Dependant arising -- In a nutshell

searching_samsara

Hello again. Can anybody on here explain, in a nutshell the theory of dependant-arising, I realise this may not be possible but surely someone out there can put it in simple terms using mataphor or something? I have read loads of books by the Dalhi Lama and it seems when he's just getting to the crux of it, he veers of onto another point. Also as i have limited net access (1/2 hour at a time in my library) please don't direct me to sites that explain it in 1hours videos!! i'm getting my head around impermanence but i believe this is linked or another way of "showing" impermanence. I consider myself intelligent but still don't get it!! Any help on this would be appreciated. Many thanx.

federica

dependent arising.
A chair exists because you say it does,
if you break it into little pieces, and separate them, is it still a chair?
no.
It exists because we have constructed it.
In the same way, we have arisen, dependently of what we perceive and have been conditioned to believe.
If I remove my arms and legs, am I still me?
No.
And yes.
my consciousness is not affected by my physical state. therefore, the constant is our consciousness.
What we do with it, and how we steer it, is down to us, but it's there as a constant.
Our body and Self is only there because it is dependent on our ideas of ourselves, arising.


I have probably got that hopelessly wrong, but it's brief, and seems to work for me....

fivebells

I found <a href="http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm">this article</a> very helpful.

Valtiel

In a nutshell, D.O. is an illustration of all the dukkha (suffering/unsatisfaction/unease etc. in your mind) that arises in your life. When there is A, there is B. When A ceases, B ceases. So if we understand how dukkha arises, we can understand how dukkha can cease:

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

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.

An older post of mine:

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. [oops excuse the language ] 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.

If you are interested in further reading:

The Danger of I , Patticasamupada - Practical Dependent Origination by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu

Dependent Origination : The Buddhist Law of Conditionality by Prayudh Payutto

my consciousness is not affected by my physical state. therefore, the constant is our consciousness.

No, the Buddha taught that there are six kinds of consciousness which dependently arise and cease constantly throughout our lives (sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking). This is important for understanding D.O. and dukkha, because it is at each moment of Contact that ignorance either manifests or it does not.

federica

fivebells wrote: »

I found <a href="http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm">this article</a> very helpful.

See?
I thought I'd got it wrong.....
My original understanding of Consciousness is deeply flawed, it seems......

searching_samsara

These are the twelve links of Dependent Origination, explained in a way even a teenager can understand. <<<<< How patronising are you? I only ask because i seek the truth, your comment here smacks of frustration, like teaching a small child to try his laces!! I apologise if i'm not intellectually worthy to ask questions of this site. Oh and for the record Federica, The chair thing actually worked for me. Some of us understand better by using metaphor and others understand direct thesis on stuff. Me? I'm a metaphor guy!! Thank-you again for help in answering this question. With each answer i understand i draw closer to the truth. Have a happy and delightful festive season all.
One more thing, Mundus, did you learn anything today from this thread?

Valtiel

searching_samsara,

That was a quote from another poster in another conversation. It was not directed at you. I quoted his post because it explains D.O. quickly and clearly (otherwise, I would have just provided the links) as you requested and the thought never even occured to me that you would take that last part personally and be offended, in fact, I forgot about it. Please relax. Even if I had written it, it would be very silly to assume I was in any way being patronising rather than simply saying "here's the 'in-a-nutshell' version as you requested."

One more thing, Mundus, did you learn anything today from this thread?

I have learned from your firsthand example that D.O. is absolutely accurate, and that when people's egos cloud their perception, they practically seek out things to be offended by and overlook very direct answers to the questions they asked as a result, cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Mani

Don't worry, searching-samsara! everyone has to investigate these topics at some point and it can take a little while to gain a better understanding. We all have much to learn

It may be useful to begin with a statement and then examine it by using tangible examples. Something like...

"All phenomena are dependent on causes and conditions and therefore do not inherently exist from their own side."

Before getting into more mind-boggling ideas, it may be helpful to examine simple objects first, to see how they are a "sum of their individual parts". A chair;a camera; a car;

When I first began looking at dependent arising, sort of like Federica's example, I would examine an object whatever it may be. I would take a bit of a closer look to see what individual parts might make up this object. When it is taken apart, it can't really be identified as a "chair" any longer (reverting to the previous example). And then those parts too must have been subject to certain causes and condition in order to exist as well.

I found that this is a good starting point, rather than going straight to the complex side of things from the start.

Tried to keep it somewhat simple, hope this helps some

M

searching_samsara

Hey again all. Ok Munus allow me to clarify, I wasn't offended by the comment about teenagers i only highlighted it to make you think a little. By the patroninsing comment (I know it wasn't your comment per se) I only intended to show that it was patroninsing not only to others who maybe didn't grasp what was being said but also patronising to teenagers, By anybody stating they will put things in such a way "that even a teenager could understand" it suggests that all teenagers have less intellect than anybody else. unfortunately wisdom doesn't always come with age. Again i wasn't offended or had my ego hurt. I relinqushed my ego (the small self) a while ago, granted it does sometimes pop up like a jack in the box and try to take control but not in this instance. i like this site!! Most other buddhist forums i have encountered are full of people who assume they have reached some lofty hights of enlightenment and because of that preach rather than teach. I come here to learn and thank everyone who enables me to do that, even you Munis (A little northern humour there!!) Thanx again and i really hope i didn't offend you, If i could hug you i would (Awww!) Finally its also worth considering that as this is essentially an e sangha and allows for no social cues, such as tone of voice, facial expression, body language etc., etc. Sometimes things can be misconstrued or misinterpreted, I'm from the North of england and i afraid our humour can also be misunderstood. While i'm on this subject i would love to know where other people who use this site hail from.
i'm away to visit family and hand food out to the homeless over christmas, so all the best to everyone and see you all in the new year.;)

Valtiel

:eek2: