The Nidanas are usually taught as circular. I assumed you knew that already.
So, birth leads to ignorance which leads to birth, over and over until the chain is broken and birth ceases.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Buddhism after death
- Thread starter rocala
- Start date
The Nidanas are usually taught as circular. I assumed you knew that already.
So, birth leads to ignorance which leads to birth, over and over until the chain is broken and birth ceases.
Banjankri
Active Member
If birth leads to ignorance, then there cannot be ignorance in birth. If there is no ignorance, the chain is broken. Moreover, if birth leads to ignorance which is "not knowing", there must be knowing somewhere on the path. Your view is wrong.
Although this process is circular, ignorance doesn't come and go.
No, it's not.
And "ignorance" in a Buddhist context means "not understanding". "knowing" doesn't enter into it.
Of course it does. If ignorance ceases it must first arise, and if something arises is must certainly disolve.
Banjankri
Active Member
Please...
"And what is ignorance, what is the origin of ignorance, what is the cessation of ignorance, what is the way leading to the cessation of ignorance? Not knowing about dukkha, not knowing about the origin of dukkha, not knowing about the cessation of dukkha, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of dukkha — this is called ignorance." -Sammaditthi Sutta: The Discourse on Right View
""Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of cravingcomes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
- Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising
Ignorance cases only once.
Enough.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Osal is correct in that what is translated as "ignorance" is not a lack of knowledge so much as a conceptual view that does not accord with reality. This kind of ignorance is also translated as "delusion," and the circle of 12 Links is meant to illustrate how this is a self-perpetuating state of affairs. The perception of a persistent self, for example, is one that most people have, but it is not strictly true. Failing to understand how persons are formed from complexes of conditioned phenomena contributes to "birth" in the sense of a subjective experience of selfhood, which is something that continually arises as the product of a series of conditioned phenomena.
The Buddhist view is that, apart from the subjective experience, ultimately there is no birth, as there is nothing there to be born. Therefore "birth" is a conventional way of conceptualizing the constant formation of self-identity. It uses the language of biological birth as a metaphor for the coming-into-being of an individual, but encompasses far more than that, and when Buddhist texts refer to "birth" they seldom refer to biological birth in particular. Similarly, "birth and death" is a traditional way of referring to the world of Samsara, in which individual phenomena seem to arise and cease in turn.
Buddhist philosophy explicitly rejects the idea that there must be a ground of being underlying phenomena in order for those phenomena to occur, at least in the objective sense, though from a purely subjective standpoint you could say that it is Mind, through which medium we experience all things.
Banjankri
Active Member
I think it is enough to quote it once. Read my previous post.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
Buddhist thought is vast and varied enough that context matters a great deal, and the same terms are used to refer to somewhat different things in different contexts. Simply pointing to one scriptural verse like a fundamentalist doesn't demonstrate anything useful, and that's not even getting into the problem of using scriptures in isolation from oral tradition and teachings and the misunderstandings that can result.
In short, this passage you quote is not defining "ignorance" for all contexts and for all time. It's part of a very specific dialog on a specific topic. Quoting scripture like a Baptist isn't going to further the conversation.
Banjankri
Active Member
Are you suggesting that your explanation is superior to this Sutta?
Your previous post had a bad timing, I admit, but now you are being ridiculous trying to defend it.
Here from Avijja Sutta:
"Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skillful qualities, followed by conscience & concern. In a knowledgeable person, immersed in clear knowing, right view arises. In one of right view, right resolve arises. In one of right resolve, right speech... In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration arises."
Vishvavajra
Active Member
I'm saying my explanation is more useful than quoting Buddhist scriptures without understanding, in a way that one only sees among certain types of formerly Christian converts. This is not how Buddhists traditionally use scripture. Nor is scripture a magical "I win" button in any debate or discussion, since it is just another signpost pointing the way to truth, not truth itself. It is a tool to aid practice, not practice itself. Scripture is like a pile of money: potentially a valuable treasure that can help you get what you need, but if that's all you have, then all you have is some scribblings on paper.
Banjankri
Active Member
What is this scripture if not Buddhas explanation? He was asked a question, and he replied. How your words are superior to his words, when the subject is precisely the same?
Moreover, you say that your explanation is useful, in what way? Did it help you to attain Buddhahood? If not, what use do we have from your explanation if it wasn't helpful to you?
Your explanation is the truth itself, right? Show some modesty.
And your explanation is? This passage explains ignorance using Four Noble Truths. What can be more Buddhist than that? Certainly not your explanation.
I will ignore the rest of your post, because I take no joy from compering people to "certain types".
Last edited:
Vishvavajra
Active Member
I'm not going to be baited into an even more fruitless discussion, especially since you've demonstrated a nasty tendency to project all kinds of baseless things onto your interlocutors and argue with what amount to straw men, all of which is merely a distraction from the point at hand.
But if you believe a few scriptural quotations have led you to Buddhahood, then I can only wish you well. Unfortunately, they appear to have only made you more rigid in your thinking, which is rather the opposite of the intended effect. I'm tempted to prescribe the prajñaparamita sutras as an antidote, as not only do they deal directly with wisdom vs. ignorance, but they will also expand the mind and correct excessive rigidity.
As for my explanation of ignorance, I have already given it, and I will not play this game of pseudo-Buddhist fundamentalism. Nor do I need to justify why I will not. Nobody with any experience in actual Buddhist practice would require an explanation in this case. You want scriptural basis? See the above, particularly the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra. I won't do them the violence of chopping them up into chapter and verse and serving them out of context, so you'll have to read the whole thing.
But if you believe a few scriptural quotations have led you to Buddhahood, then I can only wish you well. Unfortunately, they appear to have only made you more rigid in your thinking, which is rather the opposite of the intended effect. I'm tempted to prescribe the prajñaparamita sutras as an antidote, as not only do they deal directly with wisdom vs. ignorance, but they will also expand the mind and correct excessive rigidity.
As for my explanation of ignorance, I have already given it, and I will not play this game of pseudo-Buddhist fundamentalism. Nor do I need to justify why I will not. Nobody with any experience in actual Buddhist practice would require an explanation in this case. You want scriptural basis? See the above, particularly the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra. I won't do them the violence of chopping them up into chapter and verse and serving them out of context, so you'll have to read the whole thing.
Banjankri
Active Member
You prefer to bait.
Baiting...
The word avidya means "not know", but lets see what other Pseudo-Buddhists say about it:
"Ignorance (avijja) is the cetasika delusion (moha), which obscures perception of the true nature of things just as a cataract obscures perception of visible objects. According to the Suttanta method of explanation, ignorance is non-knowledge of the Four Noble Truths. According to the Abhidharma method, ignorance is non-knowledge of eight things: the Four Noble Truths, the pre-natal past, the post-mortem future, the past and the future together, and dependent arising." - Bhikkhu Bodhi
"Moha is ignorant of the true nature of realities, it does not know nāma and rūpa as they are. Moha is lack of knowledge about the four noble Truths: about dukkha, the origination of dukkha, the ceasing of dukkha and the way leading to the ceasing of dukkha" - Nina van Gorkom
"Ignorance means not knowing the [law of] actions and their effects, the [four] truths, and the virtues of the Precious Ones. It causes all affliction to occur" - Mipham Rinpoche
"The sequence of dependent origination begins with the condition of unknowing or ignorance (avijjā), which in Buddhist iconography is depicted as either a blind man or someone wearing a blindfold. This is the driver of the bus to dukkha [i.e. suffering]. If you have to choose the one determining factor for suffering, it’s this ignorance. People tend to take “ignorance” as pejorative, but it more precisely refers to a lack of gnosis or insightful seeing" - Ajahn Sucitto
Your thinking about ignorance as a conceptual view that does not accord with reality, is wrong. We don't have to go far to prove that. Newborns holds no views, and still, they are ignorant.
I prefer Mahāprajñāpāramitā Mañjuśrīparivarta Sūtra. It's too difficult for most of the folk, who thinks it's about unknowing, and they try to build their path on it. Apparently, you are one of them. That is simply wrong, but hey, you already know that as fruits are nowhere to be found
.I was trying to be fair and clear, doing the job of going through scriptures to provide support for what I am saying. You came as an expert, claiming to deliver expertise more useful then Suttas themselves, and you didn't even bother to justify them in any way. I admit that I refuted your views before you posted them, but that doesn't justify your behavior. Comparing me to some fundamental Baptists, or Christian converts was certainly not an example of right speech. Try keeping such opinions for yourself.
I have no further interest in discussing with you, as you have no knowledge and no wisdom, just a desire to be right, which I consider totally worthless.
Last edited:
Pot calling the kettle black.
Maaybe you should realy stop disussing things with people you hold in contempt rather than simply saying it, but continuing. Something you seem to do when other views of the dharma are at odds with yours.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
The cyclical view of dependent origination is a misrepresentation. It's clear from the suttas that ignorance doesn't have or need a cause, it's just the default condition for sentient beings. You could say that while ignorant persists dependent origination persists.
Some of the nidanas themselves can be regarded as cyclical though, bhava being an obvious example.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
The suttas invariably describe birth and death straightforwardly as the physical events, so why do you assume a metaphorical interpretation?
Says who? By that, I mean can you sugest two or more teachers who say that cyclical view is incorrect?
If it has no cause then it does not arise. If it doesn't arise, it's does not disolve. However, we can see that in the cae of Buddha, Bodhisattvas or Arhants, ignorance can and does cease.
It is the default, for sentient beings, but only after birth.
You could say that while ignorant persists dependent origination persists.
Some of the nidanas themselves can be regarded as cyclical though, bhava being an obvious example.[/QUOTE]
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Not the case for ignorance, which is the underlying condition for dependent origination. The first four paragraphs of this sutta give a sense of it:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.099.than.html
Think about it. The 12th nidana is aging, death, and the entire mass of dukkha, which doesn't make sense as a cause for ignorance, the 1st nidana. So the cyclical view doesn't make sense and the Tibetan wheel of life is a misrepresentation.
Anyway, if you can find a Buddhist text which clearly states a cause for ignorance I'd be interested to see it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Says who?
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Me. So have you found any Buddhist texts which clearly describe a cause for ignorance?
Vishvavajra
Active Member
If ignorance were uncaused, then it would be impossible for it to pass away, since arising and cessation are entirely a function of dependent origination. Nothing is inherently impermanent but is functionally so because the conditions that allow for it are present one moment, absent another. Ignorance is a conditioned phenomenon and therefore empty. Because it has no reality, it can be cured.
This has relevance not only to the very core of Buddhadharma, according to which the problems of the human condition are products of dependent origination and therefore curable, but it also has some doctrinal relevance, as belief in unconditioned dharmas (i.e. phenomena) is problematic and came to be seen as indicative of heterodox paths (hence its mention in that context in the Vimalakirti Sutra, for example).
I would dispute that. I don't recall a reference to parturition in the scriptures, though I haven't read all the Agamas. What I have see is "birth" as a general term for the arising of a phenomenon and "birth and death" as a reference to Samsara. This is all over Buddhist writings, from the sutras to the philosophical treatises, and even to the epic poetry (Ashvaghosha calls Shakyamuni the one who has come to "put an end to birth"—clearly not a suggestion that he'll be performing mass abortions). There are numerous instances in which a literal reading simply doesn't make sense, as "birth and death" are philosophical jargon. There are analogous usages in early Christianity, though in that tradition they've been mostly forgotten or glossed over as a highly literalist interpretation came to dominate.
Pretty much the entirety of Buddhist teaching is geared towards getting people to let go of this very rigid concept of selfhood that begins and ends with the physical body and/or the mind that comes with it. Creative uses of "birth" and "death" come with the territory, as what "we" are is negotiable and relative, as are the boundaries of "us." The lack of privilege granted to one single conceptualization teaches that we aren't bound by the conceptualizations in any case. However, you could say that's a more esoteric angle and one that practitioners are meant to gain an appreciation for over time. The great thing about Buddhadharma is that it can function on various levels, depending where the practitioner's mental karma is headed at any given time. If they're anxious about their biological death, then speak to them of that. Once they realize that it's an arbitrary distinction, you can speak to them of the lack of any self that could be born or die, at which point birth and death take on new and exciting meanings.