Dependent origination Vs Interdependent

[DarwidHalim]

In dependent origination, sometimes we heard the term interdependent. However, the word interdependent suggest that everything is related to each other.

Because everything is related to each other, this part is that part, that part is this part.

If we say consciousness is interdependent with wood. It suggest consciousness is a part of wood. And the wood is the part of consciousness. There are many overlaps here and there.

The interdependent notion is actually very similar to "gaia hypothesis", which proposes that all organisms and their inorganic surroundings on Earth are closely integrated to form a single and self-regulating complex system, maintaining the conditions for life on the planet.

However, in buddhism we know that wood is not consciousness. body is not consciousness.

Non-mind material can never become mind, so this is exclusive or unique.

My mind is not mixed with your mind, so this is also exclusive or unique.

Although body can affect consciousness, it is also possible that body cannot affect consciousness. All enlightened being are not affected by their body anymore. They can burn their body, but they can feel very peaceful.

In dependent origination, it just suggests that each part depends on its other parts, so it suggests something like "exclusiveness" or "uniqueness". Dependent origination doesn't suggest everything is mixed, instead it suggests everything has its own part where that part depends on other parts.

Any other views about this?

[Beatzen]

The difference is that dependent origination is a proper Buddhist presentation of the law of causality. As in, "the walls are built, the roof is then raised.". Interdependence in valid only insofar as it is used to describe mundane dharmas. To explain, "the walls cause the roof" is not a proper Buddhist avenue toward contemPlating the self nature of those components. It is easier to arrive at a realization of groundlessness, or lack of any fundamental substrate of existence via effective causality (dependent origination) than through formal causality (interdependence), though they are both valid dharma doors if applied in the proper context. For different ailments, different medicines are appropriate.

[Beatzen]

(what is time?)

[Quiet Heart]

In dependent origination, sometimes we heard the term interdependent. However, the word interdependent suggest that everything is related to each other.

Because everything is related to each other, this part is that part, that part is this part.

If we say consciousness is interdependent with wood. It suggest consciousness is a part of wood. And the wood is the part of consciousness. There are many overlaps here and there.

The interdependent notion is actually very similar to "gaia hypothesis", which proposes that all organisms and their inorganic surroundings on Earth are closely integrated to form a single and self-regulating complex system, maintaining the conditions for life on the planet.

However, in buddhism we know that wood is not consciousness. body is not consciousness.

Non-mind material can never become mind, so this is exclusive or unique.

My mind is not mixed with your mind, so this is also exclusive or unique.

Although body can affect consciousness, it is also possible that body cannot affect consciousness. All enlightened being are not affected by their body anymore. They can burn their body, but they can feel very peaceful.

In dependent origination, it just suggests that each part depends on its other parts, so it suggests something like "exclusiveness" or "uniqueness". Dependent origination doesn't suggest everything is mixed, instead it suggests everything has its own part where that part depends on other parts.

Any other views about this?

----------------------------------

Because everything is related to each other, this part is that part, that part is this part.

Or consider...maybe they are two parts of an integrated whole?

If we say consciousness is interdependent with wood. It suggest consciousness is a part of wood. And the wood is the part of consciousness. There are many overlaps here and there.

Conciousmess exits in the mind....the pereception of "wood" exists in the mind. Therefore "wood" and "mind" are interdependent in the perception that exists in your "mind".

However, in buddhism we know that wood is not consciousness. body is not consciousness.

I won't argue the point...but see my point about "wood" and "mind" above. The thing we call "conciousness", how is that known outside of "mind" ? (which is also "wood" as above).

My mind is not mixed with your mind, so this is also exclusive or unique.

Really? You speak English, I speak English. Therefore English is a common language we have. If I wish to communicate the perceptions of my mind to your mind, the only way that can be done is by speaking English. If I say to you "I saw a very big and fierce dog", the terms "very big "and "fierce" are my perceptions. When I say them to you your mind summons up YOUR perceptions of those words. At that point, your mind's perceptions and my mind's perceptions become linked. Right then my mind and your mind are linked.

In dependent origination, it just suggests that each part depends on its other parts, so it suggests something like "exclusiveness" or "uniqueness". Dependent origination doesn't suggest everything is mixed, instead it suggests everything has its own part where that part depends on other parts.

Isn't that also known as interdependent?

[Adumbra]

I think dependent origination is based on the temporal cause-and-effect relationship. That I exist because my parents made love and conceived me would be a simply example of this. Notice that this relationship is a linear one: A-->B-->C.

Interdependent origination seems to suggest a nonlinear relationship like: B<-->A<-->C (sorry, hard to represent this graphically with nothing but text.) It reminds me of dialectical materialism.

Dependent origination says "everything is dependent on a prior cause." But interdependent origination seems to say "Everything depends on everything else. nothing has any intrinsic, independent existence. We're all part of this greater reality."

[gregkavarnos]

Dependent origination says "everything is dependent on a prior cause." But interdependent origination seems to say "Everything depends on everything else. nothing has any intrinsic, independent existence. We're all part of this greater reality."

I fail to see the difference.

[sangyey]

The idea I get behind dependenet origination / interdependnce is that dependent origination stresses the importance of causality (karmic) while interdependence stresses the importance of doing things such bodhicitta and the six perfections for others because of all beings interdependence since beggingless time.

[tomamundsen]

The idea I get behind dependenet origination / interdependnce is that dependent origination stresses the importance of causality (karmic) while interdependence stresses the importance of doing things such bodhicitta and the six perfections for others because of all beings interdependence since beggingless time.

this

[Adumbra]

Dependent origination says "everything is dependent on a prior cause." But interdependent origination seems to say "Everything depends on everything else. nothing has any intrinsic, independent existence. We're all part of this greater reality."

I fail to see the difference.

I should have used better examples.

Dependent origination is assymetrical. My existence is the direct result of my parents making love, but if I wasn't born they would still exist. I depend on them, they don't depend on me.

Interdependent origination IS symetrical. If there were no rabbits, the eagles would starve. But if there were no eagles, the rabbits would have too many babies, eat all the grass, and starve to death as well. Thus, the rabbits and eagles are interdependent.

Now, of course you could outgeek me here and counter that some other predator would would fill the eagle's nitch, but you get the picture.

[muni]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK_4Z5DZcNM

[gregkavarnos]

Okay, that's much clearer now.

You are making a mistake though, depedent origination is not linear but cyclic. Ignorance is the cause of mind and matter but mind and matter is also the cause of ignorance.

You see, though you require your parents (ie they are one of the causes/conditions for your existence) at the same time though they require your existence in order to be parents. Your parents could not be your parents if you were not born.

I dunno, maybe the problem is in the example and not in your logic? Can you try with another example?

[DarwidHalim]

HOw if we try with this example:
1. Seed and sprout.
2. This and that.
3. Father and Son.

Time factor is crucial in determining dependent origination and interdependent.

In dependent origination, the cause from the result is already vanish when the result is there. For example, the sprout is there, the seed must already vanish. We cannot have sprout and seed at the same time. So the relationship is not interdependent, but cause and effect relationship, which in this case is called dependent origination.

If we see the example this and that. This relationship is not cause and effect relationship, but interdependent relationship. You can only have this, if you have define where is "that". Same with black and white. Father and son also same. Father can only valid if the son has appeared.

However, this and that, father and son, black and white, are different example with seed and sprout.

This that, black white, father son, are the example of status, which is defined by intellect.

Seed and sprout is the example of evolution or nature. The relationship is because of this, you come out. And after you come out, your previous cause is no longer there. Because the previous cause is no longer there, the seed cannot interact anymore with the sprout.

Interdependence is different. When you come out, your cause still has to be there. Otherwise, both of you cannot interact again and again. If one of you cease, another one will AUTOMATICALLY CEASE as well.

If there is no this, you cannot have that.
If there is no black, you cannot have white.
If there is no son, you no longer can have the title of father.

Seed and sprout are not like that.
In dependence origination. FOr the sprout to exist, the seed has to cease. The seed must cease, otherwise you cannot have sprout.

Very different with interdependent.

However, we need to note, since things are always changing, we cannot have 2 similar things. So, we cannot have a situation like interacting again and again. The relationship is ALWAYS cause and effect. THis effect then become another cause to give rise to another affect. It continues like this without stop.

Interdependent is Mutual - 2 ways. 2 object have to be there to interact.

Dependent origination is 1 way. Only 1 object has to be there. The previous object already cease.

Since this and that, father and son are status, then we can think it is interdependent. However, since label is our mind intelligent, interdependent can works only in the labeling world, not in reality.

But, in terms of the reality, reality work by cause and effect, not interdepende. In this sense, dependent origination is the only correct choice.

[muni]

One question. The dependently arising phenomenal world, based on minds' concepts, constructs is what kind of "reality"?

[Spiny Norman]

Dependent origination is assymetrical. My existence is the direct result of my parents making love, but if I wasn't born they would still exist. I depend on them, they don't depend on me.

Interdependent origination IS symetrical. If there were no rabbits, the eagles would starve. But if there were no eagles, the rabbits would have too many babies, eat all the grass, and starve to death as well. Thus, the rabbits and eagles are interdependent.

Yes, that's a good description of the difference.

The first is dependent arising, the second is dependent co-arising.

Spiny

[Spiny Norman]

You are making a mistake though, depedent origination is not linear but cyclic. Ignorance is the cause of mind and matter but mind and matter is also the cause of ignorance.

Not according to the traditional teaching on dependent origination.

Spiny

[gregkavarnos]

You are making a mistake though, depedent origination is not linear but cyclic. Ignorance is the cause of mind and matter but mind and matter is also the cause of ignorance.

ut name and form reproduces ignorant actions which

Not according to the traditional teaching on dependent origination.

Spiny

???

The Buddha describes dependent origination in both directions in Pali Canon Sutta.

But even without these descriptions it's pretty obvious that without name and form samsara could not continue to be reproduced and that ignorance could not be produced without name and form.

[Spiny Norman]

The Buddha describes dependent origination in both directions in Pali Canon Sutta.

But even without these descriptions it's pretty obvious that without name and form samsara could not continue to be reproduced and that ignorance could not be produced without name and form.

Yes, dependent origination is described both in terms of dependent arising and dependent cessation. But your earlier statement that that name+form causes ignorance is incorrect.

Spiny

[gregkavarnos]

Yes, dependent origination is described both in terms of dependent arising and dependent cessation. But your earlier statement that that name+form causes ignorance is incorrect.

and

1. Seed and sprout.
2. This and that.
3. Father and Son.

Ummmmm... Well... I'll leave it to Nagarjuna:

[3] Since all things altogether lack substance — either in causes or conditions, [in their] totality, or separately — they are empty.
[4] Being does not arise, since it exists. Non-being does not arise, since it does not exist. Being and non-being [together] do not arise, due to [their] heterogeneity. Consequently they do not endure or vanish.
[5] That which has been born cannot be born, nor can that which is unborn be born. What is being born now, being [partly] born, [partly] unborn, cannot be born either.
[6] A cause has an effect when there is an effect, but when there is no [effect] the [cause] amounts to no cause. It is inconsistent that [the effect] neither exists nor does not exist. It is illogical that [the cause is active] in the three times.
[7] Without one, there are not many. Without many, one is not possible. Whatever arises dependently is indeterminable.

Seventy verses on Sunyata - Shunyatasaptati

[muni]

Indeed form and labeling/naming is ignorance, clinging to form while appaerances are liberating at same time they appaer, no need of our stupid mind with traditional text or not, to do something in order to let this happen. (not forget impermanence)

[Spiny Norman]

Yes, dependent origination is described both in terms of dependent arising and dependent cessation. But your earlier statement that that name+form causes ignorance is incorrect.

Ummmmm... Well... I'll leave it to Nagarjuna:

[3] Since all things altogether lack substance — either in causes or conditions, [in their] totality, or separately — they are empty.
[4] Being does not arise, since it exists. Non-being does not arise, since it does not exist. Being and non-being [together] do not arise, due to [their] heterogeneity. Consequently they do not endure or vanish.
[5] That which has been born cannot be born, nor can that which is unborn be born. What is being born now, being [partly] born, [partly] unborn, cannot be born either.
[6] A cause has an effect when there is an effect, but when there is no [effect] the [cause] amounts to no cause. It is inconsistent that [the effect] neither exists nor does not exist. It is illogical that [the cause is active] in the three times.
[7] Without one, there are not many. Without many, one is not possible. Whatever arises dependently is indeterminable.

Seventy verses on Sunyata - Shunyatasaptati

I can't see the relevance of this quote, either to the OP question or to our discussion above about how the suttas describe dependent origination.

Clearly there is a difference between dependent origination and interdependence, this was most clearly described above by Adumbra.

Spiny