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 Orignation
Hello I am new to this Forum but would love some thoughts on an essay I have written on my view of Dependent Origination which diverges quite radically from the view I have been told and read about.
I would certainly like to be shown where I am wrong:)
The post is on my blog here:
http://thesaltedsolution.blogspot.com/2009/11/understanding-dependent-origination.html
Peace and Dharma,
Mat:)
I would certainly like to be shown where I am wrong:)
The post is on my blog here:
http://thesaltedsolution.blogspot.com/2009/11/understanding-dependent-origination.html
Peace and Dharma,
Mat:)
0
Comments
Buddha said "see" rather than "know".
<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P></O:P> Says who? :eek:
What occurred four hundred years after the Buddha’s life was the interpretation of DO over three life-times, that is, superstitious Hindu rebirth theory.
'Catastrophe' is an understatement about how Buddhism explains DO over three life-times.
<O:P></O:P> No. This is iddapaccayata or conditionality. Paticcasummupada is the twelve links to suffering.
Irrelevent. DO is a detailed explanation of the Four Noble Truths. 4NT = 4. DO = 24. Whilst annica & anatta can be seen within it, this is not its purpose.
No. For the mind to see clearly the three marks, DO must be under control, that is, the mind must have concentration or mindfulness & clear comprehension at sense contact.
DO is the arising of the 12 mental conditions of suffering. It is the arising of the proliferating mind rather than the concentrated mind.
If one understands 'birth' is 'self-definition', that is, "I" or 'taking ownership of the aggregates', that is "mine", then one's view of the 12 links may change.
Aging & death = impermanence.
Dhatu:)
>>Buddha said "see" rather than "know".
I believe that we cannot know what the Buddha said down to such semantic detail. Nothing was written down until generations after his death. The language his spoke in was a dialect similar to but not Pali and even if it were there are significant translation issues:)
There simply is no orthodox text/translation:)
>>Says who? :eek:
Nobody needs to say:) You can see for yourself by looking at the development of the cannons before and after the councils:)
>>>No. This is iddapaccayata or conditionality. Paticcasummupada is the twelve links to suffering.
Clearly, I disagree. Conditionality is Dependent originality and the Niddyas, like the Second Noble truth, are simply instances of it in action. Can you show me where I am wrong here?
>>>Irrelevent. DO is a detailed explanation of the Four Noble Truths. Whilst annica & anatta can be seen within it, this is not its purpose.
Again, I disagree:) Conditionality is the first principle:)
Chronologically again, the 12 conditionings are added by much later Scholars.
>>No. For the mind to see clearly the three marks, DO must be under control, that is, the mind must have concentration. DO is the arising of the 12 mental conditions of suffering. It is the arising of the proliferating mind rather than the concentrated mind.
Forgetting the fact that the 12 conditionings are later additions to Buddhism there still remain inconistencies.
How does ignorance exist without a being? On what does it depend? (I assume you will answer Birth, but this doesn't make sense to me)
How can mental formations arise without a mind?
Can you actually show that the reasoning of my essay is wrong or must you rely on various scripture? (Most of which simply could not have been taught by The Buddha because it isnt mentioned in the earliest therevadan texts)
Best wishes and thanks for your thoughts:)
Mat
Good start, good start.
The 12 Nidanas can actually be found in the suttas in the descriptions of D.O. They are accurate. "Rebirth" is not one of them. It's the Three-Life interpretation (formulated by Buddhaghosa) that incorporated literal rebirth that came up long afterwards.
No, not quite. This is another teaching called idappaccayata. D.O. is in fact taught through the 12 Nidanas as you can see in, for example, DN 15.
Well, not quite. Personally, I'm not yet Enlightened just from knowing that.
Edit - well, Dhamma beat me to it. That's what I get for leaving the reply window open while making dinner and not Refreshing afterwards.
This is not a small semantics issue. For example, have you attained Nibbana through writing this essay? Why not? The Pali in the suttas is extremely consistent.
The 12 Links are found throughout the suttas and are the teaching of D.O. - what makes you think these are incorrect?
Dhamma Dhatu is extremely familiar with the suttas and Pali.
Please provide proof of this. Are you saying the suttas have been altered?
Please Google "Practical Dependent Origination."
I disagree, as do others:) I agree that the Buddha uses the various couplings of the chain in various times, but it is later additions in and after the Sutra Pittaka, that have them merged into one chain.
>>>"Rebirth" is not one of them. It's the Three-Life interpretation (formulated by Buddhaghosa) that incorporated literal rebirth that came up long afterwards.
We agree on that, the Buddha never made recall to past or future births:)
>>>No, not quite. This is another teaching called idappaccayata. D.O. is in fact taught through the 12 Nidanas as you can see in, for example, DN 15.
All I am saying that the simple conditioning of things arising depending on other things is Dependent origination and that the 12 Conditions are an example of that.
>>>Well, not quite. Personally, I'm not yet Enlightened just from knowing that.
That might be because you expect enlightenment to by mystical. But let's not forget in the time of the Buddha people were becoming enlightened left right and centre! Just from a few minutes being taught Dharma:) Don't you find that curious? Doesn't that mean that it must be something clear and simple?
I do:)
Absolutely:) The teachings of the Buddha have been altered many times, we know this must be the case because of the very divergent schools. The schisms are documented, so why would anyone assume that the content was not subject to schism?
Moreover, nothing was written down in the time of The Buddha's life, why was that? When there was much being written down for millennia before and after...
Further still, we know that after his death nothing was written down, a body of doctrine was agreed upon but we have no idea how close that was to the Buddha's teachings.
Do you really believe there was no divergence/augmentation of his teachings for the decades until the cannons were first transcribed?
Interesting issues I find:)
Mat
Do you believe you are Enlightened then?
Dhamma and I and many others here are not into the "mystical" aspects that are commonly taught as "Buddhism."
We are not Enlightened because we only have an intellectual understanding of this concepts, and they have been directly seen through insight meditation to various degrees. They have not been fully realized. Surely, you too still experience dukkha? So why do you think that is?
I have absolutely NEVER seen anyone disagree on this. I believe you are under the impression that the 12 Nidanas only came up in Buddhaghosa 3-Life theory, but I have already shown you that they can be found throughout the Tipitaka (i.e. "the earliest therevadan texts" as you mentioned). The 12 Nidanas as taught by the Buddha in the suttas are not a teaching of literal rebirth (again, the word "rebirth" is not to be found in the Nidanas). Again, please refer to this essay: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm
Or are you in fact suggesting the suttas have been altered and those containing the 12 Links are later additions? Please provide evidence of this.
Edit-
The SUTTAS have been altered? Then how could you possibly know what is and what isn't "legit" in the Pali Canon? What makes you think you and you alone know? The TEACHINGS of the Buddha of been altered and interpreted in a variety of ways, and, as well, certain schools use scriptures outside of the Pali Canon. The exact same suttas are interpreted in a million different ways.
The 12 Nidanas make perfect sense and can be seen directly through practice. I'm not sure why you deny them. I think you're taking the words "death" and "birth" too literally, and hope you will consider reading the essay I linked to.
What, for you, does birth mean in the 12 nidanas?
Yes I do. I believe that Enlightenment is about escaping not the cycle of rebirth but the very idea of rebirth. That is, I think the Buddha realised that this really is all there is, and that the predominant Hindu ideas of rebirth and the supernatural were what needed to be extinguished from one's life before one could stand a chance of being deeply and lastingly happy.
The Buddha, to me , was the first and greatest materialist, rationalist and skeptic. But his wonder was he showed how compassion and truth and Magga were the only ways to end the inevitable negativity of life for one and others.
I think, as with all religions (demonstrably) his ideas were hijacked, politically and culturally.
>>>Dhamma and I and many others here are not into the "mystical" aspects that are commonly taught as "Buddhism."
That's good to know:)
>>>We are not Enlightened because we only have an intellectual understanding of this concepts, and they have been directly seen through insight meditation to various degrees. They have not been fully realized. Surely, you too still experience dukkha? So why do you think that is?
Of course I experience Dukka:) I simply don't believe the Buddha in his 40 odd years would never have experienced one iota of suffering. If you believe all the sutras you must believe he had sorrow at times, and frustrations etc. They mention all of this. The Buddha was normal man to me, he was the first who saw Dharma. If he hadn't discovered it, someone else would have, just like relativity.
>>>I have absolutely NEVER seen anyone disagree on this.
Yes, I really appreciate my views are close to unique. That doesnt make them wrong de facto:)
>>>I believe you are under the impression that the 12 Nidanas only came up in Buddhaghosa 3-Life theory, but I have already shown you that they can be found throughout the Tipitaka (i.e. "the earliest therevadan texts" as you mentioned). The 12 Nidanas as taught by the Buddha in the suttas are not a teaching of literal rebirth (again, the word "rebirth" is not to be found in the Nidanas). Again, please refer to this essay: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm
I simply don't believe the authority of any text that assumes the Buddha believed in rebirth, as said, I believe he was absolutely against the notion:) Not even agnostic about it.
>>>Or are you in fact suggesting the suttas have been altered and those containing the 12 Links are later additions? Please provide evidence of this.
I think that all of the sutra's are latter additions to Buddhism and we can find at best echos of his thoughts in them:) I think if the Buddha was alive today he would not have been, philosophically at least, a Buddhist.
If I had to choose a sutra to hold as authoritative, it would be the Kalama Sutra:)
Peace:)
Mat
For me this is a simple question to answer:) I will only believe as authoritative that which I cannot doubt. Annica, Anataman, Dukka and all that flows from them, all that is consistent with them.
>>>What makes you think you and you alone know?
I don't think I alone know. I think any rational person who is willing to to be mindful and contemplative about reality can see how Dharma must be truth, it simply cannot be any other way. The Buddha was a normal human, just like you just like me.
This is our only life, The Noble Eightfold Path is that which will allow us to live enlightened:)
If you're going to deny the authority of the scriptures, a position I find perfectly valid, and share myself, then you need some practical or empirical argument in favor of your position. I don't think you provide one in this essay. Why is your interpretation of D.O. better than the one presented in the sutras? How does it affect practice, and how does it aid in liberation?
Lastly, your essay seems to take a very ontological approach to D.O., so I suspect it has little bearing on Buddhist practice, which is fundamentally phenomenological.
I second Mundus's recommendation of the essay "Practical Dependent Origination"
Buddhist practice leads to an end to identification with the idea of rebirth, but...
>>>The only honest way to evaluate Buddhist teachings is to try them out for yourself, and see what the results are.
I agree with that, and that's what I have been trying to do for the last eight years:)
>>>If you're going to deny the authority of the scriptures, a position I find perfectly valid, and share myself, then you need some practical or empirical argument in favor of your position.
No I don't, but I have been writing an essay that goes into that in more detail.
>>>Why is your interpretation of D.O. better than the one presented in the sutras?
Its best for me, at least, because I cannot see any way in which it can be wrong, not just in this reality but in all logically possible realities. The same is not true of the supernatural interpretations, to me, at least:)
>>>How does it affect practice?
I'm not sure it does apart from in the is philosophical (Right View/Thought). The Moral and Mental path is the same path whether you believe in realms, titans, rebirth, clairvoyance, premonition and miracles or just in cold hard emptiness.
>>>Lastly, your essay seems to take a very ontological approach to D.O., so I suspect it has little bearing on Buddhist practice, which is fundamentally phenomenological.
I disagree with that:) For me Dharma is truth of existance and experiences, the latter emerging from the former. This is why I think my view of DO shows how the emergence is possible.
>>I second Mundus's recommendation of the essay "Practical Dependent Origination"
I have it bookmarked, but as said, i simply don't believe in rebirth, and I believe the Buddha didn't either.
Mat
I did say "if you believe...":p
>>>Philosophically, he wouldn't have been anything.
I think he would have been a skeptic, rationalist, functionalist...:)
>>>As your practice progresses, hopefully it will lead to the release of those ideas.
Why hopefully? So I can tow the ancient masculine hegemomnic line?
I am utterly happy, even with the problems in my life (and since the credit crunch there have been a fair few more!).
>>>It's only to say, you're barking up completely the wrong tree. What you're claiming regarding D.O., and have argued subsequently, have nothing to do with Buddhist practice.
I agree!:) I believe in Dharma and I practice Dharma, not the corrupted , mystical, intractable Buddhism that evolved out of his wonderful discoveries:)
If the Buddha had never lived we would still have Dharma:)
mat
I belive the Buddha realised that the ancient idea of rebirth and its associated mystical aspects, that is, the idea that there was something more to life than this, was an delusion that had to be escaped to be free from suffering. I belive that when he speaks of escaping from the cycle of rebirth he means not some magical cycle but the actual idea that tehre is such a cycle.
After the Buddha’s death his teachings became variously modified and corrupted with new concepts added over the millenia. These corruptions came from the cultural environment in which Buddhism evolved (Rebirth was the dominant concept for millennia before the time of The Buddha).
In addition to the cultural contamination there was political contamination. The philosophy became a religion and, as with all religion, started to serve controlling political needs in which case t6he original teachings became completely incompatible with political agendas. We see exactly the same “reward after this life” pressure in Buddhism as with the Abrahamic religions.
That's what I dont believe in, that rebirth:) Rebirth as the metaphor you allude to, i am happy with:)
Glad it's working for you. But you haven't just moved away from standard Buddhist practice, here. You've moved away from the teachings of every major religion, in that you seem to have found some formula to build yourself up ("I am utterly happy, even with the problems in my lifely happy, even with the problems in my life...") Spiritual practice ideally leads to an end to self-cherishing. But as long as this is working, I'm glad for you. I would just ask that you keep conversations like this in mind and be prepared to take another look, if you ever find your current approach is no longer working so well.
Well, with the possible exception of NamelessRiver, with whom I haven't discussed this issue, everybody in this thread accepts the rebirth-in-this-life metaphor as something they have verified in practice, and is kind of enh on the literal interpretation as a probable corruption of the teachings. That is, we aren't arguing with you about that. The "Practical Dependent Origination" essay takes this position, too.
Yes, completely. I am very nonreligious, I believe the Buddha was too. But rather than simply take away false meaning he offers something wonderful and reasonable to replace it:)
>>in that you seem to have found some formula to build yourself up ("I am utterly happy, even with the problems in my lifely happy, even with the problems in my life...") Spiritual practice ideally leads to an end to self-cherishing.
In fairness, that was a responce to your tacit suggestions that my practice was in some sense "sub standard":)
So you believe, like me, with certainty that this is your only life and once you are dead that's it in all senses?
I will read the essay:)
:eek: :eek: :eek:
So Enlightenment is synonymous with being an atheist?
Enlightenment is the quenching of dukkha, period.
But, I thought you said...
If you still experience dukkha, how can you claim Enlightenment? Nibbana = quenching of dukkha. What does Nibbana mean to you?
No, I believe they might actually be 1-of-a-kind (suggesting that the 12 Nidanas are not D.O.). That is ok, but if you are going to claim that the 12 Nidanas are not what he taught as D.O., then the burden of proof is on you, as the earliest Theravada scriptures, i.e. the closest thing we have to the Buddha's own words, state otherwise.
Once again, I believe you are assuming that Buddhaghosa's interpretation of the 12 Nidanas is accurate and reflects what the suttas actually describe, but it is not; you will not find a single instance in the suttas that mentions any 3-Life Theory. Have you read the sutta I linked to yet?
The truth of the 12 Nidanas can be authenticated for one's self in practice. What about the 12 Nidanas as taught in the suttas does not make sense to you? What do you believe it to be teaching, when you read the sutta I linked to?
:eek: Once again, the 12 Nidanas have NOTHING to do with literal rebirth. They COULD extend to this (because their truth applies regardless of what happens after death), but that is not their purpose. They are purely concerned with arising of dukkha. Please show me where the word "rebirth" appears in the 12 Nidanas. "Birth" and "death" are not used in the literal sense, either. The complete sequence ends in dukkha, as well, not death. If D.O. is meant to teach how suffering arises, then how would it make sense for these things to be used in the literal sense?
Consider: the death/decay/cessation of WHAT results in dukkha? Things we cling to as "me" or "mine" or "self." Consider the 12 Nidanas with this understanding. The sequence is seen an infinite number of times throughout THIS very life. How does this go against what the Buddha taught?
Secondly, he was not absolutely against the notion. He had no view on it. Any view, including atheism, hinders the Path. He was agnostic to the point that he taught that questions on life after death, and beliefs in life after death, were simply irrelevent to the quenching of Dukkha. He was beyond such questions, and beyond views and beliefs.
Again, how are the 12 Nidanas (D.O.) corrupted/mystical?
But you quote teachings from the suttas in your own essay in explaining D.O. (you just claim that iddapaccayata is actually Paticcasummupada, rather than the 12 Nidanas, as the suttas state), and in your responses here? You said earlier: "simply could not have been taught by The Buddha because it isnt mentioned in the earliest therevadan texts" - what does this refer to if not the Tipitaka?
Hindus teach reincarnation, buddha taught rebirth. They are extremely different and differ on every aspect (ie. mind, persons, karma, dependent arising, etc). Furthermore the buddha debated the nihilists of his time because strongly asserting that persons are annihilated at death is a heavy wrong view. Every buddhist tenet establishes this.
zen = meditation
Zen = a school of Buddhism
Either one requires a lot of work.
There is definitely New Age Buddhism. Encounter it all the time.
.......even round these parts. shhhhhh.
How can I say that? Via spiritual or meditative verification.
Another dreamer stealing from the Buddha and then saying the suttas are wrong but they know.
Such are the workings of ego.
Your post is irrelevent to the subject.
Dependent origination is about the origination of suffering. Suffering is something mental.
The Buddha's teachings on rebirth are found in other discourses, mostly given to laypeople & Brahmins.
Myself, I am with unshakeable conviction that Dependent Origination is a mental process that occurs in the mind as is recorded in the suttas, namely, "when the eye sees a form, when the ear hears a sound....when the mind cognises a mental object"...
:buck:
:buck:
The suttas accurately say:
The suttas accurately say:
The suttas accurately say:
However, it only arises because of misunderstanding the theory.
DO is not about the origination of a mind-body organism. As I advised, it is about the origin of suffering.
Ignorance conditions mental formations which condition the mind like shampoo conditions hair.
An example is teenagers in puberty. Before puberity, children do not think about sex so much. But during puberty, it is all they think about. Everything they see, hear, think about it sex. This is because all of the hormonal changes in their bodies & minds colour and taint the mind.
It is like seeing the world through tainted sunglasses or a stained glass window.
This is what is meant by ignorance conditions fabricators which condition consciousness which condition the mind-body which condition the sense organs.
:cool:
In any case what you say is strange. Because the whole point of the 12 links is that they are an endless cycle, in your understanding specifically the endless cycle of mental pain. And yet you would have people believe that mental pain is not endless, because it will somehow stop of its own accord.
:cool:
The suttas present DO in only one way, which is essential for realising the end of suffering. Nothing I say is strange. Your notion is "endlessness" is strange.
Dependent origination has two sides. One side for the arising of suffering and one side for the cessation.
They are only an endless cycle until one truly illiminates ignorance. The Upanisa Sutta shows this. This is true of our understanding of D.O. as well as yours. As long as a self-concept is fed and clung to (which is ignorance), dukkha (mental suffering) will arise. From your view, as long as ignorance exists, the literal cycle of Samsara will continue.
MN26 - the Buddha no longer experiences dukkha, because he has fully Awakaned. Thus dukkha has been quenched. Yet he still ages, falls ill, and dies physically. Dukkha is mental suffering. The Buddha's taugh only the quenching of dukkha.
Are you suggesting there is no relief from dukkha, and that life is inherently suffering and one must jump off the proverbial bridge of Samsara in order to end suffering? In other words, if it were proven literal rebirth was false, would you just jump off a bridge to end your suffering?
This understanding of D.O. does not have to contradict your view of literal rebirth being fact.
I said in any understanding of the 12 Nidanas, it's true that the cycle only continues until ignorance ceases. I didn't say that all understandings of the 12 Nidanas are true.
To me, DO explains how ignorance conditions the mind-body, as in my teenagers example above, like shampoo conditions hair.
For example, when ignorance conditions the hindrance of sexual desire, all kinds of physical changes occur to the body.
It is not the physical existence of the body but the state or quality of the body.
I said "from your (aaki's) view." I was simply stating what aaki's understanding is. Aaki's understanding is not my understanding, and I was not in any way agreeing with her understanding.
You're putting words in my mouth when you say things like "In other words, you are saying ignorance causes the physical mind-body organism."
I agree with you entirely on Dependent Origination.
I’ll have a go at replying to all in one thread?
>>>So Enlightenment is synonymous with being an atheist?
In philosophical terms and in part yes, but there is the practice, insight and contemplative aspects that lead to the moral and mental realisations. An Atheist has no consistent grounding for Morality, for example, whereas we can see from Dharma how essential Morality is for enlightenment. I find this wonderful!:)
>>>If you still experience dukkha, how can you claim Enlightenment?
I simply don’t believe that the Buddha never experienced Dukka. Rather he undertood and apprehended it with totality. Do you really think when a friend of his would have died he had no negativity about that? I do not. I think he would have understood that Dukka completely but that is different to his impossibility of experiencing it? (If you take the scriptures as litteral you must admit they mention Buddha’s sorrow, frustration etc...)
>>>... if you are going to claim that the 12 Nidanas are not what he taught as D.O., then the burden of proof is on you, as the earliest Theravada scriptures, i.e. the closest thing we have to the Buddha's own words, state otherwise.
I think the Burden of proof is on you to show that the scriptures are exactly what the Buddha taught and discovered, especially when they are internally inconsistent. Eg:
Consciousness depends on mental formations in the Nidanas yet in the Maha Nidana Sutra (Quoted from Pallihakara) Buddha says to Anada "If asked what constitutes consciousness, you should answer it is the mind and body."
There are other inconsistencies mentioned earlier in the thread.
>>>The idea that enlightenment is a sort of intellectual understanding badly misstates what Buddhism is about.
That reasoning is simply circular? I am saying that the corpus of Buddhism misstates what Buddha taught in his lifetime.
>>>You basically just decided to turn dependent arising into some newage zen thing and denied what buddhists teach without providing any reasoning.
I am starting to suspect many of you haven’t really thought about my reasoning where I show, I believe consistently, how The Three Marks are necessitated by Dependent origination. All I have had so far is scriptural bullying?
Forget the scriptures and start from first principles, can you show me wrong?
>>>Hindus teach reincarnation, buddha taught rebirth
If you think of rebirth as a metaphor for the momentary existence of the Skandhas I agree with you, they are completely different. The moment you add the supernatural or mystical, I disagree.
>>>Newage Zen/ newage Buddhism?
Hardly. Again, I don’t think you understand my reasoning, its about as far from the esoteric as one can get:)
>>>All I know is what is written in the suttas is much more reliable than your non-sense. How can I say that? Via spiritual or meditative verification.
How then could one become enlightened by simply speing a night in a Potters shed with the Buddha? Think about that.
>>>Another dreamer stealing from the Buddha and then saying the suttas are wrong but they know.
I don’t mind being insulted, but to say I am stealing what is self evident necessary truths of all realities shows again you simply have assumed I am one thing without thinking about my reasoning?
>>>Myself, I am with unshakeable conviction that Dependent Origination is a mental process that occurs in the mind as is recorded in the suttas.
I am glad you have your faith? I would like my conviction shaken, but spouting "the sutras say this" at me won’t do that I am afraid, I need reason. You have not shown that.
Dhamma Dhatu, you come over as a zealous Christian, not a Buddhist. I suggest you reread the Kalama Sutra and see what you can take form that. Note there are many many translations, not one... all we can hope for is some kind of contact with the teachings not the writings of a myriad of mindful monks of millennia?
Be nice, the Buddha would would have been, even If I am completely wrong:)
Mat
This is because you have not tasted Nibbana for yourself.
Please pay attention to an easy to understand example.
1. Due to ignorance, the mind does not understand the nature of craving & attachment and does not understand impermanence & not-self. As a result, the mind has underlying tendencies towards passion.
2. The underlying tendencies towards passion condition or trigger fabricators, that transport the underlying sensual passion to the mind-body. For ease, we can simply say formations.
3. These ignorant formations colour, taint or condition consciousness.
4. Ignorant tainted consciousness conditions the mind-body.
5. Ignorant tainted mind-body conditions the sense organs.
6. Ignorant tainted sense organs have contact with the most beautiful girl in the world. :eek:
7. Contact with the most beautiful girl in the world conditions pleasant feeling.
8. Pleasant feeling conditions craving. :tongue2:
9. Craving conditions attachment, ie, fixation with the most beautiful girl in the world. :buck:
10. Attachment conditions becoming, namely, mustering up the courage to ask the most beautiful girl in the world on a date. :type:
11. Becoming conditions birth, namely, marrying the most beautiful girl in the world. The most beautiful girl in the world becomes "my wife" and "mine" and one's self-identication is bound and entwined with the most beautiful girl in the world.
12. One wakes up one morning in any empty bed. The most beautiful girl in the world is gone, with a note saying she has gone to India to ordain as a nun. This loss is aging & death. Worse, one's self-identification suffers aging & death. What took birth now experiences aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair, separation from the loved, association with the unloved and the whole mass of suffering.
These are the twelve links of Dependent Origination, explained in a way even a teenager can understand.
Your blog has no definitive reasoning regarding DO.
You did not comprehend the suttas. it appears your mind has not comprehended the arising & cessation of ego thus the suttas I quoted meant nothing to your mind.
You are completely wrong. However, if you are interested in what the Buddha taught, being wrong is a step in the right direction.
May all beings be with liberated mind.
:smilec:
>>>This is because you have not tasted Nibbana for yourself.
I am not sure how you can pissibly know that, other than the unfounded certainty you seem to have that you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong. Your certainty seems more belonging to a faithhead than a Buddhist;)
Regarding your "teenage" example, we can agree that that is an example of DO, and one I am happy to accept because it lacks the supernatural aspects so common in Buddhism, But my point is and clearly awalys has been that that's just an example, that's not what DO is, thats DO in action in one aspect of reality. DO occurs in all phenommenon and possible systems, it cannot be any other way.
The problem comes when you see DO as being identical with the 12 Niddyas, because then you instantly obscure the profound metaphysical realisation of the Budda and end up missing the point of Dharma:) I may be very wrong here, but I remain to be shown:)
>>>Your blog has no definitive reasoning regarding DO.
I ask you to reread the last part if you think tyhat, and show me either where I am mistaken or what I have missed. With your very dogmatic certainty, that should be easy to do. BUT you cannot do this by quoting scripture, as clearly that would make you begging the question I seek an answer for:)
>>>You did not comprehend the suttas.
I agree, they are incomprehensible because they are not the words ofr the Buddha but of at least 2000 months over hundreds of years. Can you show me wrong here? Can you show me how the suttras are the word of Buddha?
If you can you have access to a history I have never heard of.
>>>You are completely wrong.
Interestingly, I think you are:) I have reason and history on my side, you have mishmash of generations of scholars and take it as being more important than the realities of Dharma.
Mat
Not without your cooperation. Roughly speaking, the position Dhatu, Mundus and I hold is that the Buddha's principal contribution was to teach a practice which ends suffering. The sutras are the main pointer to how that practice works. From this practical perspective, dependent origination is a map of experiences the practice leads to. What's making this conversation difficult is that we're a community of practice, and you're pushing a reinterpretation of a key model we use to talk about our experiences with that practice.
It's fine to deny all scriptural authority. Roughly speaking, I agree with you on that. But you're not going to get very far just by claiming your interpretation is more logically consistent, especially since you don't really have the tools or data to demonstrate it. (The contradictions you highlighted are probably a result of translation mismatches, for instance. Have you gone back to the primary sources, and verified that you can find the contradictions there, too? If not, not very convincing.) You need to understand the cultural role the scriptures play in this community of practice. The sutras are not a catechism for us. They are an operator's manual, one which a lot of us have followed very successfully. What that means, practically speaking, is that if you want to convince us that your interpretation is superior, you need to demonstrate the impact it has on the practice of Buddhism, and demonstrate that that impact is desirable.
Similarly, the only way for us to demonstrate our position to you would be to convince you to follow the practice as described in the sutras, and point the way for you to see the twelve limbs of D.O. yourself. That is the role the essay "Practical Dependent Origination" played in my own practice. I went looking for contact, becoming, etc., on the mat, and found them. No amount of arguing would have convinced me.
So he came to the conclusion that "life is suffering and there's no escape" and that's it? Then woo-hoo, what the heck would be significant about that? He fully accepted his life was crap and yours will be too? If that's what you want, ok... :P
The purpose of Dependent Origination is SOLELY to illustrate how dukkha arises. It has no other purpose. This-and-that conditionality is still part of what the Buddha taught, but you're changing the name of it to Dependent Origination to make it the primary teaching without any reason for doing so. The Buddha stated that he taught only one thing, and that is the quenching of dukkha. If your model fails to illustrate how this can be accomplished, then how can you claim it's D.O.? You are going against the one thing that absolutely everyone else agrees is the "main point" of his teachings, even those who believe in literal rebirth.
For practical, everyday use of the 12 Nidanas: ignorance (essentially, ignorance of the 4NT/anatta/anicca/dukkha) leads to craving/clinging/attachment ("I want" or "I don't want") to the things that form our overall self-concept (either directly, as in, "this is me," or indirectly, as in "this is mine")... "birth" and "death (impermanence)" refer to the overall self-view of "I-and-mine," NOT the day you popped out of a vagina. When these things "die" (say, when your hair turns grey, when your car breaks down, when a belief is proven false, when a relationship ends etc.) it leads to the last nidana:
Soka-parideva-dukkha-<WBR>domanassupayasa sambhavan'ti
Sorrow, Lamentation, Pain, Grief and Despair.
Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti
Thus is the arising of this whole mass of suffering.
Thus the nidanas accurately demonstrate how dukkha arises at any given moment and how this cycle is fed. Therefore, we can end dukkha in the here-and-now. The full realization of this on every level is Nibbana. You can experience the truth of this through meditation.
And Dhamma already answered your other question, so..
Your very essay is written with sutta citations. You have just switched the name of Conditionality to Dependent Origination, said there's no escape from dukkha, and called it a day.
The suttas are the closest things we have to the Buddha's own words, and are extremely consistent. If you don't understand certain things, don't assume the suttas are wrong. If you would read that essay Fivebells and I linked to, you would understand what the suttas actually say much better.
If the suttas aren't good enough, then what are you basing your opinions on? How can you say you know what the Buddha said? How can you say he even existed?
You clearly have not bothered reading the essay that was linked to, or made an attempt to understand what Dhamma has been saying. I don't think his example gets much clearer than that.
And where precisely did you get the "first principles" from if not the suttas...?
The main principle is "the quenching of dukkha."
Dhamma did not say they are incomprehensible. He said you did not comprehend them. You could not do so because you went in on the assumption that the Nidanas speak of literal rebirth because you accepted an interpretation of them that came up long after the suttas were written as accurate, and yet I have pointed out that the word "rebirth" is never used.
What he ^ said.