Anatta and paticca-samuppada (dependent origination)

Interesting Threads
1

Kaccānagotta Sutta : the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness {…]

Thus we see how the teaching on paticcasamuppada (dependent origination) is also an exposition on anatta as it explains the conditioned nature of phenomena-giving the important links, and revealing that there is no self behind these links.

It is not surprising if at times we have resistance about anatta.
Even the venerable Channa, who later became an arahat, knew the teaching about anatta but he shrunk back from it.

Saṁyutta Nikāya
Connected Discourses on the Aggregates

22.90. Channa
, the elder bhikkhus said to the Venerable Channa: “Form, friend Channa, is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, perception is impermanent, volitional formations are impermanent, consciousness is impermanent. Form is nonself, feeling is nonself, perception is nonself, volitional formations are nonself, consciousness is nonself. All formations are impermanent; all phenomena are nonself.”

Then it occurred to the Venerable Channa: “I too think in this way: ‘Form is impermanent … consciousness is impermanent. Form is nonself … consciousness is nonself. All formations are impermanent; all phenomena are nonself.’ But my mind does not launch out upon the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna; nor does it acquire confidence, settle down, and resolve on it. Instead, agitation and clinging arise and the mind turns back, thinking: ‘But who is my self?’(see note 181 below) But such does not happen to one who sees the Dhamma. So who can teach me the Dhamma in such a way that I might see the Dhamma?”

[…]

Then the Venerable Channa set his lodging in order, took his bowl and robe, and went to Ghosita’s Park in Kosambi, where he approached the Venerable Ānanda and exchanged greetings with him…”[…]
The Venerable Ānanda then said:
“In the presence of the Blessed One I have heard this, friend Channa, in his presence I have received the exhortation he spoke to the bhikkhu Kaccanagotta:

“This world, Kaccana, for the most part relies upon a duality … (the entire sutta 12:15 is cited here) … Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”

“So it is, friend Ānanda, for those venerable ones who have such compassionate and benevolent brothers in the holy life to admonish and instruct them. And now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the Venerable Ānanda, I have made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”
The Commentary (note 181 bhikkhu bodhi connected discourses):
Atha ko carahi me attā. Spk:

It is said that this elder had started to practise insight meditation without having done discernment of conditions. His weak insight could not eliminate the grip of self (attagāha), and thus when formations appeared to him as empty, agitation arose in him along with the annihilationist view, “I will be annihilated, I will be destroyed.” He saw himself falling into an abyss. [Spkpṭ: Agitation through fear (bhayaparitassanā) and clinging to views (diṭṭh’ upādāna) arose in him over the thought, “If phenomena are nonself, then what self can deeds done by what is nonself affect?” (see 22: 82 (III 104,1) and n. 142)]

Bodhi (note 183 ) explains that "

Ānanda’s choice of the Kaccānagotta Sutta is especially apt, as this sutta teaches how dependent origination counters the two extreme views of eternalism and annihilationism and replaces the view of self with the realization that it is only dukkha that arises and ceases.
”

1 Like
Understand anicca or anatta first?
2

Here is another sutta showing the intertwining of the paticcasamuppada and anatta.

SN 12.12 PTS: S ii 13 CDB i 541
Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna
translated from the Pali by
Nyanaponika Thera

“There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the four? Edible food, coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression; thirdly, volitional thought; fourthly, consciousness.”

After these words, the venerable Moliya-Phagguna addressed the Exalted One as follows:

“Who, O Lord, consumes[1] the nutriment consciousness?”

“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One. “I do not say that ‘he consumes.’[2] If I had said so, then the question ‘Who consumes?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be: ‘For what is the nutriment consciousness (the condition)?’[3] And to that the correct reply is: ‘The nutriment consciousness[4] is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence;[5] when that has come into being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and conditioned by the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.’”[6]

“Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?”

“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One.

“I do not say that ‘he has a sense-impression.’ Had I said so, then the question ‘Who has a sense-impression?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be ‘What is the condition of sense-impression?’ And to that the correct reply is: ‘The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.’”

“Who, O Lord, feels?”

“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One. “I do not say that ‘he feels.’ Had I said so, then the question ‘Who feels?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be ‘What is the condition of feeling?’ And to that the correct reply is: ‘sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.’”

“Who, O Lord, craves?”

“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One. “I do not say that ‘he craves.’ Had I said so, then the question ‘Who craves?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be ‘What is the condition of craving?’ And to that the correct reply is: ‘Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.’”

“Who, O Lord, clings?”

“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One, "I do not say that ‘he clings.’ Had I said so, then the question ‘Who clings?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be ‘What is the condition of clinging?’ And to that the correct reply is: ‘Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.’ Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.[7]

“Through the complete fading away and cessation of even these six bases of sense-impression, sense-impression ceases;[8] through the cessation of sense-impression, feeling ceases; through the cessation of feeling, craving ceases; through the cessation of craving, clinging ceases; through the cessation of clinging, the process of becoming ceases; through the cessation of the process of becoming, birth ceases; through the cessation of birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering.”

Notes
1.
Consumes or eats (aaharati) — The commentators say that this monk believed that he understood the three other kinds of nutriment but concerning consciousness he had conceived the notion that there was a “being” (satta) that takes consciousness onto himself as nutriment.
2.
Comy: “I do not say that there is any being or person that consumes (or eats).”
3.
Comy: “That means: ‘For what (impersonal) state (or thing; katamassa dhammassa) is the nutriment consciousness a condition (paccaya)?’” The term dhamma, in the sense of an impersonal factor of existence, is here contrasted with the questioner’s assumption of a being or person performing the respective function. By re-formulating the question, the Buddha wanted to point out that there is no reason for assuming that the nutriment consciousness “feeds” or conditions any separate person hovering behind it; but that consciousness constitutes just one link in a chain of processes indicated by the Buddha in the following.

1 Like
3

From the Channa sutta

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.90/en/bod … ight=false
samyutta nikaya 22.90. Channa

, the elder bhikkhus said to the Venerable Channa: “Form, friend Channa, is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, perception is impermanent, volitional formations are impermanent, consciousness is impermanent. Form is nonself, feeling is nonself, perception is nonself, volitional formations are nonself, consciousness is nonself. All formations are impermanent; all phenomena are nonself.”

Then it occurred to the Venerable Channa: “I too think in this way: ‘Form is impermanent … consciousness is impermanent. Form is nonself … consciousness is nonself. All formations are impermanent; all phenomena are nonself.’ But my mind does not launch out upon the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna; nor does it acquire confidence, settle down, and resolve on it. Instead, agitation and clinging arise and the mind turns back, thinking: ‘But who is my self?’(see note 181 below) But such does not happen to one who sees the Dhamma. So who can teach me the Dhamma in such a way that I might see the Dhamma?”

[…]

Then the Venerable Channa set his lodging in order, took his bowl and robe, and went to Ghosita’s Park in Kosambi, where he approached the Venerable Ānanda and exchanged greetings with him…”[…]
The Venerable Ānanda then said:
“In the presence of the Blessed One I have heard this, friend Channa, in his presence I have received the exhortation he spoke to the bhikkhu Kaccanagotta:

“This world, Kaccana, for the most part relies upon a duality …[*] (the entire sutta 12:15 is cited here)
[unfortunately that section was removed . Here it is here]: This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.

“This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. His knowledge about this is independent of others. It is in this way, Kaccana, that there is right view. “‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness… . Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”
… Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”

“So it is, friend Ānanda, for those venerable ones who have such compassionate and benevolent brothers in the holy life to admonish and instruct them. And now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the Venerable Ānanda, I have made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”

4

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.81/en/bod … ight=false

Saṁyutta Nikāya
Connected Discourses on the Aggregates
22.81. Parileyya

Bhikkhus, in regard to the Dhamma that has been thus taught by me discriminately, a reflection arose in the mind of a certain bhikkhu thus: ‘How should one know, how should one see, for the immediate destruction of the taints to occur?’

“And how, bhikkhus, should one know, how should one see, for the immediate destruction of the taints to occur? Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation—what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that formation is born.

“Thus, bhikkhus, that formation is impermanent**, conditioned, dependently arisen; that craving is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that contact is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen.** When one knows and sees thus, bhikkhus, the immediate destruction of the taints occurs.

5

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.61/en/bod … ight=false
Saṁyutta Nikāya
Connected Discourses on Causation
12.61. Uninstructed (1)

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Savatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anathapiṇḍika’s Park….

“Bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because growth and decline is seen in this body composed of the four great elements, it is seen being taken up and laid aside. Therefore the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ Therefore the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three, four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years, for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night.

“Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple attends closely and carefully to dependent origination itself thus: ‘When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases. That is, with ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.

“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”

6

https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/bodhi … ight=false
Majjhima Nikāya
148. The Six Sets of Six

vi “‘The six classes of craving should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling; with feeling as condition there is craving. Dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises…with feeling as condition there is craving. Dependent on the nose and odours, nose-consciousness arises…with feeling as condition there is craving. Dependent on the tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises…with feeling as condition there is craving. Dependent on the body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises…with feeling as condition there is craving. Dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling; with feeling as condition there is craving. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six classes of craving should be understood.’ This is the sixth set of six.

Robert: thus we see dependent origination explained. The sutta then continues:
Demonstration of not Self

i “If anyone says, ‘The eye is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the eye are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The eye is self.’ Thus the eye is not self.

“If anyone says, ‘Forms are self’…That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Forms are self.’ Thus the eye is not self, forms are not self.

“If anyone says, ‘Eye-consciousness is self’…That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Eye-consciousness is self.’ Thus the eye is not self, forms are not self, eye-consciousness is not self.
[..]

vi “If anyone says, ‘The mind is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the mind are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The mind is self.’ Thus the mind is not self.

“If anyone says, ‘Mind-objects are self,’…‘Mind-consciousness is self,’…‘Mind-contact is self,’…‘Feeling is self,’… … ‘Craving is self’…That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Craving is self.’ Thus the mind is not self, mind-objects are not self, mind-consciousness is not self, mind-contact is not self, feeling is not self, craving is not self

Note by bodhi
1331 The argument derives the principle of non-self from the verifiable premise of impermanence. The structure of the argument may be briefly set out thus: Whatever is self must be permanent; X is directly perceived to be imperma- nent, i.e., marked by rise and fall; therefore X is not self.

1337: 7 MA: There is nothing wonderful in the fact that sixty bhikkhus attained arahantship when the Buddha first taught this sutta. But each time Sariputta, Moggallana, and the eighty great disciples taught it, sixty bhikkhus attained arahantship. In Sri Lanka the Elder Maliyadeva taught this sutta in sixty places, and each time sixty bhikkhus attained arahantship. But when the Elder Tipitaka Culanaga taught this sutta to a vast assembly of humans and gods, at the end of the discourse a thousand bhikkhus attained arahantship, and among the gods only one remained a worldling

7

the Mahanidana sutta Commentary and sub-commentary.
Bodhi, The Great Discourse on Causation

Sutta: BECOME LIKE A TANGLED SKEIN
Commentary: When weaver’s yarn which has been badly kept and gnawed by mice becomes tangled all over, it is difficult to distinguish its begin­ ing and end and to straighten it out from beginning to end. Similarly, beings have stumbled over the principle of conditionality; they have become tangled and bewildered and are unable to straighten it out. How­ ever, it is possible for a person to straighten out a tangled skein by relying on his own personal ability. But except for the two kinds of bodhisattas [those who will become paccekabuddhas and perfect Bud­dhas], other beings are incapable of straightening out the principle of conditionality on their own [without the instructions of another]. And as a tangled skein, moistened with grease and worked over with a comb, becomes clustered and knotted all over, in the same way these beings who have stumbled over conditions and cannot set them straight be­ come confused and bound up in knots over the sixty-two views. For all those who rely on views are unable to straighten out the principle of conditionality.
SUB. CY. “Stumbled over the principle of conditionality”: having missed the middle path, they have fallen into the two extremes (of eternalism and annihilationism). “Stumbled over conditions”: stumbled by assuming the conditioning phenomena to be permanent, happiness, and self, when in their intrinsic nature they are impermanent, suffering, and non-self. “Unable to straighten out the principle of conditionality”: because they do not give up their assumptions of permanence, etc., they are unable to straighten out their own views regarding conditions, and therefore they become tied in knots by way of the bodily knot of dogmatic adherences.21

8

Majjhima Nikāya
115. Many Sorts of Elements

“But, venerable sir, in what way is a bhikkhu worthy to be called skilled in dependent origination?”

“Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu knows thus: ‘That is when this is; that arises with the arising of this. That is not when this is not; that ceases with the cessation of this. That is to say: “It is with ignorance as condition that formations have positive being; with formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form; with name-and-form as condition, the sixfold base; with the sixfold base as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, being; with being as condition, birth; it is with birth as condition that ageing and death have positive being, and also sorrow,..

[…]

He understands: ‘It is impossible, it never happens; that a person whose view is perfected should treat any dhamma as self—no such possibility is found’, and he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary man should treat any dhamma as self—such a possibility is found.’

9

in this sutta the factors of the paticcasamuppada are given with an explanation of each link. In the section on upadana it is said: There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self.
https://suttacentral.net/mn9/en/bodhi?l … ight=false
Majjhima Nikāya
9. Right View

friend, might there be another way in which a noble disciple is one of right view…and has arrived at this true Dhamma?”—“There might be, friends.

“When, friends, a noble disciple understands clinging, the origin of clinging, the cessation of clinging, and the way leading to the cessation of clinging, in that way he is one of right view… and has arrived at this true Dhamma.

“And what is clinging, what is the origin of clinging, what is the cessation of clinging, what is the way leading to the cessation of clinging? There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self. With the arising of craving there is the arising of clinging. With the cessation of craving there is the cessation of clinging. The way leading to the cessation of clinging is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view…right concentration.

“When a noble disciple has thus understood clinging, the origin of clinging, the cessation of clinging, and the way leading to the cessation of clinging…he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view… and has arrived at this true Dhamma.”

1 Like
10

It might be worthwhile pointing out that, ‘suffering’ is not meant in the usual way its used in English, although it encompasses that.

saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā

~SN56.11

katamañca, bhikkhave, dukkhaṃ? pañcupādānakkhandhātissa vacanīyaṃ

~SN22.104

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’

“It’s only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

~SN5.10

11

Some types of doubt that are destroyed by penetrating dependent origination.

Apparently the body is not self, feeling is not self, recognition is not self, thoughts are not self, and consciousness is not self. What self will experience the actions performed by not-self?

MN109

Venerable sir, what now is birth, and for whom is there this birth?

SN12.35

Venerable sir, who feels?

SN12.12

Where has this being come from? Where will it go?

MN2

1 Like
12

The teaching on dependent origination has 6 facets:
And showing anatta is one of these:
The Dispeller of Delusion (Sammohavinodanī) volume 1 page 238- 239

  1. As it spins thus:
    (i) As to source in the [four] truths,
    (ii) as to function, (iii) prevention, (iv) similes, (v) Kinds of profundity, and (vi) methods,
    it should be known accordingly.

915 (iii) [“As to prevention”] The clause “with ignorance as condition, formations” prevents seeing a maker; the clause “with formations as condition, consciousness” prevents seeing the transmigration of a self; the clause “with consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality” prevents the perception of compactness because it shows the analysis of the basis conjectured to be self; the clauses beginning with “with mentality-materiality as condition, the sixfold base” prevent the seeing of a self that sees, etc., cognises, touches, feels, craves, clings, exists, is born, ages and dies**. Therefore this Wheel of Existence should be known accordingly "as to prevention" of wrong seeing.

13

Visuddhimagga. XVII

  1. yasmā cassa tena tena kāraṇena tathā tathā pavattetabbattā
    desanāpi
    gambhīrā, na tattha sabbaññutaññāṇato aññaṃ ñāṇaṃ
    patiṭṭhaṃ labhati. tathāhetaṃ katthaci sutte anulomato, katthaci
    paṭilomato, katthaci
    anulomapaṭilomato, katthaci vemajjhato paṭṭhāya anulomato vā
    paṭilomato
    vā, katthaci tisandhicatusaṅkhepaṃ, katthaci dvisandhitisaṅkhepaṃ,
    katthaci ekasandhidvisaṅkhepaṃ desitaṃ, tasmā idaṃ bhavacakkaṃ
    desanāgambhīranti ayaṃ desanāgambhīratā

307(c) Then the teaching of this [dependent origination] is profound
since it needs to be given in various ways for various reasons, and none
but omniscient knowledge gets fully established in it; for in some
places in the Suttas it is taught in forward order, in some in backward
order, in some in forward and backward order, in some in forward or in
backward order starting from the middle, in some in four sections and
three links, in some in three sections and two links, and in some in two
sections and one link. That is why this Wheel of Becoming is profound in
teaching. This is the profundity of ‘teaching’.

14

This post is a translation by Nina van Gorkom of the tika to the Vism.
Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 307

Intro: In the previous sections the Dependent Origination was viewed
in accordance with the two Discriminations, Pa.tisambhidaa, of
meaning (attha) or the fruit of a cause, and of cause (dhamma). In
the following section it is viewed in accordance with the enunciation
in language (nirutti), in order to show its profundity. The Buddha,
with his omniscience, knew the right words to explain the Dependent
Origination in various ways.

  1. (c) Then the teaching of this [dependent origination] is profound
    since it needs to be given in various ways for various reasons, and none
    but omniscient knowledge gets fully established in it;

N: The Pali text has: also the teaching (desanaapi) is profound. In
other words, the way the Buddha enunciates the Dependent Origination
in language is deep.
As to the words, for various reasons (tena tena kaara.nena), the
Tiika explains: in a way enunciated by the excellence of his
awakening wisdom, for those who can be guided (to enlightenment).
N: Only the Buddha, because of his omniscience could teach in such
deep way. He was always intent on the welfare of those who could be
guided to develop understanding leading to enlightenment.

Text Vis.: for in some places in the Suttas it is taught in forward
order, in some in backward order,

N: As to in backward order (pa.tiloma), this means starting from the
end and going back to the beginning. Or it means, as the Tiika
mentions, that he begins to explain that when there is the cessation
of this condition, there is the cessation of that which is condioned
by it.
In K.S. II, 27, for example, he teaches: “But from the utter fading
out and cessation of ignorance activities [formations] cease, and so on.”

Text Vis.: in some in forward and backward order, in some in forward
or in
backward order starting from the middle, in some in four sections (or
groups, sa nkhepa) and three links (connections, sandhi), in some in
three sections and two links, and in some in two sections and one
link. That is why this Wheel of Becoming is profound in teaching.
This is the profundity of ‘teaching’.

N: Ven. Bodhi in his translation of the Mahaanidaana Sutta and
Commentaries, explains: “The four groups (sa nkhepa) are: past causes
(ignorance and volitional formations); present results (consciousness
through feeling); present causes (craving, clinging and existence);
and future results (birth, and aging-and-death). The three
connections (sandhi) obtain between past causes and present results,
present results and present causes, and present causes and future
results. See Vism. XVII, 289-90)”

N: The Tiika refers to various suttas as an illustration of the
foregoing. It mentions as an example of starting from the middle and
continuing in reverse order (patiloma) K.S. II, 11, Sustenances. The
sutta begins with the four kinds of nutriment, which are physical
nutriment, contact, volition and consciousness. These are the
“sustenances for the maintenance of beings that have come to birth,
or for the forwarding of those that seek to become.”
It is explained that craving is their condition, and that feeling is
the condition for craving, and so on backwards to ignorance.
The Tiika gives as an example of the teaching in forward order
(anuloma), starting from the middle, with two sections and three
links K.S. II, 70( 43, dukkha) that the Buddha said: “I will teach
you, monks, how dukkha arises and how it passes away. Listen to it…
What, monks, is the arising of dukkha?
Because of eye and visible object visual consciousness arises,
contact is the clash of the three; feeling is conditioned by contact,
craving by feeling. This, monks is the arising of dukkha…”
The Tiika refers to the sutta about the Fetters, Sa.myojana), K.S.
II, 86 ( 53).
The Fetters or Samyojanas are another group of akusala dhammas (see
Dhammasangani 1113). The samyojanas “fetter” khandhas (in this life)
to khandhas (of the next), or kamma to its fruit. We read in the
sutta referred to by the Tiika that the Buddha said: “In him, monks,
who contemplates the enjoyment that there is in all that makes for
enfettering, craving (tanhaa) grows. Grasping (upaadaana) is
conditioned by craving. Becoming is conditioned by grasping. Birth is
conditioned by becoming. Decay-and-death is conditioned by birth.
Grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, despair come to pass. Such is
the uprising of this entire mass of dukkha.”
The Tiika also refers to the K.S. II, 95 ( 62) where the dependent
origination is taught by way of a single factor. We read (in the
translation by Ven. Bodhi): “ The instructed noble disciple attends
to this carefully and methodically in terms of dependent arising:
'When there is this, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that
arises. When this is absent, that does not come to be; with the
ceasing of this, that ceases. ’ ”
We read that the sutta states: “So seeing, monks, the well taught
ariyan disciple is repelled by contact…”

Conclusion.
As we read in the sutta about the Fetters, when one contemplates
enjoyment in what makes for enfettering, craving grows. Usually we
find enjoyment in the fetter of sense desire. What we read can be
verified in our life. We like to experience colour, sound and all the
sense objects and thus craving grows evermore. But we read that the
Buddha pointed out that it is dukkha to continue being in the cycle
and he showed the way to be liberated therefrom.
As we read: “The well taught ariyan disciple is repelled by
contact…” Understanding of nama and rupa, of cause and effect can
lead to detachment.
As we read in the Vis. text, the teaching of the Dependent
Origination is profound, there is no other knowledge but the Buddha s
omniscient knowledge that becomes fully established in it.

Nina.

15

Yes, and we can say for certain that since very early on, whole movements, in fact, shrank back from it. For example, in the thread “Bhāra Sutta and the Puggalavādin mess”,@bksubhuti quotes notes to the sutta which demonstrate this very nicely.

When defining this factor as the person (or individual, puggala), the Buddha drops the abstract form of the other factors, and uses the ordinary, everyday language of narrative: the person with such-and-such a name. And how would this person translate into more abstract factors? He doesn’t say. After his passing away, however, Buddhist scholastics attempted to provide an answer for him, and divided into two major camps over the issue.

One camp refused to rank the concept of person as a truth on the ultimate level. This group inspired what eventually became the classic Theravada position on this issue: that the “person” was simply a conventional designation for the five aggregates. However, the other camp — who developed into the Pudgalavadin (Personalist) school — said that the person was neither a ultimate truth nor a mere conventional designation, neither identical with nor totally separate from the five aggregates. This special meaning of person, they said, was required to account for three things: the cohesion of a person’s identity in this lifetime (one person’s memories, for instance, cannot become another person’s memories); the unitary nature of rebirth (one person cannot be reborn in several places at once); and the fact that, with the cessation of the khandhas at the death of an arahant, he/she is said to attain the Further Shore. However, after that moment, they said, nothing further could be said about the person, for that was as far as the concept’s descriptive powers could go.

As might be imagined, the first group accused the second group of denying the concept of anatta, or not-self; whereas the second group accused the first of being unable to account for the truths that they said their concept of person explained.

The Puggalavādins wound up having a huge influence in India, as can be seen from the following excerpts.

“According to Thiện Châu, the Vātsīputrīyas were the initial parent school out of which branched off four sub-schools (sometime between the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE); mainly the Saṃmitīyas, Dhammuttariyas, Bhadrayanikas, and the Sandagarikas.[29] The Vātsīputrīya communities were established in Kosambi and Sarnath, living side by side with the Saṃmitīyas, a school which quickly eclipsed them in popularity.[30…

…By the 4th century, this school had become so influential that they replaced the Sarvastivādins in Sarnath as the most prominent school. By the time of King Harsha in the seventh century, they were the largest Nikāya Buddhist school in India.[33] …

…Their most influential center of learning was at Valabhi University in Gujarat, which remained an important place for the study of Nikāya Buddhism until the 8th century.[34] Yijing, who visited Gujarat in 670 CE, noted that the Sammitiyas had the greatest number of followers in Western India and that the learning center at Valabhi rivaled that of Nalanda.[34]

Étienne Lamotte, using the writings of the Chinese traveler Xuanzang, asserted that the Saṃmitīya were in all likelihood the most populous non-Mahāyāna sect in India, comprising double the number of the next largest sect,[35] although scholar L. S. Cousins revised his estimate down to a quarter of all non-Mahāyāna monks, still the largest overall.[36] The Saṃmitīya sect seems to have been particularly strong in the Sindh, where one scholar estimates 350 Buddhist monasteries were Saṃmitīya of a total of 450.[37] This area was rapidly Islamised in the wake of the Arab conquest. They continued to be a presence in India until the end of Indian Buddhism, but, never having gained a foothold elsewhere, did not continue thereafter.”

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

When we see that some of the biggest Buddhist schools in history shrank back from the doctrine of anattā, it really should come as no surprise that many Buddhists today do too. In fact, if we are going to incorporate what the Commentarial literature says vis-à-vis people of today’s age having less positive accumulations than those of times past, then we should expect to see not just a greater, but a much greater number of Buddhists shrinking back from the doctrine of anattā in such ways today. This becomes relevant when we examine our own practice to see if we are engaging in such shrinking back from the doctrine of anattā ourselves (which we should all do), as well as when we examine potential teachers to see if they are, as a greater percentage of teachers should do so today than did then.

R

1 Like