Co-dependent Origination?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

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.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

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
cooran
 
Posts: 7606
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

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

vinasp wrote: Dependent Origination thus becomes a chain of "objects of desire".


I think DO is basically describing how desire keeps us "in the loop" of suffering.
Mrs. Bun: Have you got anything without spam in it?
Waitress: Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got MUCH spam in it.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

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

porpoise wrote:
vinasp wrote: Dependent Origination thus becomes a chain of "objects of desire".


I think DO is basically describing how desire keeps us "in the loop" of suffering.


Yes, I like Bhikkhu Bodhi's comments that I quoted in a few places in more detail:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 93#p193291
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=11269#p170881
Dependent origination offers a radically different perspective that transcends the two extremes. It shows that individual existence is constituted by a current of conditioned phenomena devoid of metaphysical self yet continuing on from birth to birth as long as the causes that sustain it remain effective. Dependent origination thereby offers a cogent explanation of the problem of suffering that on the one hand avoids the philosophical dilemmas posed by the hypothesis of a permanent self, and on the other avoids the dangers of ethical anarchy to which annihilationism eventually leads. As long as ignorance and craving remain, the process of rebirth continues; kamma yields its pleasant and painful fruit, and the great mass of suffering accumulates. When ignorance and craving are destroyed, the inner mechanism of karmic causation is deactivated, and one reaches the end of suffering in samsara. Perhaps the most elegant exposition of dependent origination as the "middle teaching" is the famous Kaccanogotta sutta.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10383
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

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.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

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

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

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

DarwidHalim wrote:What is the difference between aversion and repulsion?


Aversion results from repulsion? Likewise craving results from attraction?
Mrs. Bun: Have you got anything without spam in it?
Waitress: Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got MUCH spam in it.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

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

Hi Vincent,

Sorry, I got rather lost with this bit:


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".


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?

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

Many thanks.
User avatar
Sam Vara
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

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

Vinasp:
"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]


I just have a doubt with this translated Sutta.

"through revulsion towards the eye".

Ignorant, attachment and aversion are the three poisons in Buddhism.

Attachment should not be entertained, because it causes suffering.

Aversion should also not be entertained, because it causes suffering.

So, why this act of "revulsion through the eyes" can be the correct act and is also promoted in that Sutta? (since it is the act of three poisons - aversion)

(unless aversion has a different meaning with revulsion - then we have a totally different story).
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
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

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

DarwidHalim wrote:
(unless aversion has a different meaning with revulsion - then we have a totally different story).


I think here "revulsion" has the meaning of dispassion and disenchantment, seeing the danger in craving and aversion via the 6 sense media.
Mrs. Bun: Have you got anything without spam in it?
Waitress: Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got MUCH spam in it.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

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.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

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

vinasp wrote: Revulsion is mental and is the same as hatred or aversion.


But in the passage you provided below, how can liberation by non-clinging result from "revulsion" towards the eye if "revulsion" here means "aversion"?

"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]
Mrs. Bun: Have you got anything without spam in it?
Waitress: Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got MUCH spam in it.
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2701
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

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

The Pali term would be nibbida:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-su ... ml#nibbida
Nibbida (disenchantment, aversion, and weariness with regard to conditioned phenomena). See also Asubha.

Not aversion in the sense of the pali term dosa. http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... d.htm#dosa
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-su ... tml#kilesa
Kilesa (defilements — passion (lobha), aversion (dosa), and delusion (moha)


See:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
For a monk practicing the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, what accords with the Dhamma is this: that he keep cultivating disenchantment with regard to form, ...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10383
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

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
reflection
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

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

And see SN 12.23 Upanisa Sutta: Discourse on Supporting Conditions
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=11701
for a discussion where nibbida fits in the process of liberation:
"Regarding this knowledge of destruction, I declare that there is a supporting condition without which it does not arise...What is this supporting condition? Liberation... Liberation has a supporting condition...: Dispassion... Dispassion has a supporting condition...: Disenchantment [nibbida]... Disenchantment has a supporting condition...: Knowledge-and-vision-of-things-as-they-are... Knowledge-and-vision-of-things-as-they-are has a supporting condition...: Concentration... Concentration has a supporting condition...: Happiness... Happiness has a supporting condition...: Tranquillity... Tranquillity has a supporting condition...: Rapture... Rapture has a supporting condition...: Joy... Joy has a supporting condition...: Faith... Faith has a supporting condition...: Suffering...Suffering has a supporting condition...: Birth...Becoming... Grasping... Craving... Feeling... Contact... the Six Sense-Bases... Name-and-Form... Consciousness... the (kamma-) formations... Ignorance...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10383
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

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.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

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

reflection

Revulsion (or dispassion) is a natural result of seeing things as they are.


I think it might be more useful to separate out revulsion (nibbida) from dispassion (viraga), as Mike's quoted sutta points out. The dispassion appears to be supported by the attempt to turn the will aside from something (re-volens, the root of revulsion). I also like the translation "disgust", but again in the minimal sense of unwillingness to consume, rather than the stronger sense of wanting to vomit, etc. Revulsion is a little more active than dispassion.
User avatar
Sam Vara
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

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.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

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

Sam Vega wrote:reflection

Revulsion (or dispassion) is a natural result of seeing things as they are.


I think it might be more useful to separate out revulsion (nibbida) from dispassion (viraga), as Mike's quoted sutta points out. The dispassion appears to be supported by the attempt to turn the will aside from something (re-volens, the root of revulsion). I also like the translation "disgust", but again in the minimal sense of unwillingness to consume, rather than the stronger sense of wanting to vomit, etc. Revulsion is a little more active than dispassion.


Yes point well made, but it becomes just a matter of words basically. Also, I'm not native English, so for me these tiny nuances in words don't mean a lot, anyway. I think they shouldn't, anyway, for it would place the emphasis on intellect rather than actual understanding. The main idea is that there is aversion based on ill will and 'aversion' based on insight. They are fundamentally different. In the practice this can be much more obvious than any possible translation will ever be.

:hello:
:anjali:
User avatar
reflection
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Co-dependent Origination?

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

Vinasp:
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; ..."


If we see this possible translation of nibbida, there are a lot of contradicting words here.

Aversion and disgust with Worldly life is basically just same.

Disgust is actually the root of aversion. It is even worse than aversion.

Because of ignorant, not able to see something as what they really are, for some object you feel disgust, and for some object you feel attraction. The one that you feel disgust, you avert it. And the one you attract to, you attach.

The right word in my opinion should be indifferent.

Indifferent is unbiased. It is unbiased to good nor bad - and that is the nature of this reality.

The eye see the shit.
Consciousness rised through the eye (which we can call eye consciousness) does not have the ability to differentiate that shit as good or bad.

It is at the second level - which is mind consciousness that is the culprit to differentiate that shit as good or bad.

The way we differentiate that shit as good or bad is the reflection of our ignorance.

One of Buddhist master said this:
...in seeing all the dharmas, the mind is not defiled or attached.....
[The mind’s] functioning pervades all locations, yet it is not attached to all the locations
.

If we see something and at that instant, we have the sense of disgust, your mind has been defiled.

Your mind has been defiled by something not there, because in reality what you see is actually indifferent.

How can we free from aversion and attachment?
It is actually not through this sense of disgust.

But actually through the sense of indifferent.

When we have this ability to see everything as indifferent, the monkey stop from jumping here and there. It stops from jumping between attachment and aversion.

Because of that, the mind achieve its natural stability.

When this natural stability is achieved through the ability to see every diversity of form, sound, etc. as indifferent, your peace of mind born naturally due to the stopping of monkey mind born from this wisdom.

When anger arise, the arising of anger is not the sign of failure.

But if that anger, successfully defile you so you feel disgust to it and vow to subdue anger, you get defile. All efforts are then effort based on conceptual.

But when that anger arise and we can see the indifferent of that anger as not bad nor good, that anger has no power to bother you as something need to be reacted or something need to e abandoned.

Through that indifferent wisdom, the anger pass by like the dark cloud pass by the indifferent (unbiased) sky.

Untouch through the power of indifferent.

Liberation is natural without any efforts.
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
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Next

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sam Vara and 1 guest