Paticcasamuppada – Is it about Rebirth or Mental Process?

last SG · 2011-10-13T23:36:57+00:00

Good.... To me, one follow a specific tradition is simply trying to learn step by step.... if a person have the knowledge and ability to handle all traditio...

Aik TC SG

The Paticcasamuppada or Dependent Origination Doctrine is the core or essence of Buddhism and is profound in itself. The Blessed One, the Buddha, while expounding this teaching, says;

"Bhikkhus, from what do these four supports originate, rise, take birth and develop?
"These four supports originate, rise, take birth and develop from craving.
"Bhikkhus, from what does craving originate, rise, take birth and develop?
"Craving originated, rises, takes birth and develops from feelings.
"Bhikkhus, from what do feelings originate, rise, take birth and develop?
"Feelings originate, rise, take birth and develop from contact.
"Bhikkhus, from what does contact originate, rise, take birth and develop?
"Contact originated, rises, takes birth and develops from the sixfold sense base.
"Bhikkhus, from what does the sixfold sense base originates, rise, take birth and develop?
"The sixfold sense base originated, rises, takes birth and develops from name and form.
"Bhikkhus, from what do name and form originate, rise, take birth and develop?
"Name and form originate, rise, take birthand develop from consciousness.
"Bhikkhus, from what does consciousness originate, rise, take birthand develop?
"Consciousness originates rises, takes birth and develops from formations.
"Bhikkhus, from what do formations originate, rise, take birth and develop?
"[Volitional] Formations originate, rise, take birth and develop from ignorance.

MN38

There are various interpretations to this teaching;

Is the Buddha speaking of the principle of Dependent Origination as an attempts to interpret a world-origin theory?

Or is it to be interpreted as the cycle of one lifetime or three lifetime rebirth model?

Or is it to be taken as a mental process that leads on to suffering here and now and the understanding and actual cultivation of it lead one directly to cessation of suffering by totally abolishing the concept of an ego?

Which of the above interpretations would be considered as the actual massage that the Buddha is trying to convey?

sinweiy SG

first thing that come to my mind is samsaric rebirth.

what's mean by cycle of one lifetime or three lifetime rebirth model? why u use one and three?

SevenEleven SG

What comes into my mind of this doctorine is that it teaches non attachment and the idea that all things originates is dependant on another whether rebirth or mind. Then they can break away from the cyclic "birth" by breaking the cycle.

Some believe that if one can truly understand the D&O doctrine, one can attain nibbana. However some ended up thinking that by chanting this discourse can also lead to the way

An Eternal Now SG

The various interpretations of D.O. are all valid and not contradictory. Means, D.O. happens in those various ways and it is not a question of either/or.

Aik TC SG

first thing that come to my mind is samsaric rebirth.

what's mean by cycle of one lifetime or three lifetime rebirth model? why u use one and three?

The standard interpretation of the Dependent Origination which is generally taken to be the authority comes from the Visuddhimagga written by Buddhaghosa around the 5^th century AD. This is the three lifetime format. It is a more of a moral causation, useful to laymen who are looking more into a better rebirth in their next life than the state of Arahanthood.

But the three lifetime format also implies the present of an Ego or a Self that is being reborn. This interpretation goes again the Buddha’s doctrines of Anatta and Anicca. Beside, rebirth in any realm of existences is not what the Buddha preaches or encouraged.

For a Buddhist who has little ‘dust’ in their eyes, this interpretation is of no, or little significant or implication to their practice. It is not that moral practices in everyday lives are not encouraged.

Paticcasamuppada is the Buddha’s teaching on the Second Noble truths, which is the arising and causes of suffering, in reverse it is the cessation of suffering, the Fourth Noble Truths. With the cessation of suffering, the state of Arahanthood can be attained in this very lifetime. The whole of the Dependent Origination cycle, both in the arising of suffering and in its cessation, is concerned with this present life i.e. in one lifetime itself.

An Eternal Now SG

No Aik TC, I do not agree with you.

Three life interpretation of D.O. does not contradict anatta. For example, karma is causality. Karma does not play effect immediately, but over the span of lifetimes. This does not mean there is an ego or atman.

The three life interpretations is valid as any other interpretations.

Aik TC SG

No Aik TC, I do not agree with you.

The three life interpretations is valid as any other interpretations.

The states of dependent arising do not encompass three lifetimes or extend to the next life. “Paticca” means depending upon. It is a closed linked chain such that nothing can be inserted into it. It is a series of occurrences that cannot be divided into three life existences or lifetimes. Paticcasamuppada is related to the Four Noble Truths, and there is no reason to break up into its various states.

An Eternal Now SG

D.O. can encompass lifetimes, and it does.

I think PeterB puts it well:

The ending of Dukkha is relevant whether one takes a One Life or Three Lives model.
The ending of Rebirth only works with the latter.

Aik TC SG

D.O. can encompass lifetimes, and it does.

I think PeterB puts it well:

The ending of Dukkha is relevant whether one takes a One Life or Three Lives model.
The ending of Rebirth only works with the latter.

In fact I believe, with the understanding of the Paticcasamuppada doctrine, the notion of rebirth and kamma can all be dispensed away with.

Rooney9 SG

No Aik TC, I do not agree with you.

The three life interpretations is valid as any other interpretations.

The Buddha chief disciple, Maudgalyayana or Mogollana, was beaten to death by a group of heretics. in one of his past lives, he has beaten his blind parents to death. killing parents is confirmed rebirth in hell realm.

An Eternal Now SG

In fact I believe, with the understanding of the Paticcasamuppada doctrine, the notion of rebirth and kamma can all be dispensed away with.

No it cannot. Rebirth and karma are aspects of Paticcasamupadda.

If you dispense rebirth and karma, you are no different from annihilationists. The view that there is no life after death is even more dangerous than the view of eternalism - the former can lead to lower realms, the latter can lead to higher realms but not liberation. Right view afterall includes understanding rebirth. I do not consider those who dispense rebirth and karma as even Buddhists.

An Eternal Now SG

Yes. Countless suttas have testified about karma and rebirth. How can we deny this?

One of the three knowledges of Buddha upon his enlightenment is the intricate effects of karma and its effects on sentient beings, as well as his countless past lives.

An Eternal Now SG

By the way, rebirth and karma are ultimately empty, but it is because dependent origination is synonymous with emptiness - under Madhyamaka analysis, based on the insight into emptiness and dependent origination. It does not deny that relatively cause and effect plays out over time, for example.

But if you want to speak in ultimate terms, even one life dependent origination is equally empty as three lives dependent origination.

If you want to speak in conventional terms, three lives dependent origination is as valid as one life dependent origination.

Aik TC SG

No it cannot. Rebirth and karma are aspects of Paticcasamupadda.

The doctrine of dependent origination is a doctrine of Absolute Truth. If we try to use conventional terms to explain the doctrine it is likely to be misunderstood. When we talk of occurrences as a process of dependent arising, it is like a chain linked together. There is no ego present, no entity that is born or dies and nobody that is receiving karmic ramification and it is also in accordance to the concept of a continuing existence. It is not nihilism because at very instant, no person has died. In every instant there is only dependent arising.

If we talk of more than one life rebirth used in the concept of a continuing existence; to a layperson, an ego, a self, is always perceives and constantly present in the process of dependent arising. This is not only a violation of the law of Paticcasamuppada but is also a violation of the Buddha’s principle in preaching the dhamma to help people abandon the concept of an ego totally. As such, a dependent origination doctrine that preaches a three life existences would not be doing it any justice.

Here the denial of kamma and rebirths are made in reference to the doctrine of Paticcasamuppada in the heading of this thread and not in teachings found elsewhere in other Suttas.

An Eternal Now SG

It seems you don't really understand rebirth.

No one has died does not deny death.

No one born does not deny birth.

Just like no one hearing does not deny hearing, or no one seeing does not deny seeing.

Re-birth does not need a soul, just like lighting one candle to the next is simply the continuity of a causal process and not the passing on of an unchanging/independent soul-entity.

Also, I do not say Dependent Origination is 'absolute' because there is no-thing absolute about dependent origination: because what dependently originates must be empty. Therefore, emptiness is the ultimate truth about dependent origination, though this is not taught in Theravada. No-soul however is taught in Theravada (and likewise Mahayana, Vajrayana)

Aik TC SG

It seems you don't really understand rebirth.

No one has died does not deny death.

No one born does not deny birth.

Just like no one hearing does not deny hearing, or no one seeing does not deny seeing.

Re-birth does not need a soul, just like lighting one candle to the next is simply the continuity of a causal process and not the passing on of an unchanging/independent soul-entity.

Who is denying anything anyway. Did I mention anywhere that YOU use the term 'absolute'? So to you absolute truth is not ultimate truth? it is a big different to you?

An Eternal Now SG

Who is denying anything anyway. Did I mention anywhere that YOU use the term 'absolute'? So to you absolute truth is not ultimate truth? it is a big different to you?

It depends on what you mean. Theravada teach the absolute reality of dharmas, so real dharmas dependently originate. In Mahayana, we say dharmas are empty, what dependently origination is empty.

Secondly, what Ven Buddhadhasa said about three lifetimes implying a soul is plainly wrong.

Aik TC SG

It depends on what you mean. Theravada teach the absolute reality of dharmas, so real dharmas dependently originate. In Mahayana, we say dharmas are empty, what dependently origination is empty.

Secondly, what Ven Buddhadhasa said about three lifetimes implying a soul is plainly wrong.

I use the term Absolute and Ultimate in an interchangeable way. Of course, to the Theravada all their classified elements are real in themselves while in the Mahayanist tradition, they are interdependent and so are unreal.

In rebirth, I am referring to the conventional way, that is, what come into human form is always accompanied by an ego or a self. Of course in the ultimate sense there is no such entity.

Which part of Ven. Buddhadhasa explanation about three lifetimes implies the present of a soul, by the way?

An Eternal Now SG

No, Ven Buddhadhasa rejects three lifetimes DO due to the assumption that rebirth and karma which span lifetimes thereby implies soul. This is plainly wrong. Rebirth and karma and dependent origination spans lifetimes without requiring a soul in the same way a candle passes its light to another by a causal process and not the passing on of an unchanging entity.

Even the Buddha said that karmas committed this life may only ripen several lives later. He did not of course meant that there is a soul.

Rooney9 SG

It depends on what you mean. Theravada teach the absolute reality of dharmas, so real dharmas dependently originate. In Mahayana, we say dharmas are empty, what dependently origination is empty.

Secondly, what Ven Buddhadhasa said about three lifetimes implying a soul is plainly wrong.

when u say theravada, wasn't the dhamma taught by the Buddha? Buddha's dhamma has no distinction between theravada or mahayana. as you say all phenomenon are empty, dhamma is also empty, so how can there be a distinction?