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.
Dependent Origination
SarahT
Time ... space ... joySouth Coast, UK Veteran
Am trying to get to grips with the fundamentals of Buddhism and have come across the following statement:
No beings or phenomena exist independently of other beings and phenomena
in buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/genesis.htm
It seems to me that this can be nothing more than an assumption, a matter of faith?
0
Comments
Just look at your own experience. Could you exist without the necessary conditions being in place - like a habitable planet, breathable air, drinkable water, food. Could you have come into existence without all the necessary conditions first being present? And so on!
phenomena_
>
Please name one thing that occurred completely independently of anything else. Totally on its own,with no previous impetus or generative precursor. Thanks
.
This does not sound right to me... It might be right but is not to the point IMO.
The DO is about what conditions are necessary for there to be a sense of self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nidānas
This is a good place to understand the DO if you are not into reading suttas?
But it is not easy in either case.
/Victor
"No beings or phenomena exist independently of other beings and phenomena"
I think that's descriptive of sunyata.
@SpinyNorman Aha! Thanks.
@SarahT
There are two major ways to the the DO.
IMO it is good to learn both.
The one I have most use of is no 1 in my daily practise. It is the one I pointed out.
Now Spiny tells me above that there might be another way to see this that I seem to be unfamiliar with....so...
/Victor
No thing can predate it's own potential to exist.
Actually the OP article Sarah refers to is somewhat confusing, since it's talking about both the 12 links of DO ( origination of suffering ) and the general principle of conditionality which includes reference to anatta and sunyata.
A good example for me is a flower. We think of it as existing as a thing.
But you see the flower only exists due to the right soil, the right air, water, sunlight and a seed. It doesn't exist without even one of these things.
Everything in life is the same, like @federica said. Try and find some "thing" that exists by itself.
As humans we just don't obviously see the link, by there are humans who do. They see the link, rather than just understand it logically.
This stuff absolutely blows my mind.
@SarahT
Where the worldly mind sees existence as an adversarial challenge, the spiritual mind sees existence as a co operative engagement.
Where the worldly mind is a description of the self verses other approach, the spiritual mind knows that selflessness (which is the experience of not self or that there is no separation between self and other) is the answer to existence.
You need not consider this a matter of faith. Meditation can be a simple demonstration of this truth.
if we take the present moment as this life,
the previous moment as past life
and
the next moment as future life
both explanations have no difference
Not at all!!
The bread in your sandwich has the soil, sun, rain and human involvement to procure and create bread from grain IN IT. Each mouthful you chew, you are chewing soil, sun, rain, nutriments, human effort, planning, execution, creation
It can't get much more 'dependent in origin' that that
Ah, didn't see this before I posted.
That is getting more abstract and further from direct experiential knowing, especially the latter of the 12 links, it's zooming right into the center of the rebirth 'controversy'.
Oh no, not that again! I did find the OP article confusing though.
No kidding . . . let's NOT go there :buck: !
I think you’re right.
We can give examples of interdepending phenomena, but it is an assumption that there is no eternal independent reality behind it all.
It is a Buddhist axiom, but it’s not something we can really conclude to be false or true.
True, we can't prove there isn't an eternal independent thingy any more than we can prove there isn't a God or space aliens living among us.
What we can do is observe closely, and try to see what things are actually like.
Actually, no assumption and not a matter of faith.
You can see the principles of DO working all the time.
No compounded thing present in your reality, including your conventional self, is self-generated, but is the product of the constant interplay with other compounded things.
And the co-existence is a constant ongoing process. All links are ever-present: contact with external compounded objects generates sensation, consciousness forms a judgement, etc.
We are aggregates of unstable elements, and ignorance, wrong knowledge, prevents us from seeing things precisely as such (that is, as compounded and therefore unstable)
But then there’s the unconditioned, the unborn, the deathless, nibbana.
All I'm going to say is that, because of not penetrating dependent origination, that everyone here including myself, and billions of people are tied up like a ball of yarn and have been going through birth and death since time immeasurable in samsara, because of not seeing the Dhamma.
The assumption is made based on extensive philosophical thinking, arguments are made that nothing can exist independently. But like @zenff said, saying that nothing anywhere, in any form whatsoever exists independently can't really be proven definitively, but then again no knowledge can ever be %100 certain.
So I think DO could be said to be an assumption at some level but I think that saying it is a matter of faith goes too far and isn't really true.
To the huge question mark that is opened by concepts such as "unconditioned," "unborn," or "Nibbana," I settle for Chogyam Trungpa's dictum:
"Nirvana means dwelling in peace and openness, and samsara means dwelling in one's neurosis."
Exactly so!!!
Thank you!!! Have subsequently discovered the statement:
It may appear to me that a flower requires sun, water, seeds etc etc but I cannot know this. My model that this is the case seems to work quite well, so I adopt it. But, to me, it remains an assumption that is capable only of disproof, not of proof. It doesn't matter how much I examine my experience, this remains the case. My perceptions proove nothing to me. I have no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have no proof that my fingers are typing right now, that this is anything more than a figment of my imagination. So far, I have experienced that moving my fingers on my keyboard brings a typescript up before me and when I "post" it and subsequently go back, I appear to see responses. But this doesn't mean the same will happen next time!
Accepting this as an axiom is different to me. Unless/until it stops working, I am happy to do just that.
This projected illusion is dependent on a list of originations eg.
age, experience, hormonal and mental state, past experience, future expectation, group consensus and so on.
Freeing ourselves or being as far as possible independent of these projections is partly why we practice.
Reality is not fixed. Depression, certainty, doubt, ignorance is not real but as delusional as euphoric projections or other arisings or interpretations. Clarity sometimes is a process of continuous unveiling.
In a sense we project a dependent persona.
There is a part of us, Buddha Nature if you will, independent of this karmic self . . .
Reality is un-namable. Once we give a name or label that "thing" it becomes a thing.
For example, there is no ear. Ear describes a collection of "things" (eardrum, ear ossicles, cochlea, auditory nerve etc.). If one or more parts are missing, the ear is no more. The ear is the sum of its parts and cannot exist independent of them. Ie. it is empty of inherent existence. In this sense all things are dependently coarisen. They are there only when the necessary conditions(causality) are present in the broadest sense of the word.
There would be no life unless there is sufficient water, the atmosphere is present, the planet is just the right distance from the star etc. If anything is missing, there would be no life. This too is dependent origination.
You see a picture of someone and become upset. The picture bring up unpleasant memories. This is accompanied by unwholesome thoughts and may bring up unwholesome intentions. It doesn't matter if that person is already dead. The whole process of hatred has been triggered by the presence of the necessary conditions eg. seeing or hearing or reading about that person.
Imasmim sati idam hoti
Imasuppada idam upajjati
Imasmim asati idam na hoti
Imassa nirodha idam nirujjhati
When there is this, that is.
With the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, neither is that.
With the cessation of this, that ceases.
When C, D, E, F, G, and H are, A is.
C, D, E, F, G, and H are favorable or supporting conditions of A.
When G, F, I, J, K, and L are, B is.
G, F, I, J, K, and L are favorable or supporting conditions of B.
When H, A, F, B, L, and M are, G is.
H, A, F, B, L, and M are favorable or supporting conditions of G.
The elements A, B, and G here can refer to entities, such as things or persons, or events.
Can you tell me more? Is Buddha Nature = enlightened?
@SarahT, Buddha nature is the potential for enlightenment of the mind. It is there from the beginning, but if the right conditions do not arise neither will enlightenment. For example you need leisure, freedom from starvation etc, intellect, non-barbarian, determination, the dharma in your world, and many others. Some people say you need a method such as can be given by a teacher which we call 'pointing out instructions', but that is up for debate.
Buddha Nature is not necessarily a component of every School or Tradition, either, I might add.
Yes I think federica is right. Buddha nature is important in the Mahayana which concerns itself with the 6 paramitas which means perfections. The Theravada also has paramitas, but they don't have the idea of bodhicitta which in the mahayana would be (I feel) wisdom paramita which is the basis of the other paramitas (giving, ethics, patience, forbearance, energy/joy, and wisdom).
So when these conditions are present, does G inevitably appear?
In Theravada we might refer to Buddha Nature as the unconditioned
http://littlebang.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/buddha-nature-in-theravada
When there is no seed, can a tree grow?
Conversely with the seed, water, sunshine, soil etc. does the tree inevitably grow?
Does that mean that there is still something absent even though it appears all conditions are met?
Let me know the answer when you have found it. : )
With metta,
There are various types of conditionality, and I think it would be worth making a distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions.
See here:
http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/necessary_and_sufficient_conditions.htm
I think you could say that it is initially. But for one who "sees things as they really are" it ceases being a matter of faith and becomes a knowable fact.
SarahT
In answer to you OP - It is neither an assumption nor a matter of faith. It is a factual statement that cannot be determined otherwise. everything in your experience is completely determined by every other thing that has ever existed and you determine or will determine those other things, and at the same time allow no thing, and it is by this juxtaposition of polar opposites that you ARE - or DO or BE. It just is that way!
The buddha told us that we should not accept anything as true until we have explored and demonstrated to ourselves with rigour that his premises are true.
He showed us Anatman - there is no self; for some this is hard to believe - here you are arguing for your self, but the image that you take to be your self is really just a poor representation of yourself, and it doesn't really exist. Although this is one of the toughest things to realise - really, it is! Even now, I cannot dissociate myself from it, and don't want to!
Everything is interdependent. This means that no thing that is posited has any real existence, outside of the positors mind. This is truly a revelation, and whilst it may be intellectually understood, may never in one life-time be completely understood or conceptualised properly.
Emptiness - now this is something that can't be conceptualised. It has to be experienced and meditation - which isn't that difficult really, is required. I am not talking about naval gazing, but using the aspect of the mind which is loosely aware of being aware, to be aware of being empty awareness.
So If someone was to tell you that everything you perceive is an illusion, empty without substance and could not stand by itself in an independent reality, you might be a little upset, or thrown by the presumed ground of your being being turned upside down or even disappearing forever. However, you will still be there, won't you?
SarahT?
SarahT?
... \ lol / ...
>
>
>
>
Yes, and what is the death of our physical body but the end of a moment to be followed by the beginning of another.
The Buddha taught that everything proceeds from mind. If fillows that each and every moment is the product of mind. Why must our birth and death be any different - and not just a product of DO?
Some people believe that mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain and that when the brain is gone so too is the mind.
@Jeffrey Like a candle and its flame? That flame didn't come into existence on its own (something lit it), it has the potential to start other flames (kids, yay!), and while it persists it does so because of necessary conditions (like the candle wax and the air).
The candle/flame analogy can work as well for mind and body as it can for suffering and its conditions. Everything is afire! The world is aflame!
the difference is that the brain cannot cause other brains other than in sex.
Same result. A fire also can't cause other fires without sufficient exposure to something flammable, and causal relations are rarely so simple and direct as "fire makes fire". In the case of humans, two minds/bodies cause another mind/body to arise, even if it's a long process getting from sexual impulses to impregnation and finally birth.
Then the process repeats itself in the next generation. Procreation is life clinging to itself, making an end-run around mortality to immortality... a fire that doesn't want to go out! (and boy, that's telling!)
Analogies aren't meant to be perfect literal representations.
To me, it sounds like the beginning of a logical argument. Like it's something I've taken for granted that I must be reminded of in order to take in the rest of the teaching.
I was twittered this Tricycle magazine article by Wes Nisker, which I find most apposite to the thread. Science backs the theory of dependent origination. I provide the link:
http://www.tricycle.com/onpractice/evolutions-body
The article begins:
"In the Samyutta Nikaya, the Buddha says, “This body is not mine or anyone else’s. It has arisen due to past causes and conditions.” The Buddha intuited some type of evolutionary process that creates our bodies, and his essential point is that they are neither formed nor owned by us. We now have evidence that our bodies arise from the forces and elements that make up the entire universe, through a complex chain of interdependent events. Internalizing this understanding can help liberate us from the powerful sense of ownership and attachment we have to the body, which is a cause of tremendous suffering, especially as the body grows old and we must face its inevitable destiny."
Then we are offered a series of meditation practices that include focus on different parts of our body.
Thanks @lobster. Have bookmarked this as not sure I quite get it yet but will continue to ponder
In Buddhism, the introduction of the cardinal doctrine of Dependent Origination is imperative for one to understand well on the principle of emptiness that influences the continuing and repeating cycle of rising and falling of all things in the dependent nature (also known as the vicious cycle of samsāra). Thus far, it has always been shown forth in a rather simplistic causal linkage and this has fueled for additional confusion among novices who are literally unacquainted with the system.
Firstly, one needs to make out a correct understanding on the mechanism of Dependent Origination in order to get hold of the proper perspective from the beginning stage. In Buddhism, the Dependent Origination is literally a principle of interdependent causation. Right now, the key argument here is the prefix ‘inter-’. In other words, it is not appropriate for one to emphasise excessively on the word ‘dependence’ as against with ‘inter-dependence’. Let us ponder into the cycle of dependent origination shown as below: -
Balance leads to stability. Stability leads to aggregation. Aggregation leads to agitation. Agitation leads to information. Information leads to knowledge. Knowledge leads to representation. Representation leads to memory. Memory leads to compulsion. Compulsion leads to ignorance. Ignorance leads to blindness. Blindness leads to disorientation. Disorientation leads to confusion. Confusion leads to irrationality. Irrationality leads to impulse. Impulse leads to sparkling. Sparkling leads to inkling. Inkling leads to volition. Volition leads to awareness. Awareness leads to consciousness. Consciousness leads to manas. Manas leads to mind and body. Mind and body lead to sensation. Sensation leads to six sense bases. Six sense bases lead to conductivity. Conductivity leads to contact. Contact leads to stimulation. Stimulation leads to feeling. Feeling leads to experience. Experience leads to craving. Craving leads to grasping. Grasping leads to clinging. Clinging leads to unsettling. Unsettling leads to becoming. Becoming leads to creation. Creation leads to birth. Birth leads to energising. Energising leads to mobility. Mobility leads to hauling. Hauling leads to aging. Aging leads to draining. Draining leads to death. Death leads to fragility. Fragility leads to segregation. Segregation leads to diffusion. Diffusion leads to imbalance. Imbalance leads to adjustment. Adjustment leads to alignment. Alignment leads to new balance.
For general understanding, Buddhism basically touches on the scenario of cause and condition more than the case of cause and effect. Frankly speaking, all phenomenal existences are products of the proper combination of causes and conditions. Each of the causes would need other causes to be present together with their respective conditions. Just like for a new house to exist (as the result), we need bricks, cement, wood, iron rods, roof tiles, plastic pipes and other materials. The construction can only be completed when one has all the essential materials (as the causes) and all the prerequisites are met (as the conditions), such as the skillfulness of the workers, the time allocation, etc. The wood needs the forest, the sunshine, the rain, etc. The workers need their parents, their meals, their clothing, their shelters, etc.
If we were to observe these scenarios in its entirety, we could realise that everything in the cosmos attributed to the existence of the new house; without it, the new house would be impossible. The clear fact here is that 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.
The principle-in-effect: -
Cause 1 conjures up Effect 1,
Effect 1 conjures up Cause 1-1,
Cause 1-1 conjures up Effect 1-1,
Effect 1-1 conjures up Cause 1-1-1,
.., etc.
Therefore, cause and effect are simply two aspects of the same thing i.e. both of it are inter-be. The only difference between these two aspects is the time of event. In other words, cause and effect are inter-changing, inter-relating and inter-waving with one another. This is the modus operandi of the conventional reality i.e. not in-linear but in interdependence, inter-woven and inter-relation since the dawn of time in a very comprehensive and complicated network of existence. On this pretext, the coordination of Dependent Origination cannot be referred independently in a linear point of reference and therefore, no first cause, no first effect can be found within the dependent nature. Instead, there is only inter-dependent co-arising of all things or matters.
As a conclusion, we could mention that everything is a matrix of everything in the dependent nature. But the dependent nature per se is an inherent existence that is uncaused, indestructible and eternal. The main reason for the arising of duality or multiplicity in the dependent nature is due to the mind. But, why is there mind arising in the dependent nature? It is because there are elements of energy. Why are there elements of energy in the dependent nature? It is because there is emptiness. Why is there emptiness in the dependent nature? It is because there is emptiness of emptiness. In other words, the emptiness of phenomena is both the cause and consequence of the dependent nature of phenomena.
For example, let us place a solid ball in front for you to gaze at it effortlessly: -
If you were to zoom in the analysis of a solid ball by looking into the contents and then its basic matters i.e. atoms, you could realise that the ultimate result would yield to the absence of things (no things). This is because in a real sense there is no core essence within it except for the basic elements (energy, matter and space) that orientate and evolve constantly under the influence of the external conditions. In other words, one could mention that the form entity has a delusive nature i.e. it is an appearance, though not illusive, but devoid of inherent existence and constantly varies under the influence of conditional phenomena.
On the other hand, if you were to zoom out the analysis of a solid ball by receding into a long shot distance indefinitely, the solid ball would appear to be shrinking into a tiniest size and you could realise that the ultimate result would yield to the absence of things (no things). In other words, the broader the perspective that one engages in, the lesser the multiplicity of things would appear to be. For example, the viewing of the earth from far and near would yield a different result to the observer’s perception altogether.
Emptiness <== Microscopic analysis (samatha) <== MIND ==> Macroscopic analysis (vipassanā) ==> Emptiness
From the above analysis, we could conclude that the emptiness of phenomena is both the cause and consequence of the dependent nature of phenomena. It is the inherent quality of existence and is considered the ultimate truth because it inherently exists exactly as it is perceived when it is perceived directly by an enlightened mind. And discovering the ultimate truth is the key to overcoming the ignorant state of mind. Transcending the mind via meditation would allow the dilution of one’s personal ego under the light of pure awareness and subsequently, it would give rise to the original source connection – the emptiness of all things. And the emptiness of inherent existence of the mind is called the Buddha nature.
Or to put it another way....
Brilliant Buddhitakso. Thank you.
All causes are also effects from causes so there is no thing which is not the result of information being shared.
Sorry about the double negative, he
This thread is covering a lot of ground. Not surprising as Dependent Origination is such a core truth and the basis for so many more advanced insights.
Insights such as - "No beings or phenomena exist independently of other beings and phenomena."
A basic principle of Dependent Origination is that when anything arises dependent on particular conditions, it ceases with the ceasing of those conditions. This insight is the foundation of most all Buddha teachings including The 4 Noble Truths.
By understanding the concept of Dependent Origination, the Buddha’s teachings become clear. By personally seeing Dependent Origination, the Buddha’s teachings become liberating.
Best Wishes
@SeaOfTranquility well said, that's very well said.
Understood.
It is my duty as a heretical dharma bunny to remind you that Buddhism is not just an intellectual comprehension. It is experiential.
If you can sit for a few moments of contemplation and find some phenomena or state of being that exists independent of other conditions, we can all give up our cushion practice . . .
Keep us informed . . . :wave: .