Post on Nirōdha and Vaya

Welcome! Forums Questions About Puredhamma Posts Post on Nirōdha and Vaya

Tagged: ,

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #31415
      Tobias G
      Participant

      Nirōdha and Vaya

      In that post under #4 the word nirodha is explained: “…Nirōdha comes from nir+udaya, where “nir” means stop and “udaya” means “arise”. Thus nirōdha means stop something from arising. …”

      Waharaka Thero explains it differently as “to stop rounding behind something, stopping the rotation of the cycle”. It is the opposite of “rodha”. I think this is the better explanation. Any thoughts?

    • #31422
      Lal
      Keymaster

      “Waharaka Thero explains it differently as “to stop rounding behind something, stopping the rotation of the cycle”. It is the opposite of “rodha”. I think this is the better explanation. ”

      Exactly where does Waharaka Thero say that? I need to look at it before I can respond.
      – The two explanations are inter-related. But the above statement needs to re-stated a bit differently.

    • #31430
      Lal
      Keymaster

      Tobias wrote to me and said he could not add the following THREE comments:

      1. It is said on page 14/15 of the second discourse. I would also upload the file, but how?

      2. Also on page 7 of Waharaka Thero discourse No. 7, it is said: “…‘Sañ’+ udaya = Samudaya’. ‘Sañ’ means union, formation. If something arises from formation, ‘sabbam tam’, all those are, ‘nirodha dhammam’, not worthy of pursuing. If we say ‘nirodha dhammam’ means perishable, that is wrong. …”

      That refers to the verse: “Yam kiñci samudaya dhammam, sabbam tam nirodha dhammam”

      Lal translated that verse in the post Ye Dhammā Hetuppabhavā.. and Yam Kiñci Samudaya Dhammam..
      as “If there are dhammā that give rise to suffering (i.e., any samudaya dhammā), all such dhammā can be stopped from arising (via the Noble Eightfold Path).” (see #7 in that post)

      Waharaka Thero translated this verse (summary from above): “If something arises from formation, all those are not worthy of pursuing.”

      3. There is more to this on page 7 of discourse No. 7. Here the English translation:

      “…As the meaning of this phrase, we have been taught that, if some phenomena arise, all those are perishable. Whatever arisen, will be lost. That’s how it has been clarified.
      Existent is one extreme, nonexistent is the other extreme. Association with either of the extremes, will not facilitate enlightenment.
      We do not take it as existent. ‘Samudaya’ means arising, arising of the formation, developing. If we take it as something existent, that would hint towards eternalism.
      Something existent would mean something existing eternally. These are things that are forming out of causality. …”

      Waharaka Thero says we shall avoid the extremes of existent and nonexistent. But he goes very far when he says that “existent means existing eternally”. Also, the word bhava is explained as “potential for existence” (somewhere on puredhamma.net).
      I would agree on the view that things arise as formations. A normal person would take this formation as having a face value, which is not there. All we experience is made of satara maha butha with a ghost-like nature (and anicca nature). Therefore it is really of no value (anatta). That explanation does also not require the extremes of existent and nonexistent.

    • #31431
      Lal
      Keymaster

      It may take some time for me to look at the issues raised by Tobias and to respond. I had not gone through the transcriptions of the discourses other than the first one.

      If anyone else has any questions on any of those transcriptions or need to comment on the above, please do so.

    • #31432
      Lal
      Keymaster

      Tobias questions:

      1. In that post under #4 the word nirodha is explained: “…Nirōdha comes from nir+udaya, where “nir” means stop and “udaya” means “arise”. Thus nirōdha means to stop something from arising. …”
      – Waharaka Thero explains it differently as “to stop rounding behind something, stopping the rotation of the cycle”. It is the opposite of “rodha”. I think this is the better explanation. Any thoughts?

      Both usages for “nirodha” as “to stop something from arising” AND “stopping the rotation of the cycle” are correct. Which meaning is more applicable depends on the context.

      A. As explained in #4 of “Nirōdha and Vaya – Two Different Concepts“, Nirōdha comes from “nir”+”udaya”, where “nir” means stop and “udaya” means “arise”. Thus nirōdha means stop something from arising.
      – Particularly in Paticca Samuppada steps, this meaning is more applicable in the reverse of the steps. There we have for example, “bhava paccaya jati” step, and to stop jati from arising one needs to stop bhava, i.e., “bhava nirodha jati nirodho.”

      B. In the stopping of the “cycle of rebirth”, nirodha is used to indicate the “stopping of that perpetual cycle”.
      – This is explained in #13 of “Nibbāna – Is it Difficult to Understand?

      The Sinhala wording for what you stated above is, “නියරෝධ කරනවා කියන්යන් රවුේ හන එක නතර කරනවා. ඊට පස්යස් ඒක රවුම් හන්යන් නෑ. අන්න නතර වුනා.” (Thanks to Janith Fernando for sending me the Sinhala transcript; that made it much easier).
      – It could be translated in the given context as, “nirodha means to stop going around in the rebirth cycle. When one stops acting with avijja, that stops the rebirth cycle. That is nirodha.”

      Many key Pali words like anicca and anatta have similarly several meanings that are inter-related. For example, anatta can mean “without refuge” AND “without essence”.

      2. Tobias starting line should read, “Also on page 7 of Waharaka Thero discourse No. 6..”
      The Sinhala version of what Tobias quoted is: “යම් ධර්මයක් “සාං” තහවේ “සාං + උදය – සමුදය” සාං කියන්තන් යමක් එක්වීම, ස ස් වීම. උදාපවනවා නම්, සකස් පවමින් උදාපවනවා නම්, “සබ් ං තං” – ඒ සියල්ලම “නිතරෝධ ධම්මාං” – රවුම් ෙහන්න වටින ඒවො තනතමයි! “නැතිතවන සුලුයි” කිවුතවොේ වැරදියි!”

      I would translate that as “…‘Sañ’+ udaya = Samudaya’. ‘Sañ’ means incorporation or adding. If something X arises due to Y, then X can be stopped from arising by stopping Y. Everything in the world (‘sabbam tam’) arise due to avijja. Therefore, everything can be stopped from arising, they are all ‘nirodha dhammam’, not worthy of pursuing. If we just say ‘nirodha dhammam’ means perishable, that is wrong. because that only refers to the decay and destruction of EXISTING THINGS..”
      – That refers to the fueling of the samsaric journey with avijja. The Paticca Samuppada cycle starts with “avijja paccaya sankhara” and ends with “jati paccaya jara, marana, ..and the whole mass of suffering.” Everything that arises will decay and vanish at some point, but the rebirth cycle will continue with another bhava and jati. It is only when avijja is REMOVED (stopped from arising), that the rebirth process will come to an end.

      3. Again this refers to discourse #6.

      Your question comes up because the term “exists” may be interpreted by different people in different ways. Let me try to explain it this way.

      The “eternalists” believe that a “soul” exists. That means a permanent existence.
      – The “materialists” believe that a “soul” does not exist, i.e., there is no permanent entity to be called “me” that will go on living forever in one form or another. In this case, there is not even a rebirth process. The death of the physical body is the END.

      The Buddha said both are wrong.

      So, I would translate that portion that you quoted as following:
      “…As the meaning of this phrase, we have been taught that, if some phenomena arise, all those are perishable. Whatever arisen, will decay and perish. That’s how it has been clarified (for nirodha). But that is not nirodha.
      Existent is one extreme, nonexistent is the other extreme. Association with either of the extremes, will not facilitate enlightenment.
      We do not take it as “someone exists”. That could mean existence forever. ‘Samudaya’ means arising, arising of “a person” for example. When that person dies, “another living-being” will arise due to causes created by that person. If we take it as something existent, that would lean towards eternalism. Something existent would mean something existing eternally. These are things that are forming out of causality. That process can be stopped by removing avijja. …”

      In other words, there is a continuance of life after death. But that should not be called eternal life.
      – As we discussed above, that process can be stopped. It is COMPLETELY stopped when Arahanthood is attained and that Arahant’s physical body dies (i.e., Parinibbana.) That is nirodha.
      – But until that happens, there is existence in some form (in the 31 realms).

      It is not easy to express these concepts in words. But as we read more and more, we should be able to grasp the key ideas. As I explained, some words have different (but related) meanings.

    • #31434
      Lvalio
      Participant

      Lal said:
      “2. Also on page 7 of Waharaka Thero discourse No. 7, it is said: “…‘Sañ’+ udaya = Samudaya’. ‘Sañ’ means union, formation. If something arises from formation, ‘sabbam tam’, all those are, ‘nirodha dhammam’, not worthy of pursuing. If we say ‘nirodha dhammam’ means perishable, that is wrong. …”
      And were is the Waharaka Thero discourse No. 7 ??
      I had miss something???

    • #31435
      Lal
      Keymaster

      I did not say it that way, Lvalio.
      – Please read my post above.

      Please write an email to me if it is still not clear.

      P.S.
      Tobias is referring to the set of discourses in “Waharaka Thero English Subs Discourse

      They are all in my post dated June 19, 2020, at 9:04 pm there.

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.