Dependent Origination - application to daily practice

DairyLama · June 2010

How do we apply DO to our daily practice?

I regard DO as an elaboration of the Second Noble Truth, and I tend to focus on the aspects that we can look at in our daily experience -represented by the section 6 sense bases through to clinging ( possibly becoming? ). I approach this using mindfulness and vipassana meditation.

DO also reminds us that ignorance is the root cause of suffering and points to the importance of developing insight into the way things really are, again through daily practice.

Your thoughts?

P

Javelin · June 2010

Its primary function is to describe how suffering arises, always with ignorance of reality as the 'root'. There's not so much 'applying' Dependent Origination as there is understanding it, which means in practice to employ insight meditation with Dependent Origination as your meditation object.

Namaste

dennis60 · June 2010

If we are identifying with any aspect of DO, lets say "Clinging", we are contributing to the suffering in the world and within ourselves. If we are identifying with "becoming" we are contributing to the suffering of the world and within ourselves. Some say we are "stuck on the Wheel", when we are thus occupied....:) We all know what it is. In our practice of different types of meditation, chanting, mantra recitation, etc....we "step off the Wheel". We exit the "burning house". That is one way you can understand DO in everyday practice.

DairyLama · June 2010

Javelin wrote: »

.......employ insight meditation with Dependent Origination as your meditation object.

Namaste

Do you mean reflecting on the DO teaching in a general way?

P

Deshy · June 2010

When the six sense organs make contact feelings arise. Feelings develop into craving and clinging due to the ignorant self view. For example, when you look at your kid you feel something which you do not feel when you look at some other kid. This is because it is "your" kid. Behind every attachment there is this self identification. "It's me or it's mine".

If you are mindful of the six sense faculties, you can prevent feelings from developing into craving and clinging due to this self identification. That doesn't mean you cease to love anyone and you become mute. That just means you cease to cling to anyone or anything either as "me" or "mine".

Be mindful of the six sense bases and you will see how self view arises and how suffering occurs due to this self identification. If you release and let go, suffering ceases. If you grabs on to it, suffering occurs. You can verify this for yourself. Once you experience this you know what cause of suffering really is without any doubt. The rest is all about day to day practice and meditation.

Deshy · June 2010

porpoise wrote: »

DO also reminds us that ignorance is the root cause of suffering and points to the importance of developing insight into the way things really are, again through daily practice.

There is no particular "way for things". Things are just the way they are - mere natural phenomena. Just like a plant growing towards sunlight is natural phenomena, we are also just natural phenomena made with the five aggregates of nature. None of the five aggregates is self or anything belonging to a self.

For example,

With mindfulness and wisdom, physical hunger is no problem. Don't foolishly make it into dukkha. When it arises, just see it as tathata - thusness, the state of being "just like that." The body has a nervous system. When it lacks something that it needs there arises a certain activity which we call "hunger." That's all there is to it - tathata. Don't let it cook up into spiritual hunger by attaching to it as "my hunger" or the "I who hungers." That is very dangerous, for it causes a lot of dukkha. When the body is hungry, eat mindfully and wisely. Then physical hunger won't disturb the mind.

Link Here

shenpennangwa · June 2010

Dependent Origination IS daily practice.
We can study, contemplate, and meditate upon the teachings of DO but there would be none of that without the functional reality of the teaching itself.
Renunciation, dedication, and follow-through with practice are all observable instances of dependent origination. The resolve to seek liberation is dependent upon renunciation, renunciation is dependent upon the recognition of dukkha and so on and so on.
Not only are observable and non-observable phenomena functioning and "existing" in a conditioned nature that is dependent but also our very endeavor onto the path is an example of the direct and engaged experience of dependent origination.

DairyLama · June 2010

Deshy wrote: »

Things are just the way they are - mere natural phenomena. Just like a plant growing towards sunlight is natural phenomena, we are also just natural phenomena made with the five aggregates of nature. None of the five aggregates is self or anything belonging to a self.

I agree. But the problem is we don't actually see that's how things are.

P

Deshy · June 2010

porpoise wrote: »

I agree. But the problem is we don't actually see that's how things are.

P

well that's why we call it a practice.

DairyLama · June 2010

Deshy wrote: »

well that's why we call it a practice.

I need all the practice I can get.

P

DairyLama · June 2010

Deshy wrote: »

If you are mindful of the six sense faculties, you can prevent feelings from developing into craving and clinging due to this self identification.

I'd be interested to know how you go about this.

P

dennis60 · June 2010

porpoise wrote: »

DO also reminds us that ignorance is the root cause of suffering and points to the importance of developing insight into the way things really are, again through daily practice.

For many DO is just DO, it has no capacity to remind us of anything. As for "developing insight into the way things are", that would take the absence of self-delusional thought forms that present themselves in our own minds as being real. Like seeing a stick, and thinking it is a snake.

Deshy · June 2010

porpoise wrote: »

I need all the practice I can get.

P

So do I

Deshy · June 2010

porpoise wrote: »

I'd be interested to know how you go about this.

P

Read from the masters in detail. I would suggest you take some time off the forums, stop with all the questions for a while and read Bhikku Buddhadasa's texts. While doing so, you are most welcome to cross reference his essays with the suttas and do some reflection of the verifiable facts yourself. Afterall, you don't have to believe anything because some Bhikku says so. Remember, the Dhamma is verifiable, to be seen by the wise here and now. Thus cross referencing and reflection is important.

I think you got to do some reading now my friend

Deshy · June 2010

But in case if you were looking for some short answer then I would say, be mindful. For example, when you see a desirable sense object do not cling to it as "this is me, this is mine or this is my self". See the beauty of it, enjoy the beauty of it, be happy about it but when it needs to be let go of, let it go and accept that going away is the nature of that thing. That's just the way it is. Only when you attach to it with ego possessiveness such as "i want this, I want it for myself, It is mine" stress arises. Identify the cause of stress and you will see how stress arises and ceases in this moment. Nibbana is the ultimate cooling off of this continuous self identification.

Any desire, embracing, grasping, & holding-on to these five clinging-aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five clinging-aggregates is the cessation of stress

MN 28

DairyLama · June 2010

Deshy wrote: »

I think you got to do some reading now my friend

I'm reading all the time.

P

DairyLama · June 2010

dennis60 wrote: »

For many DO is just DO, it has no capacity to remind us of anything.

If that's the case, what use is DO in terms of practice?

P

DairyLama · June 2010

Deshy wrote: »

But in case if you were looking for some short answer then I would say, be mindful. For example, when you see a desirable sense object do not cling to it as "this is me, this is mine or this is my self".

Thanks. The reason I asked is that there are a number of different approaches.

P

Deshy · June 2010

porpoise wrote: »

Thanks. The reason I asked is that there are a number of different approaches.

P

Letting go of self identification is how the Buddha advised to practice the super mundane dhamma:

...every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble ones who tears down and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who discards and does not pull in; who scatters and does not pile up

Link

Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus:

In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen.
In reference to the heard, only the heard.
In reference to the sensed, only the sensed.
In reference to the cognized, only the cognized.

That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. ...

This, just this, is the end of stress

Link

There are lot more suttas but I don't remember most of them unfortunately.

DairyLama · June 2010

Deshy wrote: »

Letting go of self identification is how the Buddha advised to practice the super mundane dhamma:

Yes, I've followed quite a lot of Ajahn Sumedho's teachings on this, his approach is similar to that of Bikkhu Buddhadasa I think?

P

Deshy · June 2010

Sorry, I am not very familiar with Ajahn Sumedho's teachings to comment on that

treederwright · July 2010

DO - is a way of seeing, it is a fundemental tenet used to analyse phenomena. DO is based upon strict reasoning and analytical investigation. It is this way of seeing objects that the best application can be made. its not an easy topic. All teachings lead and are supported by this view. Without this view no teaching can be supported and interwoven

Deshy · July 2010

treederwright wrote: »

All teachings lead and are supported by this view. Without this view no teaching can be supported and interwoven

I agree. Without the correct understanding of the DO, it is difficult to understand half of what the Buddha is saying.

DairyLama · July 2010

Deshy wrote: »

I agree. Without the correct understanding of the DO, it is difficult to understand half of what the Buddha is saying.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a concensus on what the correct understanding of DO actually is. I find myself returning to the first 2 Noble Truths, which may be regarded as the simplified version of DO.

P

treederwright · July 2010

My friends, the idea that DO is too abstract or that someone can't agree on its terms is one of the most difficult things to realize. I would suggest a familiarization with the two truths as taught by the four buddhist schools. In doing so it will provide foundation and structure to test the logic of DO. Without it i am accepting on blind faith whatever i read.

The reason why DO is so vital is because all teachings rest upon it. Karma , Four Noble Truths, Impermance, Emptiness, Etc. they are all resting on the understanding of DO.

DairyLama · July 2010

treederwright wrote: »

The reason why DO is so vital is because all teachings rest upon it. Karma , Four Noble Truths, Impermance, Emptiness, Etc. they are all resting on the understanding of DO.

Can you be more specific about what you mean by "DO" here? Do you mean the general principle of conditionality / dependent arising, or do you mean specifically the 12 links, or something else?
And can you say why you think an understanding of DO is vital to understanding all the other teachings?
Thanks.

P

DairyLama · July 2010

treederwright wrote: »

I would suggest a familiarization with the two truths as taught by the four buddhist schools.

Which 2 truths and which 4 schools?

P

treederwright · July 2010

conventional & ultimate. Vaibhashika, Sutrantika, Chittamatrin, Madhyamaka

Dazzle · July 2010

How do we apply DO to our daily practice?

Hi Porpoise,(and anyone else interested)

I suggest you have a look at this booklet by P.A. Payutto on Dependent Origination at the Buddhanet site.

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/coarise.htm

Of particular interest is Ch.5 - Other Interpretations...with an example of DO in everyday life.

Kind regards,

Dazzle

.

Dazzle · July 2010

porpoise wrote: »

Yes, I've followed quite a lot of Ajahn Sumedho's teachings on this, his approach is similar to that of Bikkhu Buddhadasa I think?

The late Bhikkhu Buddhadasa was Thai Forest tradition, as is Ajahn Sumedho.

.

treederwright · July 2010

Can you be more specific about what you mean by "DO" here?

When i say dependent origination im referring to the principal of phenonmena having no intrinsic existence ( dependent ) and arising based upon conditions ( origination ).

Do you mean the general principle of conditionality / dependent arising, or do you mean specifically the 12 links, or something else?

Dependent origination is a synonym for dependent arising. The 12 links are related to every buddhist teaching they are the categories of cyclic existence. The "view" that Madhyamaka brings out is that of dependent origination and the cessation of mental wandering.

And can you say why you think an understanding of DO is vital to understanding all the other teachings?

Dependent origination is the basis for our acceptance of death,impermance,no-self,emptiness,four noble truths,bodhichitta,compassion,delusion,ignorance,attachment,aversion,refuge,and just about any other topic known to buddhism.

to answer why is the substance of all treatises, i have not the time or energy to write them, but i will point you to the lamrim chenmo which is a great treatise on the entire buddhist path by tsongkhapa. and nagarjuna : mulamadhamakakarika, and tsongkhapa's commentary . Shantideva : bodhicharyaavatara, and Kunpal's commentary. Chandrikirti madhamakaavatara, and its commentary by ju mipham. This is where im getting all this wonderful stuff.

DairyLama · July 2010

treederwright wrote: »

When i say dependent origination im referring to the principal of phenonmena having no intrinsic existence ( dependent ) and arising based upon conditions ( origination ).

Do you mean sunyata?

P

DairyLama · July 2010

treederwright wrote: »

Dependent origination is the basis for our acceptance of death,impermance,no-self,emptiness,four noble truths,bodhichitta,compassion,delusion,ignorance,attachment,aversion,refuge,and just about any other topic known to buddhism.

Yes, I'd agree the general principle of dependent arising is the basis for all Buddhist teachings. Obviously it's expressed in different ways according to tradition.

P

DairyLama · July 2010

Dazzle wrote: »

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/coarise.htm

Of particular interest is Ch.5 - Other Interpretations...with an example of DO in everyday life.

.

Thanks for that - interesting. I found the Ch. 5 example a bit laboured in the way it tried to make all the 12 links fit a psychological process.
Currently in daily practice I'm focussing on how desire leads to attachment and then to suffering, sort of "noticing" the 2nd Noble Truth.:)

P

Deshy · July 2010

porpoise wrote: »

I found the Ch. 5 example a bit laboured in the way it tried to make all the 12 links fit a psychological process.
Currently in daily practice I'm focussing on how desire leads to attachment and then to suffering, sort of "noticing" the 2nd Noble Truth.:)

P

Actually the 12 links fit a mental process for the most part which is why it is hard to be depicted by a mere example. It's a complex mental phenomenon which happens many times during the day, in an average person's mind. DO is hard to be explained through an example as how it happens should be "seen" by the individual for the most part. What you can do is, read it carefully and see how it fits with your mental activities. I think you are in the right direction

DairyLama · July 2010

Deshy wrote: »

Actually the 12 links fit a mental process for the most part which is why it is hard to be depicted by a mere example.

So in your view which links don't fit a mental process?

P

Deshy · July 2010

Six Sense Bases -> Contact -> Feeling

That link is not merely mental. It's both mental and physical. Without a physical sense organ there cannot be a contact. Without an eye there is no eye-contact. And a contact will not be completed if an initial cognition did not arise (eye-conciousness). Thus contact is both physical and mental. Plus feeling is a physical process imo. When you touch a hot iron you feel the heat. The Buddha felt physical pain while still being alive.

DairyLama · July 2010

Deshy wrote: »

Six Sense Bases -> Contact -> Feeling

That link is not merely mental. It's both mental and physical. Without a physical sense organ there cannot be a contact. Without an eye there is no eye-contact. And a contact will not be completed if an initial cognition did not arise (eye-conciousness). Thus contact is both physical and mental. Plus feeling is a physical process imo. When you touch a hot iron you feel the heat. The Buddha felt physical pain while still being alive.

As I see it the links which are mental / psychological are these:
contact > feeling > craving > clinging. As you say contact arises in dependence on eye, form and eye-consciousness ( for example ).
I'm not sure about the other links, there seem to be different views about interpretation.;)

P

Deshy · July 2010

porpoise wrote: »

I'm not sure about the other links, there seem to be different views about interpretation.;)

P

Deshy · July 2010

1. Ignorance (not realizing impermanence, suffering if attached to and not-self of all phenomena) prevails in any unenlightened person's mind.

2. Ignorance conditions fabricators. These fabricators are mental formations like “this is good, that is bad, it is rude, I don’t know what that is”. They are called mental fabricators because due to not seeing things as they really are with wisdom and clarity we tend to distort the true nature of phenomena.

3. Fabricators condition/taint consciousness. That doesn’t mean the origin of consciousness is fabricators. The origin of consciousness is obviously the physical sense bases. Consciousness is the initial cognition that arises when an external object makes contact with a physical sense organ. Thus, if you have fabricated views in your mind this initial cognition will also be deluded and tainted. For example, if you like certain type of women and when you see one with your eyes you immediately recognize it as a delightful object not as what it truly is.

4. Tainted consciousness conditions name and form. It conditions the body and the mind by allowing complex thought patterns, the naming, labeling, forming ideas which once again condition the sense bases (the physical body). Thinking of a woman/man may make changes to your physical body in numerous ways. Thus tainted consciousness develops into complex thought patterns and influence the nature of the physical body. You might cry, sweat, hormonal changes can happen ...

5. The condition for contact is physical sense organs. When physical sense organs make contact with an external object an initial cognition arises. The consciousness (cognition), the external object and the sense base together is called contact.

6. Contact is the condition for feelings. (pretty obvious)

7. Feeling is the condition for craving/clinging/attachment (we crave for pleasant feelings, we reject unpleasant feeling and we are deluded about neither pleasant nor painful feeling.) There is no clarity in all three

8. Attachment is the condition for becoming. You are attached to your girlfriend. You want to become her husband. Father a child. Get married. Meet her tomorrow and the day after... This is becoming.

9. Becoming as condition there is birth. The ego is born again and again. “My wife… my girlfriend, she make ME happy”. The self view is born. The me or things belonging to me.

10. Every time the self view is born due to attachment to impermanent phenomena there is suffering. The anxieties, frustrations, sadness, passing away of the loved ones. Everytime your ego is challenged there is suffering. It can happen in an instant or over a period of time

This is why by experiencing (not just understanding) not-self a person eradicates all suffering. Because the ego concept is not born in their mind, there is not attachment to self; there is no attachment to things belonging to a self. That is a person who does not construct as “me” and “mine” and thus is at a state of Nibbana.

This is the DO I know. As you can see the 12 links should be looked at horizontally, in pairs. Not vertically. They do not follow one after the other in a sequence. They should be looked at as “with A as condition B arises” not as “A->B->C->D etc. It’s verifiable if you pay attention and practice it. You will see how suffering arises and dies.

Deshy · July 2010

Quoting again... this is the way the Buddha described suffering and the cessation:

Any desire, embracing, grasping, & holding-on to these five clinging-aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five clinging-aggregates is the cessation of stress

MN 28

treederwright · July 2010

if you see the aggregates in the way as parts of a chariot, once the chariot is refuted its parts cannot exist either. The Lamrim Chenmo states exactly the way to meditate on this way of Right View. From the tibetian side its logic and practicality is awesome . For the limited space avail here i won't elaborate upon the method, but feel free to look it up.

DairyLama · July 2010

Deshy wrote: »

1. Ignorance (not realizing impermanence, suffering if attached to and not-self of all phenomena) prevails in any unenlightened person's mind.

2. Ignorance conditions fabricators. These fabricators are mental formations like “this is good, that is bad, it is rude, I don’t know what that is”. They are called mental fabricators because due to not seeing things as they really are with wisdom and clarity we tend to distort the true nature of phenomena.

3. Fabricators condition/taint consciousness. That doesn’t mean the origin of consciousness is fabricators. The origin of consciousness is obviously the physical sense bases. Consciousness is the initial cognition that arises when an external object makes contact with a physical sense organ. Thus, if you have fabricated views in your mind this initial cognition will also be deluded and tainted. For example, if you like certain type of women and when you see one with your eyes you immediately recognize it as a delightful object not as what it truly is.

4. Tainted consciousness conditions name and form. It conditions the body and the mind by allowing complex thought patterns, the naming, labeling, forming ideas which once again condition the sense bases (the physical body). Thinking of a woman/man may make changes to your physical body in numerous ways. Thus tainted consciousness develops into complex thought patterns and influence the nature of the physical body. You might cry, sweat, hormonal changes can happen ...

5. The condition for contact is physical sense organs. When physical sense organs make contact with an external object an initial cognition arises. The consciousness (cognition), the external object and the sense base together is called contact.

6. Contact is the condition for feelings. (pretty obvious)

7. Feeling is the condition for craving/clinging/attachment (we crave for pleasant feelings, we reject unpleasant feeling and we are deluded about neither pleasant nor painful feeling.) There is no clarity in all three

8. Attachment is the condition for becoming. You are attached to your girlfriend. You want to become her husband. Father a child. Get married. Meet her tomorrow and the day after... This is becoming.

9. Becoming as condition there is birth. The ego is born again and again. “My wife… my girlfriend, she make ME happy”. The self view is born. The me or things belonging to me.

10. Every time the self view is born due to attachment to impermanent phenomena there is suffering. The anxieties, frustrations, sadness, passing away of the loved ones. Everytime your ego is challenged there is suffering. It can happen in an instant or over a period of time

This is why by experiencing (not just understanding) not-self a person eradicates all suffering. Because the ego concept is not born in their mind, there is not attachment to self; there is no attachment to things belonging to a self. That is a person who does not construct as “me” and “mine” and thus is at a state of Nibbana.

This is the DO I know. As you can see the 12 links should be looked at horizontally, in pairs. Not vertically. They do not follow one after the other in a sequence. They should be looked at as “with A as condition B arises” not as “A->B->C->D etc. It’s verifiable if you pay attention and practice it. You will see how suffering arises and dies.

Thanks, this seems like a good explanation of the "psychological" approach to DO. I notice in steps 1 to 4 you use "conditions" as a verb while in steps 5 to 9 you use "condition" as a noun - there is a significant difference in meaning here, could you explain?

P

DairyLama · July 2010

Deshy wrote: »

<META content=Word.Document name=ProgId><META content="Microsoft Word 12" name=Generator><META content="Microsoft Word 12" name=Originator><LINK href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CDeshy%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml" rel=File-List><LINK href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CDeshy%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx" rel=themeData><LINK href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CDeshy%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml" rel=colorSchemeMapping><STYLE>  </STYLE>
There are two different interpretations as I know so far. The major difference is one interprets birth as physical birth thereby extending DO to many lifetimes. The other interprets DO as mental birth which can be verified in one lifetime.

That's also my understanding. I've looked at both but don't feel I want to reject either at this stage. The "mental" version seems more useful for daily practice though.

P

DairyLama · July 2010

treederwright wrote: »

if you see the aggregates in the way as parts of a chariot, once the chariot is refuted its parts cannot exist either.

It depends what you mean by "exist".

P

Deshy · July 2010

porpoise wrote: »

That's also my understanding. I've looked at both but don't feel I want to reject either at this stage. The "mental" version seems more useful for daily practice though.

P

Porpoise, obviously there aren't two interpretations to the core Buddhist teaching. There is only one. This is one doctrine which has one meaning.

The traceable origin of the many lifetime model is in the Visuddimagga, a Buddhist commentary written by Buddhagosa many years after the Buddha’s death. The interpretation came many years later and contradicts certain sutta contents

1) The many lifetime model talks about past life, this life and next life. It explains how beings get physically reborn due to kamma. In order to explain this it is required to explain what is reborn so the explanation is "alaya consciousness/continuum consciousness /rebirth-linking consciousness" etc. But the pali suttas do not talk about consciousness like this. They talk about consciousness as arising based on the physical sense bases.

Bhikkhus! Dependent on a certain cause, consciousness arises; and through that and that cause alone consciousness is called as such.

Dependent on eye and visible object, consciousness arises; then it is simply called eye-consciousness.

Dependent on ear and sound, consciousness arises; then it is simply called ear-consciousness.

Dependent on nose and odour, consciousness arises; then it is simply called nose-consciousness.

Dependent on tongue and taste, consciousness arises; then it is simply called tongue-consciousness.

Dependent on body and tangible object, consciousness arises; then it is simply called body-consciousness.

Dependent on bhavanga mind and mind-object, consciousness arises; then it is simply called mind-consciousness.

MN 38

2) The many lifetime model suggests that "rebirth-linking consciousness" goes from this body, gets reborn in another physical base and receives karmmic ramifications. But the Buddha explicitly refused such speculation as having nothing to do with Dhamma

"Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is the same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.”

“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”

“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions.”

...Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp ...

MN 38

3) How could the Buddha talk about not-self, say that the five aggregates are empty of a permanent entity called a self and then suggest that there is an entity like consciousness which survives death, receives kammic ramifications and gets reborn? Why would the Buddha talk about notions like rebirth in the crux of the Buddhist teachings and then give no explanation as to what is reborn and how it is reborn? Could he have expectd you to blindly believe it and then imply this:

“Bhikkhus, knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: ‘The Teacher is respected by us. We speak as we do out of respect for the Teacher'?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: ‘The Recluse says this, and we speak thus at the bidding of the Recluse'?”

“No, venerable sir.”

MN 38

4) The Buddha has said in the suttas:

...So you have been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is

visible here and now

immediately effective

inviting inspection

onward leading

to be experienced by the wise for themselves...

Is the three lifetime model visible in this moment? Is it verifiable here and now? Is it immediately effective? Can it be experienced by the wise in this lifetime?

You do the Math

treederwright · July 2010

Conventional existence, like when you see a pot. We see the same pot. its got a form color and texture, it has space and other obvious qualities. Yet it is based upon its parts that it doesn't exist INHERENTLY. So when i say aggregates exist i say they exist in this way . like a pot with many different qualities so a self with its aggregates.

upekka · July 2010

edited

DairyLama · July 2010

Deshy wrote: »

Porpoise, obviously there aren't two interpretations to the core Buddhist teaching.

Unfortunately there are 2 interpretations, as we've already agreed.

A fundamental problem I see with the psychological version of DO is in the incorrect use of paccaya ( "condition" ). In the analysis above you used paccaya as a verb in steps 1 to 4, without with the psychological version of DO wouldn't make any sense.
But paccaya isn't a verb, it's a noun. Paccaya ( "condition" ) is something on which something else, the so-called 'conditioned thing', is dependent, and without which the latter cannot be. Traditionally there are 24 types of paccaya, they are all nouns.
You have used "conditions" incorrectly in steps 1 to 4 of your analysis above to mean "shapes" or "influences" - this is a wrong interpretation of paccaya. And it's on this incorrect interpretation of paccaya that the pscyhological model of DO relies.

The interpretation of paccaya as a noun, not a verb, is supported by the general formula for dependent arising which appears in MN38 and elsewhere:
"When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases."

P

DairyLama · July 2010

Deshy wrote: »

Is the three lifetime model visible in this moment? Is it verifiable here and now? Is it immediately effective? Can it be experienced by the wise in this lifetime?

Obviously not, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. What we can do is reserve judgement and work with the section of DO that is clearly intended in a "psychological" way, ie "contact" through to "clinging".
Also what we can do is understand properly the principle behind DO, the principle of conditionality, the real meaning of paccaya - see my previous post.:)

P

Deshy · July 2010

porpoise wrote: »

A fundamental problem I see with the psychological version of DO is in the incorrect use of paccaya ( "condition" ). In the analysis above you used paccaya as a verb in steps 1 to 4, without with the psychological version of DO wouldn't make any sense.
…
You have used "conditions" incorrectly in steps 1 to 4 of your analysis above to mean "shapes" or "influences" - this is a wrong interpretation of paccaya. And it's on this incorrect interpretation of paccaya that the pscyhological model of DO relies.

A conditions B is meant to say that the condition for B is A. What’s the problem here?

Step 1:
Ignorance is the condition for Fabrications. Thus in an enlightened person’s mind, there are no fabrications since there is no ignorance

Step 4:
Consciousness is the condition for body and mind as in "tainted consciousness" is the condition for aggravated body and mind as explained by me. It has to be looked at that way. Don’t look at these 12 links literally.

If I am understanding you right, what you are trying to say is something like this:

Fabrications are the condition for consciousness. This is not quite right. In fact, fabrications are the condition for "tainted consciousness". Similarly right wisdom is the condition for untainted consciousness. So in a way fabrications taint the consciousness which is where the verbal reference comes in.

If you take it literally like fabrications are the condition for consciousness then the Buddha would have lost his consciousness when he attained Nibbana. By eliminating fabrications do we eliminate consciousness? Obviously we don't. The conditionality is between fabrications and "tainted conciosuness". The conditionality is between "tainted conciousness" and "aggravated body and mind".

I don't see any problem here

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Dependent Origination - application to daily practice

Comments