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.
Teachings on the twelve links of dependent origination
From my understanding each of the twelve is transformed into an enlightened quality. I would think the method is what we are already doing in our own way. There are 84,000 dharma doors that can be used to transform these 12 links. They are all interconnected.
@Shoshin said:
One could argue that to nip 'feeling' in the bud will stop craving in its tracks...
In fact it is a teaching.
"A pleasant feeling is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to vanishing, fading, ceasing. A painful feeling is also inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to vanishing, fading, ceasing. A neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is also inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to vanishing, fading, ceasing.
"Seeing this, an instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with pleasant feeling, disenchanted with painful feeling, disenchanted with neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. From dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns, 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
@Shoshin said: Nagarjuna's take on the twelve links (in a nutshell)
"Two deluded actions (Links 2 & 10 ) arise from Three deluded causes (Links 1,8,9).Seven uncontrolled results (Links 3,4,5,6,7,11,12) arise from those two deluded actions...Again Three deluded causes arise from these Seven results...Such a wheel of life goes round and round !"
I can sort of follow that, except for how Link 2, mental formations, is a deluded action.
But disenchantment results from deep insight, the cessation of ignorance.
While ignorance persists we remain trapped in the deep-seated, habitual pattern of craving and aversion, and we cannot just choose to stop doing it.
It's like telling a full-blown alcoholic that they should just choose not to have the next drink.
Of course there is Right Effort, but that is a gradual and progressive process, a displacing of unskillful mental states with skillful ones. Or you could say displacing the hindrances with the factors of enlightenment.
@SpinyNorman said:
But disenchantment results from deep insight, the cessation of ignorance.
This works 100 % of the time. I agree. But the implications of @pegembara s quote are still worth consideration.
I think a closer look at the translation of the word disenchanted might prove informative.
Because...Am I the only one or, does it seem that practicing in this way, over time, feelings become less imposing. And sometimes they dont arise at all?
You are correct, fetters are something else, although they are kind-of referred to as "things that chain" but are not actually the same thing as the subset of nidanas mentioned in that article. Thank you for pointing that out.
I think that link 2 referred to as "an action" is kinda just an error in translation. mental formations are action but not an action like breaking a tea cup. action like when the director says lights, camera... maybe "ongoing process" ? calling it action has the implication that we can do something about it, steer it, and it's true, we can imagine different things, brainstorm ideas, etc.
Also, it seems to imply that a perfectly still mind actions not and therefore there would be no mental formations. An unobstructed view of reality, if you will.
In this connection we should understand that each action — whether by deed, word or thought — leaves behind an active force called "Sankhara" (or "kamma" in popular terminology), which goes to the credit or debit account of the individual, according to whether the action is good or bad. There is, therefore, an accumulation of Sankhara (or Kamma) with everyone, which functions as the supply-source of energy to sustain life, which is inevitably followed by suffering and death. It is by the development of the power inherent in the understanding of Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta, that one is able to rid oneself of the Sankhara accumulated in ones own personal account. This process begins with the correct understanding of Anicca, while further accumulations of fresh actions and the reduction of the supply of energy to sustain life are taking place simultaneously, from moment to moment and from day to day. It is, therefore, a matter of a whole lifetime or more to get rid of all one's Sankhara. He who has rid himself of all Sankhara comes to the end of suffering, for then no Sankhara remains to give the necessary energy to sustain him in any form of life. On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into Parinibbana, reaching the end of suffering. For us today who take to Vipassana Meditation, it would suffice if we can understand Anicca well enough to reach the first stage of an Ariya (a Noble person), that is, a Sotapanna or stream-enterer, who will not take more than Seven lives to come to the end of suffering.
Nibbida - Knowledge of Disgust
Seeing thus the misery in conditioned things (formations), his mind finds no delight in those miserable things but is entirely disgusted with them. At times, his mind becomes, as it were, discontented and listless. Even so he does not give up the practice of insight, but spends his time continuously engaging in it. He therefore should know that this state of mind is not dissatisfaction with meditation, but is precisely the "knowledge of disgust" that has the aspect of being disgusted with the formations. Even if he directs his thought to the happiest sort of life and existence, or to the most pleasant and desirable objects, his mind will not take delight in them, will find no satisfaction in them. On the contrary, his mind will incline and lean and tend only towards Nibbana. Therefore the following thought will arise in him between moments of noticing: "The ceasing of all formations that are dissolving from moment to moment — that alone is happiness."
Here is a suggestion of how it works, the 90 second rule. I am not saying the theory is correct but just test it out and see for yourself. You can only have one feeling at a time - pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. All you need to do is just try to observe them arising and fading away.
This was what Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor accidentally discovered after her stroke of "insight".
When a person has a reaction to something in their environment, there’s a 90 second chemical process that happens in the body; after that, any remaining emotional response is just the person choosing to stay in that emotional loop. Something happens in the external world and chemicals are flushed through your body which puts it on full alert. For those chemicals to totally flush out of the body it takes less than 90 seconds.
This means that for 90 seconds you can watch the process happening, you can feel it happening, and then you can watch it go away. After that, if you continue to feel fear, anger, and so on, you need to look at the thoughts that you’re thinking – that are re-stimulating the circuitry – that is resulting in you having this physiological response over and over again. http://www.lifecoachingcourses.ie/2013/12/90-seconds-rule/
The problem is that we are dealing here with a complex set of habitual and deeply ingrained mental responses, of which feelings are only one aspect.
Where I would agree is that mindfulness of feeling is a useful and necessary, part of practice, observing how feelings arise and how we react to them.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2015
90 seconds is an arbitrary time; I have read 12 minutes.
The fact is emotional pain is processed at different rates by different people according to their own emotional abilities and experience.
90 seconds is bunkum.
But so is 12 minutes.
Thanks for the posts everyone. So far I've learned:
the links are NOT linear
meditation is important in realizing their interrelationships
Nagarjuna seems to be a good source for understanding DO
there are many different interpretations of DO (not least of which is the secular)
This is quite a bit more than I knew just a few days ago, and I'm grateful for the input. I must admit though, a lot of the more advanced points are beyond me.
I took a few days off due to my flu, and put them to use to catch up with my reading.
Among other things, I listened to Tempel Smith podcasts on a three-part "Dependent Origination" retreat he offers in Tricycle Magazine.
I'm afraid the content is for members only, but though I still have to finish part three, he makes some interesting points on DO.
As usual, he begins his explanation with avidya as the fundamental cause of craving.
Without ignorance or "not seeing," which he prefers, there is no craving.
And avidya colours the following links: one's mental formations, one's action, one's consciousness, etc.
He also notices a relationship between the 4NT and DO: "The 4NT are also a law of cause and effect -the simplified version of dependent origination- or dependent origination is the more intricate version of the 4NT."
Not understanding (ignorance), predisposes certain mental formations or volitions (sankhara), which impel us to action. Anger and love predispose us towards different courses of actions.
He presents every link in a way relevant to our daily life.
Don't know how much one can quote from this "classified" material, but one quote of his I found simple but to the point is: "The entirety of the Buddhist path is to get rid of the 'a' in front of 'avidya."
@Victorious said:As far as I am concerned the entire Theravada school is secular.
Sorry but that is just plain wrong. Theravada is a broad church, there is everything from full-scale traditional right through to traditions like Thai Forest which emphasise present-moment practice.
And Secular Buddhism has a quite different set of assumptions, as do some of the modern vipassana teachers.
If you spend a bit of time on Dhamma Wheel you'll see what I mean.
@DhammaDragon said:> He also notices a relationship between the 4NT and DO: "The 4NT are also a law of cause and effect -the simplified version of dependent origination- or dependent origination is the more intricate version of the 4NT."
Yes, I mentioned this earlier. They are both based on the principle of conditionality. DO is actually an elaboration of the Second Noble Truth.
I know everyone knows this but when the Buddha finished giving the first discourse, it said Aññā Kondañña knows, Kondañña opened The Dhamma eye, he saw whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation, that means he saw The 4 Noble Truths and understood dependent origination to a degree, and became a stream entrant. Each stage of enlightenment gives one a deeper understanding of Dependent Origination.
@SpinyNorman said:
Of course there is Right Effort, but that is a gradual and progressive process, a displacing of unskillful mental states with skillful ones. Or you could say displacing the hindrances with the factors of enlightenment.
Secular means non-religious, not atheist or non-theist. But anyway, I accept that people interpret DO in different ways, which is why it's not an easy discussion.
People are coming at it with completely different assumptions. I guess what we can agree on is the underlying principle of conditionality.
And what does religious mean? Hmm? Nothing to do with gods at all?
Secular like Religion are a words with a pretty floating meaning which is used in many different situations to mean different things but since you fail to understand my meaning while I am subtle I will put it bluntly.
I do not really care how you, the Dhammawheel or Margret Thatcher(rip) define secular, religious or marmalade.
As far as I am concerned Theravada is Secular since the Dhamma as understood by them does not require assistance of any god to reach full unbinding.
Neither is my Dhamma Religious in any way since it does not portray any mark of religion at all.
You are of course welcome to pursue any meaning and application of the word in any forum you like.
I think you are digging yourself deeper into a hole. Words have accepted meanings and making up your own meaning to make a point is rather silly.
By all means describe your approach but don't claim you know what Theravada is because it's very clear that you don't.
@SpinyNorman said:
I think you are digging yourself deeper into a hole. Words have accepted meanings.
Accepting other peoples wording, which in general they have no idea what they mean by, is a pretty good way of digging yourself deeper into their pit o r at least a pit.
Good luck with that.
I'll just pause here at the edge pondering the inevitable before I move on.
@SpinyNorman said:
Please just look at a dictionary. Also spend some time exploring Theravada. You will find both helpful to your understanding I think.
Will that bring me closer to Unbinding? Unlikely.
Will it bring me into the world of petty word feuding, Discussions on meaningless distinctions and unwanted ego competitions? Probably.
Bin there, done that, bought the T-shirt. Cant stand the stink. So I threw it away.
You should too and get on with your cultivation.
Just some friendly advice.
It's really about describing things as they are, not how we wish them to be. Surely a good approach from a Buddhist point of view.
Anyway. Let's get to a cushion quick!
@SpinyNorman said:
It's really about describing things as they are, not how we wish them to be. Surely a good approach from a Buddhist point of view.
Anyway. Let's get to a cushion quick!
@lobster said:> lobster is a bad woman . . . and that is the truth . . .
So are you really a woman? It doesn't really matter, I'm just curious.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Lobster is a transgender, bisexual, androgynous asexual hermaphroditic crustacean, and I think we need to accept it, into our community without bias, judgement or prejudice.
besides, a little salted garlic butter and chopped parsley never hurt anyone...
I was just asking. The endless discussions of gender issues on NB are not of my making.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I know. And frankly such mysteries are utterly pointless and ridiculous.
It is just as pertinent to know someone's gender as it is to not be bothered about it...
I am aware that "once Enlightened" a person's gender is utterly immaterial.
However, Before enlightenment, it would be polite to adhere to convention and resolve the issue by admission.
I think to admit to one's gender is simple courtesy.
It's a matter of form.
Until I know for sure otherwise, I am assuming that @lobster is 100% male.
Whether I am correct or not, I frankly don't really care.
And as appropriate or relevant, would respond accordingly.
In previous discussions on personal disclosure and of avatars, I believe Lobster expressed a strong need for him/her/whatever to be as anonymous as possible because of a fear of being tracked down by enemies.(or perhaps just by really annoying people)
This appears to still be the case.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
As I said, I just take the male gender as a supposition.
From another thread:
...I teach from the "sudden insight" as transmitted by my Chan master in China. It attempts to cut through all psychological paradigms and reference points ruthlessly, leaving no conceptual constructions standing. It doesn't validate a provisional (fictional) perspective at any time. In your case It could be suggested to look more closely at what comprises this seeming entity that feels a need to practice for its own benefit and the benefit of existing "others".
Upon very close examination of the thought stream as it arises and ceases, that sense of "me" as a progressing practitioner will be seen to be a stream of empty thoughts about a "me" but with no core or findable "me" present. When this is seen deeply, suddenly the subconscious will CEASE creating the karmic "me" entity. In that moment the emptiness of self or anatta will be "actualized", not just understood. Then the "Seeing" or prajna, will be identical to a Buddha's insight into the fact that no individual self has ever arisen beyond the empty conceptual designations that claim otherwise.
no @SpinyNorman I am not studying with him just a FB friend. I think if I comprehend what he said you just watch your thought stream. Your question would be like asking "what method do you hear music?"
Comments
From my understanding each of the twelve is transformed into an enlightened quality. I would think the method is what we are already doing in our own way. There are 84,000 dharma doors that can be used to transform these 12 links. They are all interconnected.
*
*
In fact it is a teaching.
Feeling leads to craving when ignorance is present.
I can sort of follow that, except for how Link 2, mental formations, is a deluded action.
But disenchantment results from deep insight, the cessation of ignorance.
While ignorance persists we remain trapped in the deep-seated, habitual pattern of craving and aversion, and we cannot just choose to stop doing it.
It's like telling a full-blown alcoholic that they should just choose not to have the next drink.
Of course there is Right Effort, but that is a gradual and progressive process, a displacing of unskillful mental states with skillful ones. Or you could say displacing the hindrances with the factors of enlightenment.
Thats what it feels like anyway.
This works 100 % of the time. I agree. But the implications of @pegembara s quote are still worth consideration.
I think a closer look at the translation of the word disenchanted might prove informative.
Because...Am I the only one or, does it seem that practicing in this way, over time, feelings become less imposing. And sometimes they dont arise at all?
@pegembara please question to you too.
And anyone else that recognizes the situation.
/Victor
As I understand it disenchantment has the sense of seeing through, seeing the unsatisfactory nature of impermanent phenomena. So insight really.
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Nibbida
You are correct, fetters are something else, although they are kind-of referred to as "things that chain" but are not actually the same thing as the subset of nidanas mentioned in that article. Thank you for pointing that out.
I think that link 2 referred to as "an action" is kinda just an error in translation. mental formations are action but not an action like breaking a tea cup. action like when the director says lights, camera... maybe "ongoing process" ? calling it action has the implication that we can do something about it, steer it, and it's true, we can imagine different things, brainstorm ideas, etc.
Also, it seems to imply that a perfectly still mind actions not and therefore there would be no mental formations. An unobstructed view of reality, if you will.
From http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html#ch6.8
Nibbida - Knowledge of Disgust
Seeing thus the misery in conditioned things (formations), his mind finds no delight in those miserable things but is entirely disgusted with them. At times, his mind becomes, as it were, discontented and listless. Even so he does not give up the practice of insight, but spends his time continuously engaging in it. He therefore should know that this state of mind is not dissatisfaction with meditation, but is precisely the "knowledge of disgust" that has the aspect of being disgusted with the formations. Even if he directs his thought to the happiest sort of life and existence, or to the most pleasant and desirable objects, his mind will not take delight in them, will find no satisfaction in them. On the contrary, his mind will incline and lean and tend only towards Nibbana. Therefore the following thought will arise in him between moments of noticing: "The ceasing of all formations that are dissolving from moment to moment — that alone is happiness."
and
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.039.than.html
Here is a suggestion of how it works, the 90 second rule. I am not saying the theory is correct but just test it out and see for yourself. You can only have one feeling at a time - pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. All you need to do is just try to observe them arising and fading away.
This was what Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor accidentally discovered after her stroke of "insight".
The problem is that we are dealing here with a complex set of habitual and deeply ingrained mental responses, of which feelings are only one aspect.
Where I would agree is that mindfulness of feeling is a useful and necessary, part of practice, observing how feelings arise and how we react to them.
90 seconds is an arbitrary time; I have read 12 minutes.
The fact is emotional pain is processed at different rates by different people according to their own emotional abilities and experience.
90 seconds is bunkum.
But so is 12 minutes.
http://www.quora.com/If-emotional-pain-lasts-only-12-minutes-then-is-anything-longer-self-inflicted
I'd like to see where she grasped this 90 seconds from. If it's via her own experience, then she can only speak for herself
I think it's a very crude approach myself.
I agree.
Thanks for the posts everyone. So far I've learned:
This is quite a bit more than I knew just a few days ago, and I'm grateful for the input. I must admit though, a lot of the more advanced points are beyond me.
I took a few days off due to my flu, and put them to use to catch up with my reading.
Among other things, I listened to Tempel Smith podcasts on a three-part "Dependent Origination" retreat he offers in Tricycle Magazine.
I'm afraid the content is for members only, but though I still have to finish part three, he makes some interesting points on DO.
As usual, he begins his explanation with avidya as the fundamental cause of craving.
Without ignorance or "not seeing," which he prefers, there is no craving.
And avidya colours the following links: one's mental formations, one's action, one's consciousness, etc.
He also notices a relationship between the 4NT and DO:
"The 4NT are also a law of cause and effect -the simplified version of dependent origination- or dependent origination is the more intricate version of the 4NT."
Not understanding (ignorance), predisposes certain mental formations or volitions (sankhara), which impel us to action. Anger and love predispose us towards different courses of actions.
He presents every link in a way relevant to our daily life.
Don't know how much one can quote from this "classified" material, but one quote of his I found simple but to the point is:
"The entirety of the Buddhist path is to get rid of the 'a' in front of 'avidya."
When understanding Dhamma. Forget the implications of secular.
Do not make that meaningless division.
As far as I am concerned the entire Theravada school is secular.
When I learned about the DO there were no division into secular or three life DO.
I learned BOTH as complements.
But for everyday practice the moment to moment understanding of DO is the most fruitful.
Sorry but that is just plain wrong. Theravada is a broad church, there is everything from full-scale traditional right through to traditions like Thai Forest which emphasise present-moment practice.
And Secular Buddhism has a quite different set of assumptions, as do some of the modern vipassana teachers.
If you spend a bit of time on Dhamma Wheel you'll see what I mean.
.
Ignorance & Mental formations (or if you like "Karmic activities" being another term for Sankara) are both deluded actions on our part....
Yes, I mentioned this earlier. They are both based on the principle of conditionality. DO is actually an elaboration of the Second Noble Truth.
No matter how you define secular or what ever Theravada school you refer to
I think you will not find one that emphasizes that you need help of a god to reach unbinding.
That is secular as far as I am concerned.
So no I am not wrong.
/Victor
I know everyone knows this but when the Buddha finished giving the first discourse, it said Aññā Kondañña knows, Kondañña opened The Dhamma eye, he saw whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation, that means he saw The 4 Noble Truths and understood dependent origination to a degree, and became a stream entrant. Each stage of enlightenment gives one a deeper understanding of Dependent Origination.
@bookworm reminds us much the same, leading to the need for sila
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/
There are factors that maintain ignorance, factors that enable the potential for awakening.
Why Dukkha? Why Nirvana and samsara intertwined . . . all very clear
Secular means non-religious, not atheist or non-theist. But anyway, I accept that people interpret DO in different ways, which is why it's not an easy discussion.
People are coming at it with completely different assumptions. I guess what we can agree on is the underlying principle of conditionality.
Much the same as the Buddha's last words, maybe significant? Origination and cessation, the two aspects of conditionality.
And what does religious mean? Hmm? Nothing to do with gods at all?
Secular like Religion are a words with a pretty floating meaning which is used in many different situations to mean different things but since you fail to understand my meaning while I am subtle I will put it bluntly.
I do not really care how you, the Dhammawheel or Margret Thatcher(rip) define secular, religious or marmalade.
As far as I am concerned Theravada is Secular since the Dhamma as understood by them does not require assistance of any god to reach full unbinding.
Neither is my Dhamma Religious in any way since it does not portray any mark of religion at all.
You are of course welcome to pursue any meaning and application of the word in any forum you like.
Peace!
Victor
I think you are digging yourself deeper into a hole. Words have accepted meanings and making up your own meaning to make a point is rather silly.
By all means describe your approach but don't claim you know what Theravada is because it's very clear that you don't.
Accepting other peoples wording, which in general they have no idea what they mean by, is a pretty good way of digging yourself deeper into their pit o r at least a pit.
Good luck with that.
I'll just pause here at the edge pondering the inevitable before I move on.
Please just look at a dictionary. Also spend some time exploring Theravada. You will find both helpful to your understanding I think.
Will that bring me closer to Unbinding? Unlikely.
Will it bring me into the world of petty word feuding, Discussions on meaningless distinctions and unwanted ego competitions? Probably.
Bin there, done that, bought the T-shirt. Cant stand the stink. So I threw it away.
You should too and get on with your cultivation.
Just some friendly advice.
/Victor
It's really about describing things as they are, not how we wish them to be. Surely a good approach from a Buddhist point of view.
Anyway. Let's get to a cushion quick!
Spoken like a true @lobster .
Lets do!
PS. It is always about seeing things as they are. But whose judgement do you trust? The others or your own? I prefer to trust my own.
Never ever trust your own judgement above that of others.
And I think THAT makes it the last word on the subject, gentlemen.
I think I'm clear on that, yes?
Sssh, we are on the cushion.
I never trust @lobster, always contentious, blaming a talking cushion and generally setting a mediocre example . . .
@lobster is a bad woman . . . and that is the truth . . .
So are you really a woman? It doesn't really matter, I'm just curious.
Lobster is a transgender, bisexual, androgynous asexual hermaphroditic crustacean, and I think we need to accept it, into our community without bias, judgement or prejudice.
besides, a little salted garlic butter and chopped parsley never hurt anyone...
I was just asking. The endless discussions of gender issues on NB are not of my making.
I know. And frankly such mysteries are utterly pointless and ridiculous.
It is just as pertinent to know someone's gender as it is to not be bothered about it...
I am aware that "once Enlightened" a person's gender is utterly immaterial.
However, Before enlightenment, it would be polite to adhere to convention and resolve the issue by admission.
I think to admit to one's gender is simple courtesy.
It's a matter of form.
Until I know for sure otherwise, I am assuming that @lobster is 100% male.
Whether I am correct or not, I frankly don't really care.
And as appropriate or relevant, would respond accordingly.
In previous discussions on personal disclosure and of avatars, I believe Lobster expressed a strong need for him/her/whatever to be as anonymous as possible because of a fear of being tracked down by enemies.(or perhaps just by really annoying people)
This appears to still be the case.
As I said, I just take the male gender as a supposition.
From Jackson Peterson's Facebook group and page.
Interesting, Jeffrey, but do you know what method he teaches to see through the emptiness of a thought stream?
no @SpinyNorman I am not studying with him just a FB friend. I think if I comprehend what he said you just watch your thought stream. Your question would be like asking "what method do you hear music?"
Pondering insoluble questions? That is definitely a primary fault of the seeker
...