim face and sullenness. He fails to reflect on the matter wisely and to ascertain the real reasons for Ian's behavior, which may have nothing at all to do with his feelings for John.

2. Volitional Impulses (sankhara): As a result, John proceeds to think and formulate theories in his mind, conditioned by his temperament, and these give rise to doubt, anger, and resentment, once again dependent on his particular temperament.

3. Consciousness (viññana): Under the influence of these defilements, John broods. He takes note of and interprets Ian's behavior and actions in accordance with those previous impressions; the more he thinks about it, the surer he gets; Ian's every gesture seems offensive.

4. Body and mind (namarupa): John's feelings, thoughts, moods, facial expressions and gestures, that is, the body and mind together, begin to take on the overall features of an angry or offended person, primed to function in accordance with that consciousness.

5. Sense bases (salayatana): John's sense organs are primed to receive information that is related to and conditioned by the body-mind organism's state of anger or hurt.

6. Contact (phassa): The impingement on the sense organs will be of the activities or attributes of Ian which seem particularly relative to the case, such as frowning expressions, unfriendly gestures, and so on.

7. Feeling (vedana): Feelings, conditioned by sense contact, are of the unpleasant kind.

8. Craving (tanha): Vibhavatanha, craving for non-being, arises, the dislike or aversion for that offensive image, the desire for it to go away or to be destroyed.

9. Clinging (upadana): Clinging and obsessive thinking in relation to Ian's behavior follows. Ian's behavior is interpreted as a direct challenge; he is seen as a disputant, and the whole situation demands some kind of remedial action.

10. Becoming (bhava): John's subsequent behavior falls under the influence of clinging and his actions become those of an antagonist.

11. Birth (jati): As the feeling of enmity becomes more distinct, it is assumed as an identity. The distinction between 'me' and 'him' becomes more distinct, and there is a self which is obliged to somehow respond to the situation.

12. Aging and death (jaramarana): This 'self,' or condition of enmity, exists and flourishes dependent on certain conditions, such as the desire to appear tough, to preserve honor and pride, and to be the victor, which all have their respective opposites, such as feelings of worthlessness, inferiority, and failure. As soon as that self arises, it is confronted with the absence of any guarantee of victory. Even if he does attain the victory he desires, there is no guarantee that John will be able to preserve his supremacy for any length of time. He may not, in fact, be the 'tough victor' he wants to be, but rather the loser, the weakling, the one who loses face. These possibilities of suffering play with John's moods and produce stress, insecurity, and worry. They in turn feed ignorance, thus beginning a new round of the cycle. Such negative states are like festering wounds which have not been treated, and so continue to release their 'poisoning' effect on John's consciousness, influencing all of his behavior, and causing problems both for himself and for others. In John's case, he may feel unhappy for the whole of that day, speaking gruffly to whoever he comes into contact with, and so increasing the likelihood of more unpleasant incidents.

In this case, if John were to practice correctly he would be advised to start off on the right foot. Seeing his friend's sullenness, he could use his intelligence (yoniso-manasikara: considering in accordance with causes and conditions) and reflect that Ian may have some problem on his mind -- he may have been scolded by his mother, he may be in need of money, or he may simply be depressed. If John reflected in this way no incident would arise, his mind would be untroubled, and he might even be moved toward compassionate action and understanding.

Once the negative chain of events has been set in motion, however, it can still be cut off with mindfulness at any point. For instance, if it had continued on up to sense contact, where Ian's actions were perceived in a negative way, John could still set up mindfulness right there: instead of falling under the power of craving for non-being, he could instead consider the facts of the situation and thereby gain a fresh understanding of Ian's behavior. He could then reflect wisely in regard to both his own and his friend's actions, so that his mind would no longer be weighed down by negative emotional reactions, but instead respond in a clearer and more positive way. Such reflection, in addition to causing no problems for himself, could also serve to encourage the arising of compassion.



-Phra Maha Prayudh Payutto, Dependent Origination: The Buddhist Law of Conditionality

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/coarise5.htm

[inhitoemits]

IMO i think it is not... and I feel that the idea of having chemotherapy and other procedures when the illness is hard to tackle are a kind of attachment... In my personal case I will never go through that...

Sometimes the desires of others can make us do things we wouldn't otherwise do. To see the tears of a loved one at the thought of losing you can be very persuasive.

[mybooboo]

An example of Dependent Origination in everyday life

Excellent quote.

[h4z1XBI7]

Sometimes the desires of others can make us do things we wouldn't otherwise do. To see the tears of a loved one at the thought of losing you can be very persuasive.

Yes, it is true...

[dosugxxx]

Because so many people think, errantly, that the Buddha's teachings are all about karma and reincarnation. And they are constantly being told, errantly, that the Buddha's teachings are all about karma and reincarnation by monks who think, errantly, that the Buddha's teachings are all about karma and reincarnation, because they have been told, errantly, that the Buddha's teachings are all about karma and reincarnation. If they aren't shown otherwise, how are they going to discover the truth?

I got dizzy...

The Buddha's teaching of Anatta is not "There is no self".

True, but this aspect of anatta is usually missed...

[cajonnmu]

An example of Dependent Origination in everyday life

Good one. Thanks Stuka

[Blahhhshsh]

Dependent Origination is a "karma/reincarnation-free zone"

My point is that while D.O. may be karma free is the reverse true? (ie) is karma free of D.O.don't think so.

[OwdBKKHO]

Speculative views of karma and reincarnation are dependently arisen, yes. But that really doesn't have anything to do with what you said.

What you said was this, frank:

In fact if karmma is of no consequence then the same could be said of Dependant Origination.

Again, karma is a speculative metaphysical view -- a superstition -- and DO is a demonstrable psychological process.

[SM9WI8oI]

But the Buddha *did* talk about karma, and he did talk about a cycle of births (samsara) and he even put "birth" in his dependent origination *after* the subject of its steps has had the chance to experience senses and begin to thirst and cling (see last paragraph for more on this), so karma, and birth after awareness has developed *was* a part of his teaching. That's why we're even talking about it.

The Vedic view was that karma was all about action, that you did what you did because of who you were deep down in your eternal soul, and that to free yourself you had to clear out all the attachments to worldly pleasures and get right down to that eternal soul, see it for what it is, purify yourself till none of the worldly stuff got in the way, and then you'd be free. Of course, only a very few could dedicate their lives to such a pursuit, so not many would manage it.

The Buddha thought that was nonsense. If you are what you are because it's what your soul has always been, if you do what you do, because that's what your soul designs, where does that leave responsibility? So he reframed the whole argument saying that yes, there's karma and it's INTENTION not action. So yes, he talked about karma a whole lot.

I do agree with stuka that in the vast number of cases when he's talking about karma and rebirth, he's talking about it to someone for whom it is already a belief. It is almost as though that view of the cosmos, the Vedic view, comes with its own specialized language, and he is translating from "buddha-think" to "vedic-speak", and speaking like a native.

As for our modern understanding that with dependent origination the Buddha was talking about many cycles of creating the self in one life, I do wonder why I've never found even one instance in the suttas where the Buddha says "many times in one life". I can grasp the reasons he did many things, as in the paragraph above, or why he had difficulty explaining the process of self-creating *as* a process (there was no word for "process" -- it was not a known concept at the time, so it keeps getting described metaphorically, as fire, for example) but it would be SO simple, and he had the words for "the fruit of our intentional acts is that we continue to be born, suffer, and die many times *in this life, before the breakup of the body*".

[Andoror]

it would be SO simple

your post is too emotional

generally, the emotional mind will be unable to penetrate the reality of dependent origination

the buddha call emotion nirvarana or hindrance, which includes doubt

when the mind is spinning in dependent origination, bewildered, it cannot even see its own spinning

this is how dependent origination is

the putthujana cannot see it

[fectsnanteemy]

why he had difficulty explaining the process of self-creating *as* a process

the buddha had no difficulty here

your point has no merits in actuality

[Figelac]

But the Buddha *did* talk about karma, and he did talk about a cycle of births

Yes, but the Buddha ascribed different meanings to these terms.

So yes, he talked about karma a whole lot.

He talked about a lot of things. But talking about something doesn't make it his teaching. And his discussions referencing kamma as intention are "middling" teachings, designed to draw a believer-of-karma toward his own teachings.In the end, though, his own liberative teachings are devoid of vedic kamma/karma.

It is almost as though that view of the cosmos, the Vedic view, comes with its own specialized language, and he is translating from "buddha-think" to "vedic-speak", and speaking like a native.

It is well-known that this is exactly what the Buddha did -- take terms like "kamma" and "jati" and gave them his own meanings. Even hard-core born-again red dots like Bhikkhu Bodhi admit this.

I do wonder why I've never found even one instance in the suttas where the Buddha says "many times in one life".

When the Buddha talks about many births in his boiler-plate description of the "first watch of the night", this is what he is talking about -- he is using metaphor. Same for the language of the "second watch".

[Xfxhbcxp]

It is well-known that this is exactly what the Buddha did -- take terms like "kamma" and "jati" and gave them his own meanings. Even hard-core born-again red dots like Bhikkhu Bodhi admit this.

I am probably misreading an implication that "everyone knows this" in your comment. The other boards I participate on don't seem to be clued in... ; ) Can you cite some solid sources who state these as well-known facts?

Honestly, stuka, I expect that you and I are in close agreement on most of what the Buddha taught and why and how, but I refrain from making absolute statements because I do recognize that what seems pretty obvious to me, that which I feel relatively certain of, is still just a theory. Short of getting in my time machine and going back for a visit, I can't be certain that anything is "exactly what the Buddha did".

[Toninvell]

your post is too emotional

"your post is too clairvoyant" Element.

I'm sorry that you misread me, but judging a person's emotional state via brief written remarks is difficult when we know the person well, and almost impossible when we don't. So much gets left out in this medium: pacing, tone of voice, body language.

the buddha had no difficulty here

Tell it to Sati!

"What is consciousness, Sati?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions."

"Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen...?"

MN 38

[viepedorlella]

And in the end, my question still remains. The Buddha *does* say (once) that views that include karma and rebirth are "Right View with Taints", and he followed that with an exposition on what the right view without taints is. It's not something he says again, and again, and again, as he does with so many things, but at least we have him saying it once.

But I have seen nothing in the suttas that is as clear as the above, on the subject of all the talk about samsara and cyclic existence as being in one life. It's a good theory, but what evidence is there for it in the suttas themselves? And if there is no evidence for it in the suttas themselves, then is there at least a good theory out there about why he would not explicitly state it even once, if that's what the Buddha was actually saying?

[Ngdyoysv]

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu goes into it at great length in his essay "Two Kinds of Language". You can find it on the net. Bhikkhi Bodhi mentions it in the introduction of his re-work of Nanamoli's translation of the Majjhima Nikaya. You can see Thanisssaro talking about it in his book Wings to Awakening, which is also available on the net. All agree that the Buddha co-opted these terms and gave them his own meanings in his own teachings. It is not a matter of conjecture.

There are certain teachings the Buddha gave which are absolutely consistent internally and externally, that is, within their own system of thought and also comporting with reality as it is and as we can all see for ourselves here and now. The Buddha also proclaims in many places in the discourses that his own teachings are timeless, applicable to everyone, and visible to anyone here and now. A person who reads and studies the suttas critically and carefully can quickly come to recognize what the Buddha taught, what might be suspect, and what is complete hogwash. The Buddha states in several places what his own teachings are, and distinguishes them from the teachings of others, and why. It is not that difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[PrettyFifa12]

As for our modern understanding that with dependent origination the Buddha was talking about many cycles of creating the self in one life

The Buddha was talking about self-view. His point was that any time we start thinking about "me", we are making up a story about who and what this "me" is, and usually in relation to some sort of attachment to some sort of sense object. It's not "creating a self", it is "creating a self-view in relation to the inner-and-outer 'world' as we try to understand it".

Tell it to Sati!

In light of the above, that statement makes no sense at all. Sati was claiming that the Buddha taught karma and reincarnation, with a "consciousness" entity as a vehicle for that process. The Buddha refuted him and explained that his use of the word "consciousness" was entirely perceptual. Another example of him co-opting extant terms and changing them to suit his own teachings.

[healty-back]

But I have seen nothing in the suttas that is as clear as the above, on the subject of all the talk about samsara and cyclic existence as being in one life.

The Buddha goes even further and more restrictive than just "one life" in his description of the process of paticcasamuppada -- he points out that it happens right here, right now. He is extremely clear about this:

"Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would your mind run to the past: 'Was I in the past or was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus, run to the future: 'Will I be in the future, or will I not be in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus have doubts about the present: 'Am I, or am I not? What am I? How am I? Where did this being come from? Where will it go?'" "No, venerable sir."

"Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would you say: 'We have reverence for the Teacher. We say it out of reverence to the Teacher'?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would you say: 'Our recluse said it, these are the recluse’s words. But we do not say that'?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would you acknowledge another teacher?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would you seek meaning in religious rites, ceremonies or festivals of other recluses and brahmins?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, is it that you yourself knowing, seeing and experiencing this speak thus?" "Yes, venerable sir."

"Good, O, Bhikkhus, I have led you in this Dhamma which is visible here and now, timeless, open to inspection, leading onwards and to be experienced by the wise for themselves. It was in reference to this that it was said: 'Bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and now, timeless, open to inspection, leading onwards and to be experienced by the wise for themselves'."


"Samsara" according to the Buddha is not "cyclic existences". That is the pre-Buddha meaning of the term. His own use of the word, in relation to his own liberative teachings, denoted habitual patterns of distorted thinking and the cycles of misery that such distorted thinking causes. It's just not that difficult to see.

[deermealec]

Originally Posted by nowheat But I have seen nothing in the suttas that is as clear as the above, on the subject of all the talk about samsara and cyclic existence as being in one life.

The Buddha goes even further and more restrictive than just "one life" in his description of the process of paticcasamuppada -- he points out that it happens right here, right now. He is extremely clear about this:
I can read the quote thus: Once you understand the Buddha's teaching, you will have no need to ask questions about your past, how it led to the present, or who you'll be in the future, because you have opened your Eye and know the answers, you have now seen it for yourself.

He is not saying "Dependent Origination describes just this life" nor can I find where he's said "There is no rebirth after the breakup of the body" -- all he says in this quote is that once you understand the teaching you'll have no more questions.

I understand what you think it says -- I think it says that too -- but it is just as easily read the other way. It's not the Buddha stating *clearly* that dependent origination shows us that there is no rebirth.

(I am working on answering your previous post but your citations are long -- I've read the first some time ago; the second I cannot find what you're referencing -- can you give me a page number for the MN? It's a large introduction and names mentioned in it are not included in the index so I cannot find his reference to Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's theories. I find statements like "The basic causal pattern underlying the process is that defined by the teaching of dependent origination...which also demonstrates how rebirth is possible without a reincarnating self." (p 45) or "According to the usual interpretation, the series of twelve factors extends over three lives..." (p 30) which would indicate to me that if Bodhi is going to discuss Buddhadasa's theory in his introduction to the Majjhima Nikaya, it is going to be to dismiss it. And thanks for the last link -- long, will look at it.)