Dependent origination Vs Interdependent

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Dependent origination Vs Interdependent

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:58 pm

If the seed exists in the sprout then it is not a cause it is an effect. Something cannot be a cause and an effect simultaneously.
If the sprout arises from the seed then the sprout exists as the seed. Something cannot be an effect and a cause at the same time.
If the seed exists independently of the sprout or the sprout exists independently of the seed then we fall into eternalism as we have uncaused effects.
If neither the seed nor the sprout exist we fall into nihilism.

The same logic can be applied to the ignorance/name and form, father/son, this/that examples.

Now maybe I shouldn't have used the phrase "name and form causes ignorance", if, like I expressed it afterwards, I said name and form reproduces ignorance would that be better? Still, I fail to see the difference except in subtle nuances of language. Without name and form (or any of the other links in the cycle of dependent origination) the wheel would stop turning. It just seems to me that dependent origination implies interdependence too.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7946
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Dependent origination Vs Interdependent

Postby Malcolm » Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:02 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:If the seed exists in the sprout then it is not a cause it is an effect. Something cannot be a cause and an effect simultaneously.
If the sprout arises from the seed then the sprout exists as the seed. Something cannot be an effect and a cause at the same time.
If the seed exists independently of the sprout or the sprout exists independently of the seed then we fall into eternalism as we have uncaused effects.
If neither the seed nor the sprout exist we fall into nihilism.


Nagarjuna says about this, and repeated by Candrakirti in the Prasannapāda is that causes and effects are neither the same nor are they different, using the example of milk and butter.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Dependent origination Vs Interdependent

Postby Spiny Norman » Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:07 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:If the sprout arises from the seed then the sprout exists as the seed. Something cannot be an effect and a cause at the same time.


The language of cause and effect isn't applicable to dependent origination. Dependent origination describes arising and cessation in dependence on conditions. The proximate condition for suffering is craving, the root condition is ignorance.

So with this example it would be more accurate to say that sprout arises in dependence on certain conditions, one of which is the seed.

Spiny
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:06 pm

Re: Dependent origination Vs Interdependent

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Feb 01, 2012 4:17 pm

You won't see me disagreeing with you!
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7946
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Dependent origination Vs Interdependent

Postby Adumbra » Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:07 pm

Darwid Halim:
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.


I found this to be immensely clarifying, thank you.

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.


I've always suspected this.. well, not always, but ever since I started studying Buddhism - though I don't think any dharma book I have read ever said it that explicitely. I think this interdependence issue all ties into the five skandhas:

The first skandha (sankhara or thought formations) arise from ignorance (avijja). Matter (rupa) & consciousness (vinnana) are mutually dependent on one another: consciousness must be conscious of something, like form or thought, but form is a meaningless abstraction unless someone is conscious of it. Where there is consciousness of form, perception (sanna) is born. Where there is perception, feelings (vedana) arise. Pleasurable feeligns cause craving (bhava-tanha), painful feelings cause repulsion (vi-bhava-tanha). Any kind of tanha leads to grasping and attachment, which leads birth, death, and rebirth ad infinitum.

Ignorance causes thought formations (sankhara)
thought formations and form (rupa) must be perceived (sanna) to exist.
There must be a consciousness (vinnana) to do the percieving (sanna).
There must be sensation (vedana) to provoke consciousness (vinnana).
There must be matter/thought (rupa,sankhara) to provoke a sensation(vedana) .
Ignorance-->Thought Formations/Matter-->Perception-->Consciousness-->Sensation-->Thought Formations/Matter-->Ignorance

You take out any one of these aggregates and the whole cycle collapses.
"The first thing you have to understand is that I don't believe in ANYTHING."
-Arahata Osho
Adumbra
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Port Townsend, WA U.S.A.

Previous

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 8 guests

>