Tagged: Liberation
Pages with this tag
Anālayo - Consciousness and Dependent Arising (2020)
1In the Buddhist concept of dependent arising, consciousness and name-and-form share a unique, reciprocal relationship, mutually conditioning each other like two bundles of reeds that can only stand by leaning together. This dynamic, where consciousness requires name-and-form for its content and name-and-form requires consciousness to be experienced, creates the continuous matrix of subjective experience. When this consciousness becomes "established" through desire, it perpetuates the cycle of rebirth, but the "unestablished consciousness" of an enlightened one (*arahant*) is no longer dependent on name-and-form, thereby ending future re-becoming. Ultimately, the text argues that consciousness is not a solution but a conditioned, impermanent, and potentially deluding part of the human predicament (*dukkha*), and its cessation is integral to achieving liberation.
Bucknell - The Buddhist Path to Liberation (1984)
2In his analysis, Rod Bucknell argues that the Noble Eightfold Path is an incomplete representation of the Buddhist course to liberation, as it omits the crucial final stages of "right insight" (sammā-ñāṇa) and "right liberation" (sammā-vimutti). By comparing the Eightfold Path with four other, similar lists of stages found in the Tipiṭaka, including a more comprehensive "tenfold path," he demonstrates that they all describe a consistent, sequential practice where morality (sīla) and concentration (samādhi) are followed by the development of insight. Bucknell refutes the common interpretation that insight is covered by "right view" (the first stage), positing that this is merely a preliminary understanding, whereas true liberating insight is an advanced practice undertaken only after mastering concentration. He concludes that the Eightfold Path is not the definitive summary of Gotama's teaching but one of many versions, and possibly a simplified one that omits the most advanced meditative stages.
Eltschinger - Ignorance, epistemology and soteriology Part I (2009)
3In his analysis of the 7th-century Buddhist philosopher Dharmakīrti, Vincent Eltschinger argues that Dharmakīrti's epistemology is fundamentally intertwined with his soteriological project, centering on the concept of ignorance (avidyā). Dharmakīrti defines ignorance not as a mere lack of knowledge but as an active, erroneous cognition (mithyopalabdhi) that functions as a counter-knowledge, obstructing the perception of reality. This error is identified with conceptual thought (vikalpa) itself, which, through a process of 'concealment' (saṃvṛti), superimposes unifying constructs onto reality's diverse particulars. To explain how this cognitive error leads to suffering, Dharmakīrti specifies that the most crucial form of ignorance is the 'personalistic false view' (satkāyadrṣṭi)—the innate, conceptual belief in a self. He explicitly equates this false view with ignorance, arguing it is the root of all defilements and rebirth, and that its direct antidote — the perception of selflessness — is the key to liberation. While drawing on earlier scriptural traditions, Dharmakīrti was innovative in systematically equating the two and developing exegetical strategies to defend this unorthodox position.