Dependent origination
 

Whilst Buddhism lite appeals to many, the original teachings of the a Buddha are actually quite specific and precise.

Core teachings such as anicca, dukkha and anatta are not optional or secondary, they are paramount.

As is dependent origination.

People choose the lite version because it’s easy to theorize and utilize, but it’s not Buddhism, at heart, without the reach of Nibbana.

Here is a teaching below -

In its most complete formulation, Dependent Origination is expressed as:

‘avijjapaccaya sankhara; sankharapaccaya vinnanam; vinnanapaccaya namarupam; namarupapaccaya salayatanam; salayantanapaccaya phasso; phassapaccaya vedana; vedanapaccaya tanha; tanhapaccaya upadanam; upadanapaccaya bhavo; bhavapaccaya jati; jatipaccaya jaramaranam- soka-parideve-dukkha-domanassupayasa sambhavanti, evametassa kevalassa dukkhakhandassa samudayo hoti.’

This deals with arising of dukkha.

The cessation of dukkha is then mapped out:

‘avijjayatveva asesaviraga-nirodha sankharanirodho; sankharanirodha vinnananirodho; vinnananirodha namarupanirodho; namarupanirodha salayatananirodho; salayatananirodha phassanirodho; phassanirodha vedananirodho; vedananirodha tanhanirodho; tanhanirodha upadananirodho; upadananirodha bhavanirodho; bhavanirodha jatinirodho; jatinirodha jaramaranam-soka-parideva-dukkha- domanassupayasa nirujjhanti; evametassa kevalassa dukkhakhandhassa nirodho hoti’.

In English this can be translated as:

Dependent on ignorance are habitual formations; dependent on habitual (kamma) formations is consciousness; dependent on consciousness are name-and-form (mentality-corporeality); dependent on name-and-form are the six sense-bases; dependent on the six sense bases is contact; dependent on contact is feeling; dependent on feeling is desire; dependent on desire is grasping is becoming; dependent on becoming is birth; dependent on birth is old age, sickness and death, sorrow, grief, lamentation, pain and despair.

Through the entire ceasing of this ignorance, habitual formations cease; through the ceasing of habitual formations, consciousness ceases; through the ceasing of consciousness, name-and-form cease; through the ceasing of name-and-form, the six sense-bases cease; through the ceasing of the six- sense bases, contact ceases; through the ceasing of contact, feeling ceases; through the ceasing of feeling, desire ceases; through the ceasing of desire, grasping ceases; through the ceasing of grasping, becoming ceases; through the ceasing of becoming, birth ceases; through the ceasing of birth, old age, sickness and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair come to cease. Thus is the ceasing of this whole mass of suffering.

One thing that always stands out to me is whoever translated this into English stuck in the word consciousness, but not in the way that word is used in English.

Here is the English definition:


Ok so in English consciousness represents the self, that which is awake, aware,
the perceiver. But in that Buddhist translation it means something wholly different.


Here the writer is going through the negative factors of the delusional self.
Ignorance... name and form, form is delusional conceptual mind, false
interpretations of what is, dependent on consciousness are name-and-form

So in this translation, the word consciousness is not the self, not perception, it is that thing that creates a false perception, so then in Buddhism, what is perceiving all of this? what perceives the false perception ?

If somebody thinks I am reading this wrong here is more where it is even more evident:


Ok here the writer is describing the right way to be. To end ignorance, which we see at the end of the paragraph.... ends suffering to something or someone. But this something or someone has nothing to do with a consciousness. No the paragraph states consciousness ceases so what then experiences the ending of suffering?

It's not a big deal. I'm just pointing out the word consciousness was given a non-English definition whoever the translator was. According to the translator of this, because he did not use the right English words, an enlightened person does not have a consciousness. In English, that means they have no perception and are unconscious. Dead in other words, not living or alive. Or maybe permanently asleep though we perceive dreams and our alarm clock etc while asleep. So it would be a type of sleep without anything that could have a dream or hear an alarm clock.

It's possible whoever translated this into English did not understand English well and messed up. I wonder if they messed up other words.

What language is this?

Interesting translation because in all the translations I've see to date transate "sankharapaccaya vinnanam" as either 'kamma formations' or 'volitional formations' where of course kamma is volition. I'm not sure why this author uses 'habitual (kamma) formations', but it's uncommon. It makes sense in it's own way because if you're not aware; that is, 'ignorant', the tendencies or habits usually referred to as 'latent tendencies or "
anusaya" play out in an automated mindless way. The latent tendencies are also 'volitional' even though unintended in the sense that they are generated through kamma, and these are usually related to the unwholesome qualities of mind that perpetuate rebirth.

I would also point out as far as Anatta, and The absence of a self something or someone is without this self. If this perceiver did not exist, a teaching like Anatta would be pointless, in fact the entirety of Buddhism would be pointless as there would be no one and nothing existing to practice it, study it, learn from it etc. No one to end suffering in, no one to be suffering, no one to experience nirvana or liberation, no one to be enlightened. No-self is not being properly translated into English either in my opinion.

So obviously if something is there to be enlightened or not enlightened, Buddhism does not deny a consciousness or the perceiver or even a soul. Soul is another word that is not being translated correctly into the English definition. I think the correct English translation of Buddhism into English would be our entire identity is false or delusional because we have mistaken the self made up by thoughts and memory and habitual thinking etc to be the actual self, and we can live more happily and peacefully without identifying with these things as ourselves. The word "ego" for this false self comes close but it is actually more than we normally associate with that word.

Buddhism would say all ego based interpretation is also false or delusional as the ego construct is false. How we "picture" our structure is false. Buddhism takes it to the extreme and asks one to stop all identification with the interpreter but then without consciousness itself discerning the false from the true, liberation could not take place, so there is "interpretation" going on. But the difference is one kind of interpretation has it's source as the ego and thought and the other source is experiential knowledge. This leads to the conclusion that "consciousness" or the "perceiver" is a lot more complex than we assume it to be. Consciousness itself is a kind of "self" or identity and it has qualities, like awareness and understanding and knowledge in varying degrees and all of this would survive the death of the body. One could even argue consciousness has "personality."

What language is "sankharapaccaya vinnanam"?

Pali.... The language of the Pāli Canon or Tipiṭaka and is the sacred language of Theravāda Buddhism.

I think it is Gujarati language. That's what Google's translator seems to say anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarati_language

When did Pali use Romanized letters?

Gujarata does not use Romanized letters also.

Gujarata is written ગુજરાતી. As you notice, it does not use any Romanized letters.

It's Pali. The Pali text is in funny lookin' Indian squiggles, so, for example, sankhara looks like सङ्खार, but then the alphabet is used to make it readable, kinda like Japanese has an alphabet version. Pali is no longer a spoken language, though, kinda like Latin is used by the Church but no one actually speaks it.


Sankhara means formation but is also regarded as a 'potential'. Paccaya means cause, but the cause of sankhara is volition or kamma. Vinnana(m) means mind,so the underlying meaning of the term regards the volitional generation of formations of mind, loosely translated.

The subtlety here is, sankhara can be generated by the volition (which arises in ignorance) as potentials which will inevitably arise as conscious experience at such time when all the conditions for its manifestation come together - this is basically the law of kamma. Hence that second part in the passage regards the very urge to move the mind to the manifestation of thoughts and things. However, the things might not manifest in the immediate term as sankhara really pertains to the potential which destines creation rather than than creation itself, if that makes sense.


The dependent origins are not really thought about as linear with one following the other, but as by cyclic and interdependent. It's like the entirety of it arises at once, yet each category generates all the others, pretty much describing the kammic cycle.


The reference to ignorance is placed first because it is at the root in the sense that incomplete awareness, misperception, wrong view or unconsciousness, called avijja; and delusion or confusion, called Moha; are the epicentre of every woe, and the insight or realisation is the clarification that resolves it. As Jesus put it "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free".


Ok that's getting into the complexity of the philosophy, so I'll back away slowly now. :icon_eek:

Your Buddhists Wife/Daughter and Family can explain it for you..... It's quite a long story.

Not really.

To provide such an answer does explain a lot but then you already know that.

What you claimed was Pali is actually English. This is a classical error. What was provided was a transliteration - not Pali.

As far as I know, transliterations do not get translated. Why would they?

When janielee provided this information, the source of where it was gotten should have been provided. The source is https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut057.htm

What language is "sankharapaccaya vinnanam"? It is a transliteration and the language used is English, but then you knew that.

This is a classical mistake.

It would be interesting to find out how many people actually know what a transliteration is?

It is actually a teaching from Ajahn Sumedho :rolleyes:

If you knew it was English why ask......

Get a Pali-English Dictionary, it might help....

' Standard Description Avijjapaccaya sankhara, sankharapaccaya vinnanam, .... The above two Pali phrases Imasmim sati, idam hoti, and Imasmim asati, idam ...

Note.... Two Pali Phrases.....

Some very good stuff from that link.




Sorry, so much good stuff.. running would like this :)



Some really good stuff.

Thank you for the link :)

Too many times people have claimed on SF a transliteration was the original language.

I felt it was about time to see if people really did know the difference.

It turned out I was right.

Those are transliterated expression. That is not Pali.

I thought you knew what transliteration is, but I guess not.

For example, as you already know:

सङ्खार is pali
sankhara is the transliteration
formation is one of the possible translations

You are welcome.

Why would somebody translate a transliteration?

Why not translate from the source language which is Pali?

no mention of whats beyond the mind. if i was to take what is said literaly i would assume its about the removal of being a human being. but we know that is false. as there are countless whom have resolved the concerns mentioned from bliss and silence. where all human qualities can also live. but are comforted by a greater power superceding human qualities. without effort. without concern of what or if human qualities one may have.

either there is a lot missing here. something lost in translation. really bad explanation. the author is nowhere near the possibility many have become to abide in. or iat least in the process yet delusional on where it leads to.

Your Wife/Daughter/Family will answer your ?s. Buddhist can explain it to you quicker, it's very simple BTW :smile:

' What you claimed was Pali is actually English. '


Definitely not English words, check your English Dictionary and also a Pali Dictionary or maybe even easier ask your Buddhist Family :biggrin:

If it is so simple, why then did I have to explain why you were mixing transliterations with source language.

For some reason, it went way over your head, but then, you already knew that.

for me i saw it as jail and the key out is bliss. so you couldn't be more accurate when you said i would like this. i would just add that for me i see and saw the jail as also the means to the key. since when the jail can cause surrender and the desire to get out. surrender and or desire for a practice which also results to surrender. thus becoming open to the silence and bliss. the key

Pali does not have Romanized characters: that was the first give away.

Even after I have shown the difference of Pali, transliteration and translation you still will not accept.

For example, as you already know:

सङ्खार is pali
sankhara is the transliteration
formation is one of the possible translations

Are you telling me the word "sankhara" is written in Pali? That word is the transliterated Pali word and it is in English.

Do you know what the Pali alphabet looks like?

It didn't go over my head, it's just not that important to me, the Scriptures are more important :smile:

sky123,
being you love to ridicule my Buddhist family, I think it is best we part ways. Please do not respond to any of my posts.

नमस्ते

Of course I know what the Pali Alphabet looks like.
So where is Sankhara found in an English Dictionary ?????


Pali: सङ्खार (saṅkhāra).

The Pali word 'sankhara' has multiple meanings dependent on the context. It can mean: ... The five aggregates are conditioned things because they arise & exist subject to & dependent ..

Does that help you.... Hope so because your Wife can take over now, as a Buddhist she will know what's what.......

I am definitely not ridiculing your Family but you keep talking about your Buddhists Wife and Family I would presume they would explain Buddha's Teachings etc: and save you questioning others on here...

I personally would go to them first, then join in here afterwards with the knowledge you have gained from them.

Odd, you made some errors in confusing source language, in this case Pali, with its transliteration. And then when I questioned you about the error, you refuse to accept responsibility.

If you desire not to want to know the difference between transliteration and a source language, in this case Pali, that is up to you. But please, do not confuse the two on this forum. And when a person claims they have translated a transliteration: please do not make that mistake again also.

Maybe you should take a course in how to translate. Then you will see the difference between

source language
transliteration
translation.

Each of the above sections are different..... but for some odd reason, many people confuse transliteration for source language. Common problem.

Sankhara is a transliterated word. Wikipedia has an entry for the word which you already know. Maybe you should look it up? Not all share words are in the dictionaries. But Sankhara definitely is used as an English word.
Why can't you accept transliterated words? Why are you having such a difficult time?

sky123, you have been ridiculing my family, accusing me of FALSE NEWS and other childish tactics.

The English language is based on English letters (symbols) and the pronunciation of those symbols. So an English word uses the English
alphabet. So somebody took सङ्खार and transliterated it into English
so that someone who speaks English could associate it with a sound,
a pronunciation in English.

How does a word using the English alphabet (so it is an English word) get into an English dictionary?

Basically by being well known and used by a lot by English speakers in everyday use.

Here is the answer from the dictionary Merriam-Webster

A word gets into a dictionary when it is used by many people who all agree that it means the same thing. If your toddler nephew invented a great word that the English language simply can’t do without, don’t write to us to recommend that it be added to the dictionary. Use it. First, you drop the word into your conversation and writing, then others pick it up; the more its use spreads, the more likely it will be noticed by dictionary editors, or lexicographers. If your nephew’s word is one that English speakers decide we need, it has a good chance of getting into the dictionary.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/word...the-dictionary

Don’t see how that’s ridicule, especially when you keep talking about your Muslim, Buddhist, Christian relatives quite often.

Also, you went off at Shivani Devi for sharing her extensive and excellent, profound knowledge of language. She is one who could teach you, I anticipate, given how learned she is.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...47#post1895447

And my understanding of these forums is you don’t get to tell who can respond to your posts, you can however use the ignore function yourself if you wish,

BTW sky123 is right - I didn’t quote from the link you provided.

Jl

Buddhism defines consciousness in a specific way.

If you’re interested you can look it up on Access to Insight.

And no, the translator didn’t mess anything up. He was spot on.

You can’t use a different understanding to right fit your understanding of Buddhism..

Consciousness is anatta, it is not self as well as impermanent and dukkha.

Jl

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.

Rest of the article:
https://accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth.../notself2.html