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 12 Nidanas
I've theorized what some of the purposes for the teaching of the 12 Nidanas are/were but I'd like to know the opinion of people more informed on the matter than myself. Not necessarily individual components of the 12 Nidanas, but the purpose for their being taught as a whole.
-Jared
-Jared
0
Comments
Is the sole purpose of them to ONLY teach that all of the components of existence are dependent on each other, or are they to be taken literally and one is to assume that there is a specific order in which these steps exist separate of each other?
I would have to look it up, and I could very well be wrong about this but I got the impression that the Buddha taught that trying to inquire into creation theories would be a waste of time. Is it to be assumed that at one point there was nothing, and then there was ignorance? Wouldn't making such an assumption require a stance on creation/making up a creation theory?
If that isn't the case, then what is the proper interpretation/moral to be taken from the teaching of the 12 Nidanas?
There is a tradition to explain this chain as referring to three lives of past, present and future. In more detail, these would be past causes, present effects, present causes, and future effects.
To assume that at one point there was nothing and then there is ignorance is simply speculation. Ignorance in the twelve nidanas refers to regarding transient phenomena as permanent, dukkha as enjoyment, and anatta as a self or ego. Indeed, the purpose of the twelve nidanas is not to describe the primary beginning of everything in the world, but rather it demonstrates the interplay of the causes and conditions for suffering and stress (dukkha) and that through the removal of these causes and conditions there would be no more arising of dukkha. Therefore, the purpose of the twelve nidanas is to further elucidate the second and third Noble Truths of the origination and cessation of dukkha.
e core idea of dependent origination.
I may well be mistaken too.
Namaste.
The twelve nidanas are just one example of dependent origination. The synopsis of these twelve is found in SN 12.2. This is considered "mundane dependent origination", as it describes the causes and conditions for dukkha. There is also a "transcendental dependent origination" which describes the causes and conditions for bodhi (awakening, enlightenment) and the cessation dukkha/mundane dependent origination. In SN 12.23 Buddha elucidates this whole process as:
"Thus, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for kamma formations, kamma formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquility, tranquility is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers).
Thank's for your thoughts:)
I think differently about the 12N's to you. In summary:
I don't think the Buddha taught them in his teachings.
I don't think they make sense in terms of Dharma. Perhaps I simply don't understand them; but to my small mind they do not seem consitant with - or contributing to - the body of Dharma.
I think dependent origination* is consistent, deep and simple. I do not think the 12N's are either consistent or simple; they may be deep, but I Haven't seen this.
Apparently the Buddha said that when one sees dependent origination one sees The Dharma. If he said this, I do not believe he was referring to the 12Ns.
*Dependent origination for me pertains to the the interdependent coming to being (via causation) of all systems (and states of systems) which is expressible as the four necessitated contingencies (when this happens that happens....) and realised in all possible contingent states in reality.
Respectfully,
Matt
I'm not going to disagree with your view of dependent origination as pertaining to causation I am simply stating that the 12 nidanas are a very specific example of dependent origination - namely, as Buddha put it, "the origination of this entire mass of dukkha". Therefore, the 12 nidanas do not describe the "interdependent coming into being of all systems" - as that is not what they pertain to (yet it seems that is how some people try to interpret them). They are a very specific example of dependent origination.
What do you think of Bhikkhuni Sela's general description of dependent origination in SN 5.9? It seems pretty consistent with both views put forth:
"This puppet is not made by itself,
Nor is this misery made by another.
It has come to be dependent on a cause,
When the cause dissolves then it will cease.
As when a seed is sown in a field
It grows depending on a pair of factors:
It requires both the soil's nutrients
And a steady supply of moisture.
Just so the aggregates and elements,
And these six bases of sensory contact,
Have come to be dependent on a cause;
When the cause dissolves they will cease. "
I just want to thank you for teaching me something today.
Namaste
No problem, and thank you for actually understanding me. I know that sometimes my grammar isn't the best and I tend to ramble on...lol
Thank's for your reply.
>>I'm not going to disagree with your view of dependent origination as pertaining to causation I am simply stating that the 12 nidanas are a very specific example of dependent origination
I haven't seen that so far. Yes the 12Ns exhibit a chain of causal relations, but that is not the same as exemplifying the principles of DO. They do not seem to me to be examples of DO, specific or otherwise.
I also don't think that they add anything to the explanation of the ignorance>tanha>dukka relationship that is so perfectly explained via DO.
I think when the Buddha taught about the cause, cessation and path away from suffering he had no need to use these 12 links but he had every need to use interdependent causation - one cannot seem to understand the four noble truths without it.
I don't understand it, just as I don't understand the other statements of the 12 links. I have tried again here to make sense of it. It seems to be circular, which does not seem compatible with dharma. It speaks of singular causes and effects, like the ball bearings in a Newton's cradle. I don't think Karma operates in such discrete causal relationships, it seems against interconnectedness for there to be such states.
And it still has that clearly mistaken idea that if a cause of something ceases that thing will cease. Yes this is true of many states, but certainly not all, and not even all karmic, mental, moral or spiritual states.
I think DO is a deep concept to understand. This does not mean it is hard or that you need to be smart, wise, etc, etc. It needs thought, meditation and contemplation. I think I understand it, maybe I don't. But the 12Ns seem just incongruous with what I think I understand of Do and Dharma. When I look to the simple deep beauty of the Foundations and Noble Truths and then look to the unwieldy and inelligant 12Ns, I just don't see it fit. Do you not get what I mean even a jot?
It is an interesting discussion we have here:) Thank you for your thoughts and words:)
Namaste
The 12 nidanas depends upon the existence of the others. It may seem circular, but that is because it is, by nature, cyclic. Although they are often described in a linear format, each link is actually "interconnected" to all the other links. They are all mutually dependent upon the other. When one link is removed, it sets in motion the eventual cessation of the others. For example, with the mending of ignorance (avijja) as wisdom (panna), one is in a better position to put and end to volitional formations (sankhara), craving (tanha) and clinging (upadana). This puts an end to the wheel of becoming (bhava-cakka), which paves the way for the liberation from birth and death and the realization of Nibbana. In SN 12.61, Buddha stated that, "When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that."
Therefore, the 12 nidanas most certainly relate to other Buddhist principles, especially the Four Noble Truths and Three Marks. Take for example, the crucial link of sensation (vedana). This is the cause of craving/aversion (tanha) which causes dukkha (as seen in the second Noble Truth). In order to end the cause of dukkha, one must not allow sensation to generate cravings and aversions. This is achievable through the observation of sensations and comprehending their arising and passing away (i.e. anicca).
Some ascetic contemporaries of Buddha believed that to remove suffering one has to abstain from the objects of craving. However, Buddha realized that between the contact with external objects and the reflex of craving/aversion there actually a link - which is sensation (vedana). Whenever we encounter an object (phassa) through the six sense media (salayatana), a sensation arises; and based on that sensation, craving or aversion arises. Such as, if the sensation is pleasant we crave to sustain and prolong it, and if it is unpleasant we crave to be completely rid of it.
Therefore, the immediate cause for the arising of craving (tanha) and dukkha is not the external "objects of craving" themselves which exits outside of us (as Buddha's ascetic contemporaries believed). Instead, it is the sensations that occur within us.
Does any of this help make it seem any less incongruous? The 12 nidanas themselves also need a lot of thought, meditation and contemplation.
>>>Although they are often described in a linear format, each link is actually "interconnected" to all the other links. They are all mutually dependent upon the other. When one link is removed, it sets in motion the eventual cessation of the others. For example, with the mending of ignorance (avijja) as wisdom (panna), one is in a better position to put and end to volitional formations (sankhara), craving (tanha) and clinging (upadana).
I think I have an understanding of how it is supposed to fit together and an appreciation of its purpose. I have more than once tried to make it fit with my understanding of Dharma.
>>>>Buddha stated that, "When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that."
Yes, and this is the essence of the expression of DO (I refereed to this in my first reply to you). But to me this is not what is expressed in the 12Ns, moreover it is inconsistenet with it. I shall try to explain:
DO is expressed as a two part relation between an antecedent (this) and a consequent (that). If this then that. The forth statement, if this stops and then that stops applies to all causes and effects that are simultaneous but it doesnt apply once the connection between cause and effect becomes transitive.
For example.
If it is raining I get wet. If the rain stops my getting wet stops.<<< This seems true in all possible equivalent cases.
If it is raining, I feel sad. <<< This is not true in all possible cases. In order to express this continuum we would need to follow the "links" of further antecedent/consequent pairs. And Dharma gives us the tools to do that.
But I think it seems clear that the continuum is not the same as the two-part. The connected is not the same as the interconnected. This raises three alarm bells for me:
1) The 12Ns do not, to my mind, represent this difference, they treat the points on continuum as if there are no point inbetween singular.
2) The 12Ns seem to allow for later points in the continum to seed earlier points in the continuum (This is the circularity objection raised before)
3) The 12N's do not explain all cases of suffering, irrespective of if they consistently explain any cases of suffering (as questioned in 1 and 2 above).
>>>Therefore, the immediate cause for the arising of craving (tanha) and dukkha is not the external "objects of craving" themselves which exits outside of us (as Buddha's ascetic contemporaries believed). Instead, it is the sensations that occur within us.
Yes, I can go with that, it seems obvious. Though I dont think such obvious correlations need to be formalised into the rigid and dubious 12 links. Also, what of craving for social status, spiritual growth, romance, longevity, wealth... I do not see how they can be originated by sensation in anything but a trivial and convoluted sense.
>>>>Does any of this help make it seem any less incongruous?
Not really, alas:) It is very possible that I have some stupid blinkers, forged of my own ignorant and entrenched position on this. And that These blinkers will not allow me to see your well laid down thoughts and explanation.
>>>>The 12 nidanas themselves also need a lot of thought, meditation and contemplation.
I think that if one is told in writings or told by others that the 12 Niddanyas are The Buddha's expression of how interdependent causal chains propagate Dukka, then one should give that claim much thought, meditation and contemplation before they accept it. Before they place it along side anica, anatman and dukka.
I tried to do this, I haven't yet been able to see the 12Ns as of the same noble status as, say, the Four Noble truths.
I am not saying you are wrong or that I am right.
I am saying that I think that I see the core of dharma (I think most of us here do) and I do not see how this part (12Ns) fits with the core of dharma. I do not see why the core of dharma needs this part. I do see possible problems with this part, and I cannot find similar problems with the core of dharma.
I imagine if I am mistaken on these points it will take a transcendental change, rather than a merely conceptual change, in my mind to see this.
Me ego is in danger of grasping onto this debate and turning it all competitive in my mind... and I'm not sure that I have much else to say on this issue.
I will gladly read more of your fresh thoughts on this:)
Namaste:)
PS There may be typoes