Twelve links of the chain of dependent arising supposed to be stated negatively?

shays860

Ignorance leads to negative mental formations leads to negative states of consciousness and so on? That is the only way it makes sense to me. Otherwise it seems to say that all thought and experience is bad. Even mental formations that lead to compassionate acts toward others and the fulfillment of the Bodhisatva vow are to be done away with. Is it in keeping with buddhist doctrine to state the links negatively or am I reading what I want into it to do so?

Hanzze

I guess its good if we just state the ignorance negatively, otherwise it could come to the extremes of eternity or nihilism. The most popular (wrong used) link people like to negatively is clinging (Non-attachment).
For sure craving is useful to reduce in daily life. *smile*

aMatt

I don't think its necessary to attribute good and bad qualities to the pattern. The "good formations" are like a raft we use to motivate our growth. But, in meditation, if we let go of even those then a simple buoyant, luminous quality arises. Perhaps it would be better to think of it in terms of stopping the momentum of habit, rather than ridding oneself of negative qualities. In the absence of habit, we still breathe and exist, but we are not forced to react to what we observe.

If we are labelling our ignorance as bad, then we have two arrows striking our mind at the same time. The ignorance, and the "bad" label... two formations from the act of one. Similarly, if we label our wisdom as good, we have an arrow striking our mind... again, the label "good." So as we sit and learn to let go, the labels drop away and there is still wisdom and ignorance, but the qualities of them are quite workable, unburdensome, and we learn more easily.

We still discern truth from false, skillful from unskillful, but we don't have to collapse those into good and bad. Just what is and what isn't... which is not something the mind needs to form.

Hanzze

So you think we should let it naturally turning around. *smile* What would we wait for?

aMatt

So you think we should let it naturally turning around.

False. See how easy that is?

shays860

I can understand the concept that small scale compassion and good deeds arise naturaly from a pure silent mind. But what about the kind of long term complicated thought process that goes into large scale social change or scientific progress. I understand that I don't have to stop trying to come up with new ideas I'm just trying to figure out how these ideas actually fit into buddhist philosophy... I'm probably over complicating this. Maybe i'll come to some insight about it soon.

taiyaki

consciousness > thoughts > actions > habits > character > culture > society.

Hanzze

So you think we should let it naturally turning around.

False. See how easy that is?

To be able to realize the chains of depending origin we need to have a pure as possible mind and as less defilement as possible. We need to get free of contamination in the first line. To do that we need to reduce the cause of them - unwholesome actions. To reduce the causes of unwholesome actions we need to divide our thoughts in wholesome and unwholesome (good or bad). That does not mean to give objects the lable of good or bad. That is the difference between the two kinds of labeling in the first line. Of course we also need to let go of the second kind of labeling later, if the time is right. To give them up before we come to the right time would never bring the right time. *smile*

Its part of right intention (thought/resolve):

Dividing one's thinking into two sorts

The Blessed One said, "Monks, before my self-awakening, when I was still just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Why don't I keep dividing my thinking into two sorts?' So I made thinking imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort, and thinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with non-ill will, & thinking imbued with harmlessness another sort.

"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'

"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence.

"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with ill will arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with ill will has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'

"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with ill will had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence."

— MN 19

We could maybe understand intellectual the chains of depending origin, but we would not be able to observe them as they naturally really are, as we had miss to make our homework.
In times of calculators we are able to manage many tasks, but if we dont understand the basic arithmetical operation we would fail if the battery is empty or the task out of reach of the functions the calculator offers. So we need to understand the basics and see them well first.

*smile*

aMatt

I can understand the concept that small scale compassion and good deeds arise naturaly from a pure silent mind. But what about the kind of long term complicated thought process that goes into large scale social change or scientific progress. I understand that I don't have to stop trying to come up with new ideas I'm just trying to figure out how these ideas actually fit into buddhist philosophy... I'm probably over complicating this. Maybe i'll come to some insight about it soon.

The ease of small scale and ease of large scale are the same. Moving a pebble from one side of the road to the other is obvious, pick it up and carry it over. Moving a boulder from one side to the other is obvious, get some rope, a pully, attach the pully to the tree, the rope to the boulder and pull on the rope.

The only difference is the first example was one simple motion of moving an object. The second was one simple motion moving an object multiple times... but the hands are the same, the mind is the same, the road is the same, gravity is the same, inertia is the same, kinetic energy is the same, wisdom is the same.

aMatt

The Blessed One said, "Monks, before my self-awakening, when I was still just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Why don't I keep dividing my thinking into two sorts?' So I made thinking imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort, and thinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with non-ill will, & thinking imbued with harmlessness another sort.

"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'

"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence.

I notice here that Buddha notices what is true, and it subsides. There is not a label of wholesome or unwholesome, simply what leads to unbinding, and what leads to vexation. The intent remains to become more skillful, to cultivate the qualities of unbinding, and can happen without the urge to attribute value to the formations. Rather, it is perhaps more skillful, as with Buddha's example, to abandon saying "this thought is bad/good" and stay alert and at ease with "this quality of thinking leads to unbinding" or "this quality of thinking leads to vexation and delusion."

If your mind is unready to do such a thing, by all means do whatever you feel is skillful to row your boat. As I regard shay's question about his relationship pursuing compassion and science, it seems reducing the attribution of good and bad qualities is the most appropriate response.

Hanzze

Dear aMatt,

I guess we can label it how ever we like, important is to get the message. But I don't think that we would struggle with labels if we have get the message already *smile*

If we take for example the desire to label things we could remember: "Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'" as philosophy and grasping for ideas and thoughts is also effected by sensuality.

So as soon as we see harming reactions (thinking on the advices Buddha gave Rahula - seeing that the action causes suffering) simply stop.

Generally it not good to take small parts out of a Sutta. Better (from my experiences) is always to look at the points where we struggle with. The forerunner is the realization that harming leads suffering and therefore it does not lead out of it. *smile*

grout4cake

Ignorance can also lead positivity, in the sense that it can lead us to believe in delusions such as eternity, God,good deeds leading to salvation etc.etc. It may result in apparently positive actions, but actions based upon an erroneous goal such as Heaven, impressing others, idiot compassion such as things that allow others to become psychologically dependent upon us or thinking that positive thinking is the only way to be spiritual , rather than that thoughts and feeling states are transitory.
It seems to me that the idea we are separate selves is one of the greatest sources of ignorance and yet many people who perform positive actions deeply believe in it.

Hanzze

Yes, many Hindus believe so. Maybe you like to tell us a sample of useful ignorance. For sure it makes the world turn around. :wave:

Vajraheart

consciousness > thoughts > actions > habits > character > culture > society.

In group. Perfectly stated.

Vajraheart

It seems to me that the idea we are separate selves is one of the greatest sources of ignorance and yet many people who perform positive actions deeply believe in it.

Yup. Still... everyone has their process.

Daozen

The Four Noble Truths are the most sublime statement of dependent arising.

Jeffrey

Good actions are relative to other actions which are less good. But good and evil are relative rather than essences of good and evil.

shays860

One more question here. I really want to understand this but I'm having serious trouble. "Ignorance gives rise to volitional action". Wisdom can give rise to action as well... what am I misunderstanding..?