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.

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by janielee

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.[/color]

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:

con·scious·ness

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Similar: awareness, sentience
Opposite:
unconsciousness
the awareness or perception of something by a person.

realization of cognizance of mindfulness of perception of
apprehension of recognition of
the fact of awareness by the mind of itself

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.

Dependent on ignorance are habitual formations; dependent on habitual (kamma) formations is consciousness; dependent on consciousness are name-and-form (mentality-corporeality);

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:

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...Thus is the ceasing of this whole mass of suffering.

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.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by janielee

‘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’.

What language is this?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by janielee

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.

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.

[Phaelyn]

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."

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Gem

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.

What language is "sankharapaccaya vinnanam"?

[sky]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

What language is "sankharapaccaya vinnanam"?

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

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

What language is "sankharapaccaya vinnanam"?

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

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

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by sky123

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

When did Pali use Romanized letters?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

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

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

Gujarata does not use Romanized letters also.

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