Is It Better to Have Never Been Born?

[uguay]

The formless Jhanas are interesting but in an odd kind of way I would still apply the snippet Dave supplied:

In this instance I take the formulation to imply duality (even in the form-less state), as consciousness necessitates a dualistic space in which it can function - the dream state being a good example. Perhaps once cleared of the 'name-and-form' component it is without feature and will not take rebirth?

Honestly, I'm struggling a bit with the quote, but it seems to me the "turning back" referred to might be equivalent to the feedback loop I talked about. I think because of the ultimately empty nature of the conditioned, either the mutually defining/supporting 'propping up' conception (idappaccayata), or the cyclical model, both work, and perhaps are just different ways of envisaging the same situation.

Anyway, it appears you're classing that 'form-less duality', as a sort of fundamental subject/object split. Perhaps like a proto-experiential state. If so, I can relate to that. Although I still say, that ultimately it's within that, or upon that, that 'name and form' arises, and as such, the cessation (or clearing) of 'name and form' leads to the cessation of 'consciousness', as you intimate.

As far as the dream state is concerned, it seems to me that, in that particular context, consciousness is only really part of the equation in the case of lucid dreaming or such-like. Which is why I tended to talk in terms of undifferentiated awareness, or aware-space in regard to 'the backdrop'. Basically, this was intended as being analogous to 'the unborn', i.e. neither perception, nor non-perception. But maybe it just opens up a can 'o worms.

[ancientbuddhism]

In the Loka Sutta (SN 12.44) viññāṇa arises as we expect with the sense-gates; eye > forms > conscioesness = ‘seeing’. From there arises passa ‘contact’ which lends to vedāna ‘sensations’ which lend to taṇhā ‘craving’. It is craving that is pivotal to turning back at craving, or blithely following the pathway to dukkha.

Consciousness has its place in an accretion of cognition, but nothing more.

[Element]

Unless the 12-step catechism was something the early Buddhists used in their brahmanical context...

D.O. is straightforward & clear. This link will save me explaining it, again: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/...fsuffering.pdf pages 3 to 6

Well, kamma is somewhat more ethereal than rupa, but ok, it seems you've effectively switched from the twelve nidanas to the five khandas to support your assertion....

Kamma is not mentioned in the 12 links, particularly at sankhara. Sankhara is breathing, discursiveness thought, perception & feeling. The above link has the correct explanation; the same as here: https://www.buddhismwithoutboundarie...nt-Origination.

Kind regards

[srivijaya]

In the Loka Sutta (SN 12.44) viññāṇa arises as we expect with the sense-gates; eye > forms > conscioesness = ‘seeing’. From there arises passa ‘contact’ which lends to vedāna ‘sensations’ which lend to taṇhā ‘craving’. It is craving that is pivotal to turning back at craving, or blithely following the pathway to dukkha.

Consciousness has its place in an accretion of cognition, but nothing more.

Good points but perhaps they could be extrapolated. Eye/seeing etc can arise without dependence upon external forms, eye sense consciousness etc, in the dream state for example. In this case, the entire process is mind/consciousness created and contained. It's more than a bit-part player in the accretion of cognition, it enables the entire show.

Obviously this is just the dream state but it serves to demonstrate the capacity of consciousness.

[ancientbuddhism]

Good points but perhaps they could be extrapolated. Eye/seeing etc can arise without dependence upon external forms, eye sense consciousness etc, in the dream state for example. In this case, the entire process is mind/consciousness created and contained. It's more than a bit-part player in the accretion of cognition, it enables the entire show.

Obviously this is just the dream state but it serves to demonstrate the capacity of consciousness.

Read the sutta cited; mind has its place with consciousness:

"Manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṃ"

“Dependant on the mind and phenomena, mind-consciousness arises.”

[srivijaya]

Honestly, I'm struggling a bit with the quote, but it seems to me the "turning back" referred to might be equivalent to the feedback loop I talked about. I think because of the ultimately empty nature of the conditioned, either the mutually defining/supporting 'propping up' conception (idappaccayata), or the cyclical model, both work, and perhaps are just different ways of envisaging the same situation.

Anyway, it appears you're classing that 'form-less duality', as a sort of fundamental subject/object split. Perhaps like a proto-experiential state. If so, I can relate to that. Although I still say, that ultimately it's within that, or upon that, that 'name and form' arises, and as such, the cessation (or clearing) of 'name and form' leads to the cessation of 'consciousness', as you intimate.

As far as the dream state is concerned, it seems to me that, in that particular context, consciousness is only really part of the equation in the case of lucid dreaming or such-like. Which is why I tended to talk in terms of undifferentiated awareness, or aware-space in regard to 'the backdrop'. Basically, this was intended as being analogous to 'the unborn', i.e. neither perception, nor non-perception. But maybe it just opens up a can 'o worms.

Open that can 'o worms, I say! That's what it's all about.

I would just add that I don't consider 'neither perception, nor non-perception' to be 'the unborn', as all Jhanas this side of nirvana are still samsaric.

In terms of the turning back, it's a case of "stress and it's release" which is the same thing as self-identifying with objects of cognition in a subject/object manner. Sorry to drag some Mahayana material into this conversation, but the Hsin Hsin Ming has some very appropriate stanzas on just this;

Things are objects because there is a subject or mind;
and the mind is a subject because there are objects.
Understand the relativity of these two
and the basic reality: the unity of emptiness.

http://mountainman.com.au/hsinhsin.html

[srivijaya]

Read the sutta cited; mind has its place with consciousness:

"Manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṃ"

“Dependant on the mind and phenomena, mind-consciousness arises.”

I've had a look on Access to Insight but I can only find Pali texts, which I don't read. Do you perchance have anything in English?

[Aloka]

Read the sutta cited; mind has its place with consciousness:

"Manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṃ"

“Dependant on the mind and phenomena, mind-consciousness arises.”

I've had a look on Access to Insight but I can only find Pali texts, which I don't read. Do you perchance have anything in English?

Try SN12.44 Loka Sutta. (Mentioned in post #22):


https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.44

[daverupa]

D.O. is straightforward & clear.

Eh, it makes sense, but it's unnecessary in the 12-step formulation. We seem to agree!

But you know, be that as it may, it's still better to have never been born.

[srivijaya]

Try SN12.44 Loka Sutta. (Mentioned in post #22):


https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.44

Thanks Aloka. Classic passage:

In dependence on the ear and sounds … In dependence on the nose and odours … In dependence on the tongue and tastes … In dependence on the body and tactile objects … In dependence on the mind and mental phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact.

Seems to sum it up.