YOU CANNOT POST. OUR WEB HOSTING COMPANY DECIDED TO MOVE THE SERVER TO ANOTHER LOCATION. IN THE MEANTIME, YOU CAN VIEW THIS VERSION WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW POSTING AND WILL NOT SAVE ANYTHING YOU DO ONCE THE OTHER SERVER GOES ONLINE.

Co-dependent Origination? - Dhamma Wheel

Co-dependent Origination?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Co-dependent Origination?

Postby vinasp » Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:22 am

Hi everyone,

What does dependent origination describe?

What is the relationship between one item and the next?

Here I present a new interpretation of Dependent Origination (DO).

As presented in the nikaya's DO seems to be a chain of items, each of which
arises in dependence on the previous one. For example, it is said that: 'with
contact as condition, feeling.'

This is true. But was contact the only condition or cause which was required for
"feeling" to have arisen?

The Connected discourses on defilements [SN 27.1 to 27.10] speak of:'desire
and lust for ...'. many things - including "contact", and "feeling".

It even speaks of "desire and lust for craving ..."

Do we have here a second condition or cause contributing to the arising of each
item in the chain?

This would be "dependent co-origination", or "co-dependent origination".

Once "contact" has arisen it makes possible the arising of "feeling", but it
is not a necessary and sufficient condition in itself. Contact is a necessary
but not sufficient condition for feeling.

Desire and lust (chandaraga) is the other necessary but not sufficient condition.
The two together comprise a necessary and sufficient condition.

In this interpretation "feeling" is not actual feeling, but "feeling" as an
object of desire - objectified feeling.

And, of course, it arises in dependence on objectified contact, and is itelf one
condition for the arising of objectified craving.

Dependent Origination thus becomes a chain of "objects of desire".

I think that these objects of desire are called "dhamma's" in the Nikaya's.

Regards, Vincent.

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8502
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby cooran » Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:41 am

Hello Vincent, all,

A few articles may have something of interest:

The emptiness of codependent origination - Maggie Grey
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/vi ... context=cm

Dependent Co-origination: The Buddhist Approach to Reality
http://www.beyondthenet.net/slabs/artic ... endent.pdf

Thanissaro Bhikkhu: A STUDY OF DEPENDENT CO-ARISING
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.co ... CO-ARISING

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 4918
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby Spiny Norman » Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:26 am

"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 14947
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:44 am


vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby vinasp » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:06 am

Hi everyone,

"If, through revulsion towards the eye, through its fading away and cessation,
one is liberated by nonclinging, one can be called a bhikkhu who has attained
Nibbana in this very life." [Part of SN 35.155]

Passages such as this one compel us to rethink our understanding of Dependent
Origination. Revulsion towards the eye causes its fading away and cessation,
independently of any preceding items in the chain. Following items, which depend
on the eye will, of course, also fade away and cease.

With Dependent Origination there are only two possibilities:

1. Each item in the chain is caused by the preceding item and can only cease
when that preceding item ceases.

In consequence: The items in the chain can only cease if the first item,
ignorance, ceases.

2. Each item in the chain arises due to one (or more) additional causes while
remaining dependent on the preceding item.

In consequence: Any item in the chain can be made to cease, independently of
preceding items, subsequent items will also cease. However, if ignorance
should cease, then all the items in the chain will also cease.

Regards, Vincent.

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby DarwidHalim » Sun Jul 29, 2012 6:30 am

Three poisons or afflictions in Buddhism are ignorant, attachment, and aversion.

What is the difference between aversion and repulsion?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 4918
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Jul 29, 2012 9:20 am

"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby Sam Vara » Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:00 pm


User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby DarwidHalim » Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:52 am

I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 4918
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby Spiny Norman » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:12 am

"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby vinasp » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:20 am

Hi Darwidhalim,

Quote: "Three poisons or afflictions in Buddhism are ignorant, attachment, and aversion."

Yes. In Theravada Buddhism these are usually called the Three Unwholesome Roots.

"And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .ntbb.html

lobho akusalamūlaṃ, doso akusalamūlaṃ, moho akusalamūlaṃ — idaṃ vuccatāvuso, akusalamūlaṃ.

lobha is greed. Dosa is hatred, anger, aversion. Moha is delusion.

Sometimes raga (lust) or chanda (desire) are used in place of lobha.

Quote:"What is the difference between aversion and repulsion?"

Aversion is a mental reaction. Repulsion can be mental or physical, as when one
magnet repels another one. Revulsion is mental and is the same as hatred or aversion.

Regards, Vincent.

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 4918
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby Spiny Norman » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:59 am

"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 14947
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby mikenz66 » Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:10 am


User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby reflection » Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:15 am

Aversion is a light form of anger/ill will. It's trying to push things away.

Revulsion (or dispassion) is a natural result of seeing things as they are. Seeing that all is dukkha, gives rise to dispassion towards it all. It's this dispassion that drives one away from sense desires, towards a simplified life and eventually nibbana. This is not really a voluntary action. It's like having to pee, you can't help it, you just have to go. (bad example, but you get the idea :lol: ) You can't hold it forever, just like a sotapanna can't stay in samsara forever.

So the two are fundamentally different. But when one doesn't see how things are, it's easy to mix the two up. But of course some contemplation on the difference can help in understanding.

Apart from that, I don't think dependent origination needs yet another interpretation. ;)

:anjali:

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 14947
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby mikenz66 » Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:38 am


vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby vinasp » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:52 am

Hi Sam Vega,

Quote:"You seem to be saying that feeling is something that is desired; that one desires to feel some feeling or other - is that the case?"

Yes. SN 27.5 says:

"Bhikkhus, desire and lust for feeling born of eye contact ... for feeling born
of mind contact is a corruption of the mind. ..."

All desire must have an object, one cannot speak of a desire without specifying
the object. But there are really two objects. The first is just a thought which
is part of the desire. This thought represents the actual thing which is desired.
This actual thing is the second object.

In the passage above does "desire and lust for feeling" mean desire together
with its thought object, or does it mean desire and lust for actual feeling?

When desire and lust for feeling ceases, "feeling" as the thought object of the
desire, also ceases.

SN 27.1 speaks of "desire and lust for the eye", elsewhere the "eye" is said to
"fade away and cease" due to "revulsion towards the eye".
This "revulsion" counteracts the desire and lust, reducing and eventually
removing it. The result is - no "eye" as a thought object of desire.

Quote:"And does this mean that the other links in the chain are also things that one could or does desire?"

There is said to be desire for the six-spheres, contact, feeling and craving.
But dispassion must be developed towards all these and also everything which
arises due to contact.

There is also said to be desire for form, feeling, perception, volitional
formations, and consciousness (see SN 27.10). This could cover most of the
items in the DO chain before the six-spheres, with the exception of ignorance.

Regards, Vincent.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby Sam Vara » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:33 am


vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby vinasp » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:00 pm

Hi DarwidHalim,

Quote: "I just have a doubt with this translated Sutta."
"through revulsion towards the eye". End Quote.

Yes. I see your point, that is a good question.

"If, through revulsion towards the eye, through its fading away and cessation,
one is liberated by nonclinging ..."[Part of SN 35.155, BB, CD, page 1217.]

cakkhussa ce, bhikkhu, nibbidā virāgā nirodhā anupādāvimutto hoti [SN 35.138 DPR]

Here, nirodha is cessation, viraga is fading away, and nibbida is revulsion.

PED entry for nibbida [edited]:

Nibbidā (f.) [ ... ] weariness, disgust with worldly life, tedium, aversion, indifference, disenchantment N. is of the preliminary & conditional states for the attainment of Nibbāna (see nibbāna II B 1) & occurs frequently together with ;virāga, vimutti & nibbāna; ..."

Does nibbida in this passage mean a positive aversion or just the absence of
desire and lust? I do not know.

Regards, Vincent.

User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby reflection » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:20 pm


User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

Postby DarwidHalim » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:42 pm

I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2600htz and 53 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine