Path of Arhat

SR No.: 001745
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: T U Mehta
Publisher: Sohanlal Smarak Parshwanath Shodhpitha Varanasi
Publication Year: 1993
Total Pages: 262
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Spiritual, Religion, & Principle
File Size: 15 MB

Page 254

Appendix - E : Buddhism
[ 229
action, ( 5 ) Right livelyhood, ( 6 ) Right effort, (7) Right mindfulness and ( 8 ) Right state of trans.
This is called Noble Eight-fold Path known as 'Aztā igamärga'.
Doctrine of Conditional Origination
Some Buddhist scholars claim that the doctrine of conditional origination is not the doctrine of causation which implies an element of continuity. The doctrine simply means that 'B' in its origination conditioned by 'or' dependent on 'A'. In other words, 'B' is originated rather on the extinction of 'A' but being conditioned by the existence of 'A'. The Buddhist logic is that if 'A' and 'B' are taken as identical, that leads us to eternalism ( śāśvatavāda ). But Buddhism is based on the theory of transitoriness and so would not admit of any principle of eternalism. On the other hand, if 'A' and 'B' are taken as totally different identities, that takes us to nihilism ( Ucchedavada ) which is also an extreme view. So Buddhism discards both the extremes and accepts the middle course by evolving the doctrine of "conditioned origination or dependent origination'. Thus denying the eternity of soul ( Jiva ), the Buddhists justify the theory of karma and rebirth explaining that when the soul is reborn it attains the status of 'B' but is conditioned by the karmas earned by the previous link 'A'.
In my humble view this whole exercise of "conditioned origination' involves a strained logic to save the theory of transitoriness of the soul. Element of permanence, which is attributed to the soul by all systems of metaphysical thoughts in India, is capable of explaining various universal phenomena exhibiting a sort of continuity amidst the complexity of enormous changes. Buddhism indirectly accepts this position when it asserts that 'B' is originated being "conditioned by 'A'. Why 'B' should be "conditioned' by 'A' if there is nothing common between the two ? Thiogs having nothing in common which would either attract or repel the other, can never get "conditioned' by each other. And if there is some 'common'