Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Basis Of Dependent Origination.
Citta
Veteran
" The basis of D.O. is not a state of completeness..of togetherness or unrealized wholeness.
The basis of D.O.is avijja ignorance experienced by the apparent individual."
Ajahn Amaro.
avijja is the Pali, the Sanskrit is avidya. vid is seeing .It has the same Indo-european root as video.
The 'a' is the negating particle..so 'not seeing' is the basis of D.O.
It all follows from an absence of seeing things as they are.
4
Comments
I make the same comment here as I did in this thread:
Go for it. (Watching attentively).
Everything is based in ignorance.
So, if ignorance is done away with, then DO will just vanish? How is that possible? Isn't DO a fact we all recognize, Buddhist or not?
With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise, and so on...
No ignorance, no mental formation. All mental formations are based in ignorance, and uh... that includes this.
Of course. DO is a product of cause and effect. It arises, therefore it disolves. If the root (or cause) is severed, then there is no effect. So when ignorance ceases so does DO. It doesn't vanish. It ceases.
The trick is inderstanding what it means to be without ignorance. It's not a simple intellectual acceptance of a concept, like agreeing with the 4NT. It goes a lot deeper than that.
@Chaz, you have struck gold - It is not about intellectual understanding; it is about UNDERSTANDING... It doesn't matter if one formation follows another; it is about whether there is an understanding of what is happening. Red follows orange follows yellow follows green in the rainbow; but who is following the delight that the rainbow brings?
Being dependently originated is not such a bad thing really. When you think about it. When you really understand it. When Anatman reveals itself as essentially nothing, but what you really are is nothing that can be truly comprehended as nothing -- shut up!
Sorry; just TALKING to myself....
Back to the point in question: the basis of dependent origination is...
What were you talking about?
No, it's about realization. It's like the difference between dreaming and being awake
The understanding is in the difference between the simple, mundane, "knowing" and when you really cut the roots of ignorance.
The only way we realise we are awake is through understanding the difference in the first place though.......
That was my point @Chaz, we can debate the meaning of words (understanding vs realisation) but what one intellectualises or conceptuallises as DOing or BEing, is all that can be discussed, and is open for argument and/or discussion. The downward spiral and resulting negativity that results can become absurd.
However, I agree with you, it is really the difference between DREAMING and being AWAKE...
Everything is dependently originated. If you don't have a moon, a pool, an eye, and a consciousness there never appears a moon reflected in water. Nirvana is unconditioned, but there is still nothing to grasp. The moon is still ungraspable because of DO. But there would be no experience and phenomena without DO.
Avidya seems more complicated to me than just not seeing things as they are. Could there be other variables? Lacking in skillful knowledge seems to fit in too.
No, we have to wake up. When you wake up, you know. So will everyone else.
But how do we know without understanding?
Knowing of any kind is a mental formation and based in ignorance.
Even as a child you knew the difference between waking and dream states, even if the dream was very real. You didn't need anyone to tell you and and it wasn't some intellectual reasoning. You knew. You were awake. Everyone else knew, too.
True, possibly @Nevermind!
but as you cannot deny that in your everyday comprehension and recognition of the above statements there is an undeniable relationship (albeit it based in the relative duality we know and understand and take for granted) between a mental formation based 'in' (I would have said 'on') ignorance, the knowledge that is derived by the reciprocity of terms used becomes the basic understanding principle that validates the knowledge that is determined, despite your negative interpretation.
So the knowledge, despite being based on ignorance, is still a kind of knowledge, albeit it relative and weak in assertions. But its better than nothing, eh!
I may be wrong, but my foundations are underpinned by your assertions. So it's better if you say nothing, if you get what I mean
The way that we tend to know and understand is by labeling, and the minute you experience something and stop to think of what words to assign to it, you've lost the purity of the experience. I don't think we need prior knowing or understanding in order to realize. Knowing and understanding is just how we attempt to conceptualize realization so that we can talk about it with others.
So avoiding fatty foods if you know you have high cholestorol is ignorance? I know I'm being pedantic here but I'm just following the flow of posting in this place. I do not think you are using knowing in the sense that people do. I'm really trying to understand your POV.
As a child I understood that. A baby though would not necessarily know. Again, I'm posting in the spirit of the forum. And like I am with Nevermind - I am trying to understand your POV.
Everything you perceive, know, feel, think, etc. is all based in ignorance. Nuf'said.
I cannot agree more @karasti.
Meditaion in action has taught me something: What is, is; what is not, is not. But what is in between, is something not to be dismissed out of hand or accepted on blind faith, but just to be experienced.
Which is where the 4th noble truth starts to come into its own...
Let's be clear, EVERYTHING is based on ignorance.
That's like, your opinion man...
I don't think that's true, but whatever. Perhaps anything we perceive is based on ignorance. But not everything all together.
Of course as a loosely-defined buddhist the 12 links are there; no Kumbaya here though (what is it with you and that song, were you put in a Sri Lankan tattooist buddhist concentration camp and tortured with it every day by the local militia?), and I am ignorant of my ignorance, or I wouldn't be here. These are just words however.
I believe that I can express that I am no longer JUST ignorant mind, I am also RIGPA, because the antidote has already been administered. In my mind ignorance can just be seen as a carefully crafted illusion of the the self which is deployed as a defence mechanism, but it can't hide the truth or the reality, it just gives it contrast.
@Nevermind however, makes a good point, and like MARA can only tease and act out of jealousy for what he craves (but he'll get it eventually, like we all will),
Behold, What is that lustful craving? Yep, looks great, but one doesn't need an empty image when one has one's true self (or not-self). Everything arises, because it does. Do I need to know more? What needs to be accomplished can be seen as already accomplished, it just needs a little rinsing to wash out the dirty stains.
Yes 'I' may be ignorant, but "_" am not. Buddha told me that before I killed him.
Here is another mental chewing gum for little mind to debate in its own ignorant fashion: your trTRUEue natNATUREure is buried here: INEFFABLESSANCE... Wow is that a new word with hidden meaning, or has someone else uncovered it before me (master google tells me someone stole my idea before I had it.) I don't really care however, as it's all out there and freely accessible. Well the bit that matters anyway.
No Gum allowed in buddhism however.
LOL.. oops, I meant Mettha
Yes.
What we deal with, on a moment-to-moment basis are appearances. They are what we percieve, what appears in our conscious, a product of habitual, karmically-influenced mind. Put into more mundane terms, the mind's translation and iterpretation of electitcal impulses via our sense faculties. It is not a direct experience. It's mind. Appearances. Emptiness. These appearances are goverened by DO.
I assu&me that seeing things as ignorant as "an 'absence of seeing things as they are' " reflects a number of things; not least is the fact that the 'thing' or mind that is 'seeing' sees that it is unable to see everything, and this can result in tension, which we may enjoy or despise as an 'apparent individual'. But who am I to assume anything?
Ignorance is a condition more than a cause. Craving trumps ignorance. Anyhow what do I know about the four noble truths.
No ignorance, no craving, or anything else.
Hey that's a great start to 2 new threads @wangchuey ... Ta da;
With awakening we are told , the links of D.O.are broken.
So are no longer operative.
D.O maintains the false sense of self.
If that does arise, then D.O. No longer applies to that one.
That is a theravada/hinayana position, not something that is accepted by all of Buddhism. Ati Dzogpa Chenpo for example considers it to be a manifestation of a very subtle primordial wisdom. Cause/effect is illusion, dependent origination is just an array of illusion, a seed never setting. It is part of the all-good Samantabhadra. There is no need to reject parts of the non-dual reality.
This is a pan-Buddhist forum @atiyana. I am a student of ChNN.
But I do my bit for ecumenicism....
<
blockquote @Citta said:
With awakening we are told , the links of D.O.are broken.
So are no longer operative.
D.O maintains the false sense of self.
True
in theravada this is called 'sovan/sothapanna/first stage of attainment'
however 'this is the beginning of the true Path or 4th Noble Truth or arya ashtangika margaya'
one has to be mindful with the knowledge of DO one got at the awakening, and practice the Path until one reaches the Full Enlightenment (nirvana)
because
still there are lust and hate and ignorance with the one who saw how DO works
whenever he is not mindful he falls back to lust with ignorance or hate with ignorance
but
he never falls back to strong lust or hate that make him fall into four woeful states (hell, animal world, hungry ghost, jeolousy/angry god)
so our aim should be to see DO
we have six internal sense bases and there are six external sense bases
when those two contact the six consciousness arise
ex:
eye contact form then eye consciousness arise
this is called 'passa' or seeing
since we don't know how DO works
we attached to 'feeling' (pleasure/displeasure/neither-nor pl/displ) and "perception' (person/thing) arise from seeing
we hate or love or ignore that perception thinking that is the cause for our 'feeling'
so we create 'volitional formation' (sankhara)
and
those formation are the food for consciousness in the next round
this process happens very quickly and normal person (worldly) never know what is happening within him so he/she fight with the world thinking all the problems bring to him by the world
if one could calm the mind and try to see what is happening to him each time he see, hear, feel (with the help of nose,tongue,body), know (thought)
then
it will help him to see/know DO
we have the lab (six sense bases)
we have the material
(six external sense base)
two above are made up from four elements _(earth,water,fire,air) and (colour,smell,taste, texture) which are on _space element and those can be known with the help of consciousness element (six elements)
all above brings up form, feeling, perception, volutional formation and consciousness (five aggregate of clinging)
now it is time for you to do the experiment and find out DO
it can not be go wrong
Lord Buddha Promised it
those who follow the instruction found it
so
do not have any dount
you will be able to do it, see DO
Obviously it is pan-buddhist, which is why there will be conflicting views and more than a single view should be presented. Not sure why you are relaying this to me however.
Stick around a while. The reason for my response will become clearer.
.
I am taking a break from online Buddhist forums for various reasons..but will be following conversations on my return.
Oooh! I hate being held in suspense!
Juat to reassure everyone I'm not involved....
Be well, @Citta. see you when you return.
He's going off to have his head exploded again I expect!
Dzogchen; I really like the sound of it - the short sharp shock treatment to introduce me to my mind again, and might indulge further. I'm thinking of going off to attend Rigpa again soon and see if they'll let me do some advanced tantra. However, I don;t want to go through the preparation, I want to sit in a room with a Dzogchen master and let them show me what's what. I'll have to attend as my normal self though, and not as anataman the avatar; because somehow I think they won't take me seriously enough.
LA LA LA LA LA
Sorry, in one of those funny little moods today.
Nothing mysterious @federica.
ChNN has asked all his students to step back a little from online discussions.
Nothing to do with this forum specifically. But a lot of misunderstandings on another forum.
Catch ya later @Citta
Which forum had these misunderstandings?
Not sure if Citta has left yet but I'm not sure I really see the difference.
As far as I have understood, D.O. means that things are not whole things and exist as parts of other things. Everything is happening right now but mind breaks things down into easy to manage chunks... Because of the interconnectedness of all things, there is cause and effect... If the conditions are right a thing will manifest and if not it will stay hidden.
To break down the line "ignorance experienced by the apparent individual" is to ask what experiences ignorance?
If no thing exists as we are conditioned to experience it, then how does it exist if not as part of "all that is"?
The label "apparent individual" implies that there is no individual and yet there is something that believes it is an individual at least for a while.
Everything is just a unique expression of all that is happening.
I am starting to see why @Citta has been advised to take off...
From wikipedia (great researching skills, I know):
Thich Nhat Hanh explains:
"Pratitya samutpada is sometimes called the teaching of cause and effect, but that can be misleading, because we usually think of cause and effect as separate entities, with cause always preceding effect, and one cause leading to one effect. According to the teaching of Interdependent Co-Arising, cause and effect co-arise (samutpada) and everything is a result of multiple causes and conditions... In the sutras, this image is given: "Three cut reeds can stand only by leaning on one another. If you take one away, the other two will fall." For a table to exist, we need wood, a carpenter, time, skillfulness, and many other causes. And each of these causes needs other causes to be. The wood needs the forest, the sunshine, the rain, and so on. The carpenter needs his parents, breakfast, fresh air, and so on. And each of those things, in turn, has to be brought about by other causes and conditions. If we continue to look in this way, we'll see that nothing has been left out. Everything in the cosmos has come together to bring us this table. Looking deeply at the sunshine, the leaves of the tree, and the clouds, we can see the table. The one can be seen in the all, and the all can be seen in the one. One cause is never enough to bring about an effect. A cause must, at the same time, be an effect, and every effect must also be the cause of something else. Cause and effect inter-are. The idea of first and only cause, something that does not itself need a cause, cannot be applied."
I could hazard a guess, and a good one, but it might be best if you scouted the forums yourself. Won't be hard to find.
This explanation belongs in Thich Nhat Hanh's "The heart of the Buddha's teaching," so wikipedia was just fine...
I would love to hear your guess still.