Thank you for this video all three of you! I really like how it comes back around at the end to just practice and firsthand experience and intuitive understanding rather than being able to intellectually grasp it, contain it and explain it to someone effectively. Maybe this is one of the teachings that can only be understood through firsthand intuitive experience. I definitely see a big connection between anatta and paticca samuppada. Thanks again! Love the videos with the three of you, great team!

a recent insight/formula, which I would like to share/put to the test is : "things are empty because they ex-ist" (ex-sistere, to take sustenance from elsewhere)

The part that's been hardest for me to understand is the first three links, in no small part to the very unintuitive nature of the concept of "sankhara." However, this is how I understand it: Ignorance is perhaps the easiest part of these three links to understand. It's just ignorance of reality and how things work, particularly in allowing the fetters to continue to exist in one's mind. From this ignorance, the other fetters, primarily the fetter of craving for material existence, drives one "to be." The most powerful urge a human mind has is this one, and not even the will to live is quite on the same level as this will to exist (the will to live and will to exist are not the same; the former is a specific application of the latter). Since all of existence as we know it, rupa or arupa, is known through consciousness, that's what gets created. Consciousness is the self as far as the unenlightened mind is concerned. You can lose an arm and you're still you, so it's easy to see you're not this body. You can lose a perception, vedana, sankara...any of these and you're still you. But you cannot lose your consciousness and still be a self - and this is why the root ignorance of reifying consciousness into a self happens. And no, sleeping or being hit on the head is not what's meant by "losing consciousness" here. No author has helped me understand consciousness better than Bernadette Roberts, of which her book "What is Self?" is phenomenal. She came through a Catholic path, but I'm certain she reached Arahantship based on what she says about her path. She says that at the end of the path, consciousness ceases; it's gone. However, the physical being continues on until the death of the body. It's inconceivable to a conscious creature this could happen, but it's what happens at the end of the path when the will for existence, the fuel of consciousness, is given up. So the "will to exist" creates consciousness in order to exist. All the other sankharas are just kammic resultants that create the specific conditions that give rise to a specific kind of consciousness, but the first and foremost sankhara is the fetter of craving for existence. And the only way to exist is by being consciousness of something. From there, the mind creates the world as we experience it. I say "creates" because the mind is a very active participant in what it ultimately experiences. Modern cognitive science affirms this even. The mind is not a passive recipient of an outer world.

@26:43 in accord with your idea: "In understanding this dependently arising process, what is of crucial importance to remember here is that, as the Buddha says, the five aggregates of grasping are not separable from one another, although of course they can be distinguished. Considered in this context, what this really means is that at every stage of the causal process, the five aggregates of grasping, or at least their main constituents, are present. Then the question arises as to why at each stage only one factor is mentioned as the condition, and only one factor is mentioned as what is conditioned. Here the Theravada Buddhist exegesis comes to our support. In this connection it makes three main observations: 1. Dependent arising means the arising of effects evenly in dependence on a conjunction of conditions. 2. Arising means “arising together and equally, not piecemeal and successively. 3. If only one factor is mentioned as the condition for another, it is in order to single out the chief condition among many conditions and relate it to the most important conditioned factor among many other conditioned factors. What these three observations amount to is that from a plurality of conditions arise a plurality of conditioned factors. Stated otherwise: nothing arises from nothing, nothing arises from a single condition, nothing arises as a single conditioned factor. It is always the case that from a multiplicity of conditions arise a multiplicity of conditioned factors. Therefore, strictly speaking, “dependent” means “co-dependent” (dependence on many factors), and “arising” means “co-arising” (arising together with many other factors)." -Karunadasa-

Defects in Traditional Three Lives Interpretation of Paticca Samuppada 1) The Buddha said in several suttas that his Dhamma is ‘sanditthiko’ meaning ‘visible in this life’ or ‘directly visible’. Although the Buddha did speak about past lives and sometimes even future lives which he directly saw and knew by his psychic powers, the Buddha meant by sanditthiko that the Dhamma can be known in this very life without referring to past lives or using psychic powers. This is very important as it means an ordinary intelligent person without psychic powers can understand the Dhamma. He also said that the Dhamma is ‘akaliko’, i.e. ‘not dependent on time; timeless, immediate’. This means the Dhamma is applicable always, irrespective of time, not bound by time. SN 35.70. “Venerable sir, it is said ‘the directly visible (sanditthiko) Dhamma, the directly visible Dhamma’. In what way, venerable sir, is the Dhamma directly visible, immediate (akaliko), inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise?” The above sutta shows that suffering, the cause of suffering, the ceasing of suffering, and the way to the ceasing of suffering are directly visible in this very life. This is confirmed again by sutta SN 12.43 2) The Jains or Niganthas taught that suffering is caused by kamma done in the past life/lives. The Buddha showed how this was unacceptable in sutta MN 14. We can see from the above that the Buddha was trying to show that past life actions are not relevant to present life suffering because we are not aware of them. What is important is that the origin, the cessation, and the way to end suffering can be seen here and now. There is no need to bring in the past and the future. One could argue that the Niganthas were speaking without direct knowledge (ie. psychic powers). If that is so then it would imply that when one asserts that rebirth-consciousness (Condition no.3) in this life is due to Kamma (Condition no.2) done in the past life, one would need to possess psychic powers and speak from direct knowledge. But the majority of the Arahants did not possess psychic powers. In sutta SN 12.10 the Buddha said he contemplated and understood Paticca Samuppada when he was still a Bodhisatta, not yet enlightened. So this argument is not valid. 3) Although the Buddha usually explained Paticca Samuppada by twelve conditions, sometimes he used only ten, leaving out Avijja and Sankhara. If Avijja and Sankhara refers to past life, as in the Three Lives Interpretation, then evidently past life is not necessary to explain the origin and ceasing of suffering. This is seen in the longest sutta in Paticca Samuppada, i.e. DN 15 (Maha Nidana Sutta), and also SN 12.65. 4) We see in sutta MN 79 (Culasakuludayi Sutta ) the Buddha was basically telling the wanderer Sakuludayi that they could discuss the past if Sakuludayi could recollect past lives, and the future if he possessed the divine eye. But since Sakuludayi did not possess these two psychic abilities, the Buddha said he would discuss a topic concerning only the present, namely Paticca Samuppada. This very clearly shows that Paticca Samuppada concerns only present life, not past or future.

maybe that's why pratyekabuddhas keep their mouth shut.....indeed Panno

Excellent once again yes i think intuition is the way rather than the nuts and bolts approach although it gives a Framework to work from ???

🙏🔥🙏

@18:34 There was a monk named Bhante Dhammavuddho and he has a similar definition of Bhava, he describes it as "the will to live". To understand better the meaning of existence, we have to refer to sutta SN 12.68: “Nibbana is the cessation of existence.” When a person becomes liberated, an Arahant, he has attained nibbana (SN 12.51, SN 22.46, SA 85, SA 226), and existence ceases, meaning the conceit (‘I am’ or self / atta) ceases. So existence means the perception that self or I exists, either in the sense-sphere or form-sphere or formless sphere. The Commentary however explained ‘cessation of existence’ as ‘cessation of the five aggregates’ which is unacceptable since the Arahant still possesses the five aggregates. This Commentarial remark has given rise to the wrong view that an Arahant only attains nibbana when he passes away. In the ordinary worldling the five aggregates cease when he dies, but the self/will or desire to live (bhava) does not cease and consequently leads to rebirth. So existence does not mean the world of existence, but existence means a being (with a ‘self’ or ‘I am’ perception) has come into existence. Thus the word bhava can also be translated as ‘being’ or ‘becoming’. So this being, upon realizing that it exists in this world, will understand that it must have been born into this world. So the condition existence / being is necessary for the realization of birth. That is why it is said that existence conditions birth, and not the other way around.

For a long time I had this theory that the universe is just God split into trillion individual conciousnesses so when you suffer it's really God suffering and when you're happy it's really God who's happy. In that scenario there is no real you and me, but only God who alone has conciousness. A sort of panentheism. God experiencing itself through us. Any thoughts on that?

According to the Theravadins, "consciousness (citta) cannot occur without the simultaneous occurence of *at least* 7 additional 'mental qualities' (cetasika)." "The simplest kind of awareness in practice thus involves the *simultaneous occurence* of eight mental events (dhamma): consciousness + contact, feeling, perception, willing, one-pointedness, life, attention" from a presentation on Theravadin Abhidhamma by Dr Rupert Gethin to the Dalai Lama and Karmapa 'Abhidamma Concept of Attention - Rupert Gethin' - on KZfaq

Rue was a little eccentric for me but he’s growing on me.

What is this theory of everything to do with the end of dukkha?

Since you guys are talking about Buddhadasa's views on Rebirth. His views are crystal clear, for all who do not refuse to see. He says, there's no Rebirth in DO, there's Birth. We can see lots of births of all sorts of things all around us, but nobody has ever seen anything die, then be reborn again. There's birth, but not ever of the same person/being/thing which has previously died. He goes on and says, there's 3 types of Births: There's Physical or biological birth from the mothers womb, which happens once and that's all there is to it. There's no rebirth of the dead, no biological rebirth. There's births all over the place, but not of "dead people".. Then there's Psychological birth, arising of the illusion of Self in the mind, caused by afflictions and kamma - every time "me, mine" arises in the mind, it is this type of "birth" of Self happening. But again, it is always a new "me, mine" arising and then ceasing; there's no re-birth because each "me, mine" is momentary & not-self. And then there's birth of functions - we have eyes, but eye sense organ is "born" - "jumps to life" - only when contact arises; when contact ceases, that's the "death" of that particular sensation. When there's another contact, even if it's in rapid succession, it is not rebirth, it is a new birth, of a new eye sense organ and a new sensation, and of all that which follows.... -- And as for the claim that he never denied literal rebirth after death: he has explicitly stated that this doctrine is false in absolute sense, but is useful as a social tool, and as a pacifier to stop children from crying. Because it is like this, of course he doesn't deny it - he also never denied Santa Claus....why make the children cry?

You are walking around the lake not coming down to swime in water of Paticca Samuppada because your mindset are sticking with something else. Blind Brahmins Asanga ,Baubandhu and others did the same before like you.

The entire subject is of very low intelligence and mired in insincerity. If DO explains everything that why doesn't it include Nirvana or Buddha? And if it does not include Nirvana or Buddha then what is the point of discussing it ? You are only discussing what is false, and you see it ciruclates. So what. Looking repeatedly in an empty box does not fill the box. Nor does observing an empty box, or diagnosing it with "logic", does not make love occur, because love can only be understood with a higher logic. The logic that is used in the analysis of DO is of a very low mechanical and childish ilk. Then as the discussion approaches the end, then the poetry begins. Buddha "went beyond" all this, perhaps the universe knows the answer, perhaps the answer is a song. Such attitudes occur to those who have not been brave in their mortal lives and have not brought great force to challanges.