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.
Interbeing and the cessation of suffering
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
No, but perhaps it's possible that we can live without craving, without greed, aversion, and delusion, so that 'the all' is no longer aflame, and 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 (Ud 1.10). You seem to disregard this possibility, but I don't.
Where is it written that that is possible?
All throughout the canon. I'm a sure a google search will provide you will a number of sutta references. Here's one to start you off.
From the link: _ "one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases."_
This is what I'm getting at. A child, for example, is a "clingable phenomena." Sure there are drawbacks of childcare, but if we were to turn our backs and not help children in need, feel their suffering, I can assure you there would be even worse drawbacks.
I see what you're trying to get at, but I don't think it's saying what you're implying it does, just as SN 36.6 doesn't suggest one shouldn't take care of one's body. But I also question whether it's worth the time to argue.
The reality is between the extremes of being and non being. The ignorance in us clings to secondary and secondary +22 phenomena if not more. Primary existence is pure and not bounded by our attachment to ignorance, thought, sensation, personal attributes etc.
In a sense we are moving towards non being rather than inter being. Such a possibility and condition (non being) does not exist for most of us.
. . . and now back to the Middle Way . . .
Inter-being can be used as a metaphor or to symbolically describe the vast similar qualities of beings, but I seriously doubt that inter-being can really exist. Samsaric-beings would be a better choice for me.
Well there are two possibilites here Nevermind , either
1) After 2500 years you have exposed the internal flaw in Buddhist logic..thus proving definitively your frequent mantram that 'things do not have to true, just meaningful'..
Or you 2) have discovered for yourself the inherent flaw in Thich Naht Hahn's theory of Interbeing.
A flaw which has been pointed out by literally scores of Buddhist commentators over the last decades..
Its a dilemma isn't it ?...Gosh.
I find the term 'interbeing' a bit new-agey. isn't the more traditional term 'dependent origination'?
They are not the same concept at all @federica, as Jason has been pointing out.
But its clear how the thread will probably go.
Nevermind has actually provided a service in bring about an examination of a concept which has no traction in traditional Buddhist circles.
But serves well as a vehicle for those who have spent a long time on the periphery of Buddhism but remain outside..because it is a concept that IS flawed.
And so is ripe for utilisation by nihilists.
A coach and horses can be driven through it.. and has been..by a number of prominent Buddhist teachers who nevertheless admire Hahn's engaged Buddhism.
It chimed nicely with the concept of the Global Village and with ecological considerations.
So was taken up by many well intentioned Buddhists.
But as Thanissaro put it " it was TNH having a kumbaya moment. The concept of 'interbeing' is found nowhere in the Pali Canon or in the Mahayana corpus."
And the onus is on Nevermind to show that it is. And THEN demolish it.
Which will not stop him using his usual tactic of stating or implying that those who disagree have not understood the argument..and spin and repeat, and spin and repeat.
What I've come to realize is that the concept of interbeing does not suggest there can be an end to suffering. It suggests the opposite. If we inter-are then we inter-suffer, and no cessation of suffering is possible.
this seems to have been a long thread.
i am a hindu and not a buddhist - so if you wish, you can neglect reading my below post. also i have been studying about Buddha's teachings for the last 2 years only, so my understanding can have an error in it.
DO suggests interbeing, in the sense that since everything is dependently originated, there is no thing having its inherent existence.
you said - due to interbeing, there can be no end to suffering because since we inter-are, so we inter-suffer because if we inter-are that includes everything including our karma and Interbeing = interkarma - i think here your reasoning is going in slightly wrong direction.
let me see if i can explain.
karma and result of karma - the result of karma goes back to the doer of the karma.
now from ultimate reality sense, there is no individual having an inherent existence, so no 'I' anywhere, so no Samsara and consequently no Nirvana. But from conventional reality perspective, since there is an 'I' inside us till we end our ignorance through wisdom from direct experience and not through thinking about it, till then there is an 'I' inside us, so the karma we do becomes our karma and its result come back to us. so we suffer due to our craving (which is due to our ignorance) - so we can act in the opposite direction to reduce our greed and hatred, which can lead to removal of ignorance from us, which can lead to seeing things as 'just they are', so in a way leading to the ending of suffering for that ignorant person after his ignorance getting ended.
now after getting awakened, since then also karma will be done, but there will be no sense of 'I' doing the karma, so the result of that action will not come back to that person.
Similar concept of working of karma is also explained in Shreemad Bhagwad Geeta by Lord Krishna in which he says, before Self-realization, due to ignorance, a person with an 'I' sees himself as the doer of action, so its result that person has to experience - the person is just a medium for getting that task done, so when the person does an act with this perspective (obviously this perspective or view is the default view after a person achieves Self-Realization), then the result of his actions does not fall back to him, as then the person is not acting from a perspective of 'I', rather just acts the act as the conditions need that act to be performed and he is just a medium in getting that act completed.
also, if we see it from interconnectedness perspective, that we all are interconnected, and that other being's suffering is also related to our suffering since there is no 'I', so no 'other' - in a way, this interconnectedness perspective seems to be derived from that ultimate reality perspective as there is no individual 'I' in that interconnectedness, so no 'I' which is suffering and no 'I' which ends its suffering, rather just processes arising and ceasing due to their causal factors arising and ceasing. so suffering and suffering ceases, but no individual who experiences suffering or ends suffering, as without Samsara, there is no Nirvana. but from conventional reality perspective, since there is an individual, so there is Samsara and so there is Nirvana.
What I've come to realize is that the concept of interbeing does not suggest there can be an end to suffering. It suggests the opposite. If we inter-are then we inter-suffer, and no cessation of suffering is possible.
I don't think that is the case because he also teaches that with the full realization of "interbeing" there is the full realization of non-self or anatta. And with that, suffering subsides.
^^^ It's that simple. It's not as complicated as people are making it out to be. It's only a tool he has used to teach non-self.
I'll take 'kumbaya' any day over the other dishes being offered in this thread.
Disclosure: Any and all names/official titles mean nothing to me, and will have no effect on how I practice....... Build a bridge and get over it.
I will not conversate with anyone who seems intent on hen pecking me to death.
This...'my teacher is right and yours is wrong, and I won't let it rest'...really reeks of insecurity and a shaky foundation. Go ahead...type a response. I already know you act like you can't be told anything. I will not respond after this to you. period.
I agree...you seem to have no idea what I'm talking about. .. :rolleyes: ..
@Citta
Right. At the end of the day, there are mountains and rivers. And they are empty.
How you figure? I thought the concept of dependent origination was supposed to thwart all emptiness-nihilist tendencies.
Hold on, it's Easter Sunday and I haven't found all my eggs yet.
Yes, but you seem intent on putting them all into one basket.
Bad idea.
No off topic chatter, Mrs Moderator
D.O. does.
'Interbeing' doesn't.
It's your thread, you started it.
Besides, I think the topic has probably been done to death and is beginning to go round in circles....Once that starts happening, there is little point in continuing the discussion, as more often than not, it becomes dull, repetitive and tedious.
And tempers start to fray.
I know asking too many questions is frowned on in this forum, for some reason, but I can't help asking, what exactly is the difference between D.O. and IB? I see you wrote that Jason explained the difference, but I've read every word he's written in the topic and I haven't seen it.
Hence my, apparently failed, attempts to lighten the mood with frivolity.
Inter-being is just a rehashing of the Hua-Yen concept of Indra's Net.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-buddhist-teaching-of-totality.html
That concept has also influence teachers such as Bernie Glassman to bring about the emphasis of social action as a means to realize dependent origination/indra's net/anatta.
I think its a great view and skillful means to bring about bridging the gap between social action with the buddhist philosophy of dependent origination.
Oddly enough. When we actually focus on other people we get freed from our suffering.
I don't find it the least bit odd. I find the opposite odd.
I thought of the various ways to point up the differences between 'interbeing' and Dependent Origination..got as far as finding authoritative sources to cite..and then thought that a better course of action is simply to do something else with the time.
I suspect that whatever is motivating the debate is not positive regard or sincerity.
And that any debate feeds the actual agenda.
So my input stops there.
Good thinking.
My understanding of the cessation of suffering is that it comes about through the ending of our ignorance. The cessation of suffering doesn't occur because we are able to physically remove ourselves from the rest of existence with some kind of enlightenment bubble. It comes from a realization and experience of the true nature of things.
Cessation is a mental event, not a physical one. One doesn't have to dislodge themselves from the universe to end suffering.
This is rather beside the point, which is that Interbeing suggests no "One" can cease their suffering, the whole Interbeing must do it.
Well, the whole interbeing is just as much of an illusion as the one so it isn't any more able or not to remove the ignorance.
I don't think interbeing means that the whole of reality must move in conjunction with the conventional 'I' in order for me to accomplish anything. If I want to get in shape I do need someplace to exercise and I need the knowledge from others, but I don't need you to cheer me on or @citta to take away my simnel cake. The raft to enlightenment is a conventional phenomena and can be understood in isolation.
Overall I think you're getting your conventional truth mixed in with your ultimate truth and the end result isn't as delicious as peanut butter cups.
Once again, this is laughably incorrect. Interbeing is another way to descrive interdependnce, which has little/nothing to do with "the individual".
Give it up. Go read some TNH.
Peace out.
I can't see why it matters that you believe in a unified consciousness, and some others don't, Nevermind. Or that you think that suffering will never end. Is it causing problems in your life or relationship? Maybe you can just wait and see how things turn out.
Is a fire "individual"? If a fire comes to be due to causes and conditions, is maintained and changes size and intensity due to causes and conditions, and ultimately dwindles and ceases burning due to causes and conditions (or the lack thereof), was it really "a fire", as in a noun or thing, or was it more a verb? A "happening" or "doing" that was mistaken as a separate, independent, lasting "thing"?
In the end all things are really continuities of causality, of related processes and how they are intertwined over time, and not real static things at all. That applies for fires... and for us. Suffering can be extinguished because it's merely a fire-within-a-fire. Suffering is extinguished and ceases "mental" burning, and then the fire that is considered an individual life is extinguished and ceases "physical" burning.
I think some people think that if you can't put out every fire in existence, forever and always, that it's not worth putting out any fires (or perhaps not even possible). That's just as ridiculous as letting your house burn. Buddhism is utilitarian; it's all about recognizing what the "problem" is (the depths and pervasiveness of human suffering), where that comes from, and how to fix the problem.
We've gone thought this already with Jason.
Let me bring this back to point. In the parable of the burning house, the Buddha describes the sons in the story as representing humans who are "born into the threefold world, a burning house, rotten, and old." The 'house' is considered to be aflame. Everything aflame. This is serious, right?
Parables aside for a moment, in 911 four hundred and forty one rescuers were killed trying to save others, about a sixth of all casualties. They entered the 'burning house' knowing full well the danger, but they went in anyway.
Is it possible for us to leave others behind to burn and save ourselves from suffering? I don't think that's possible. Do you?
What is a unified consciousness? I'm talking about interdependence.
You can't have interdependence without individuals to interdepend, my dear.
I think it's impossible to ignore the suffering of others burning and saving yourself.
Not quite catching your drift here.
Well, a buddha for example, is someone who has foregone individual salvation in order to free others from their suffering, so there may be some sort of merit to your argument. However, they are said to be free from suffering themselves.
What exactly is "salvation" if not the cessation of suffering???
@Nevermind When you put out a fire, where does it go? Your confusion still seems to be one of self, of thinking that rebirth is about transmigration and that enlightened people are ceasing to exist by ending transmigration. Enlightenment is liberation from delusion (false self) and the suffering that it brings, and "enlightened beings" (a conventional phrase) do not intentionally cause suffering for themselves or others. Again, as I've said before, until you've realized emptiness you're really tying yourself up in knots of self. Practice, practice, practice. Words just won't do.
If rebirth is of anything, it's of ignorance and suffering.
Where did I say that? We are talking about the CESSATION of SUFFERING. Is that clear now?
Yeah, why do you mention this?
@Nevermind You said enlightened people "leave others behind", it's clear enough what the problem is.
I wrote exactly: "Is it possible for us to leave others behind to burn and save ourselves from suffering?" Additionally I wrote that I don't think it's possible.
Is that clear now?
Chill, bro!
@Nevermind Yes it's exactly as I've said, you need to re-read what I posted about your confusion.
???
Here's the distinction as I see it.
Inter-being is a concept in which everything is viewed as being interconnected. To some extent, this is true. We live in dependence on many things, from our environment to our interactions with others, so the concept itself has some merit. We affect the world, and the world affects us.
That said, there appears to be empirical limits to inter-being. If, for example, I eat toast for breakfast, that doesn't mean everyone in the world also eats toast, even though everyone in the world is interconnected by the fact that they all live in the same interconnected world. If I burn myself or feel deep emotional sadness at the death of a close friend, the rest of the world doesn't immediately feel my sadness or develop a burn in the same spot. Conditionality has its limits.
Dependent co-arising is a concept that details the casually-determined psychological process by which suffering and stress arises in the mind, and which conditions the arising of future suffering and stress. The basic concept is expressed by the formula, "When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that," and more fully (in the context of the arising and cessation of stress and suffering) in the form of dependent co-arising:
There are a multitude of factors and conditions that gives rise to this psycho-physical chain within the mind, all of which are mutually dependent. But from the Buddhist point of view, there are places in the chain where, with mindfulness and effort, one can disrupt one of the links in this chain, much like a mental resonance point, which in turn can disrupt the entire causal chain, ultimately leading to a mental-state empty of passion, aversion, and delusion. And this experience of release radically alters the way the mind (of the individual) relates to experience.
Much like how one can overcome certain neurosis with therapy and reflection, the idea is that one can overcome craving and the mental defilements of passion, aversion, and delusion with the right effort and contemplative practices. Afterwards, we still interact with the world and the people around us, but that interaction is no longer 'aflame.' We're no longer pierced by the second dart of SN 36.6, or beset by sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair.
Perhaps this permanent release isn't possible, but I've at least experienced moments of such release and think it's worthwhile to continue to cultivate and expand those moments as much as possible. And that can be done while also trying to help relieve the suffering of others whenever possible.
Anything that is "connected" together can be taken apart, and when you take out one piece you loosen the surrounding pieces as well.
From the link:
Suffers pain etc. but is not bound to it. Yes, that makes sense. I can see how such a person could be this way and not abandon others. It seems to be consistent with Interbeing, as I see it.
Reduced polarities, cool.