Is the operation of Dependent Origination individual or collective?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
justindesilva
Posts: 2602
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Is the operation of Dependent Origination individual or collective?

Post by justindesilva »

asahi wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:01 am Arisen things are not seen per se as anatta, anicca and dukkha , rather , it is an outcome one perceives as a result of contemplation .
Aa observed it can be understood that pancaskanda or rupa vedana sangna sankara closes up with vingna as a moment but is not self ,yet with upadana this moment is grasped to make self. There is no self without upadana, making it pancaupadanaskanda.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Is the operation of Dependent Origination individual or collective?

Post by Bundokji »

justindesilva wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:31 am Logic of conditioning is shown as Dependant origination in a form of circular logic (not linear or diagonal).
Linear logic is a result of the law of excluded middle. Teaching dependent origination as a middle between the extremes of existence and non-existence does not aim to present a circular view of the world, but to pay attention to the process rather than the correspondence between name and form.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Is the operation of Dependent Origination individual or collective?

Post by mikenz66 »

justindesilva wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:31 am First of all for DO to be individual or collective it has to be personified where as with anatta lakkhana sutta there cannot be persinification. DO is based on rupa, vedana, sangna, sankara vingnana. All are anitya.
The reason is with a cosmic process that all beings are involved in and conditioned by it is a psycho-physico involvement mentioned asutpada thithi bhanga, momentarily and from birth to death.
Logic of conditioning is shown as Dependant origination in a form of circular logic (not linear or diagonal).
There are some good points here. As I said earlier in the thread, it's obvious that the actions of beings affect others, so in that sense there is interconnectedness. However, how individual and collective relates to Dependent Origination is tricky, as justindesilva notes.

Here are some excepts from Thanissaro Bhikkhu's Buddhist Romanticism
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Buddh ... n0008.html
Note that he's criticising a Buddhist Romantic concept of Oneness, not denying interdependencies.

Here he discusses why the Romantic concept of Oneness is attractive:
Thanissaro wrote: ... Economically and politically, we are more and more dependent on wider and wider circles of other people, yet most of those dependencies are kept hidden from view. ...

Whether or not we know these details, we intuitively sense the fragmentation and uncertainty inherent in such an unstable system. The result is that many of us feel a need for a sense of wholeness. For those who benefit from the hidden dependencies of modern life, a corollary need is a sense of reassurance that interconnectedness is reliable and benign—or, if not yet benign, that feasible reforms can make it that way. Such people want to hear that they can safely place their trust in the principle of interconnectedness without fear that it will turn on them or let them down. When Buddhist Romanticism affirms the Oneness of the universe and the benevolence of interconnectedness, it tells these people what they want to hear.
As he says, interdependencies are a problem, not the solution.

Later he observes:
Thanissaro wrote: One of the largest ironies of Buddhist Romanticism is that the teaching of dependent co-arising is often cited as proof that the Buddha shared the Romantic view that all things are part of the single interconnected whole that is the universe. This is ironic for two reasons.

The first is that dependent co-arising does not describe the status of the self within the universe; instead, it stands outside both “self” and “universe”—and thus outside of becoming—explaining becoming in terms of a framework that doesn’t derive from becoming at all. Its perspective is phenomenological, meaning that it describes processes as they are immediately experienced. From that perspective, it shows how ignorance gives rise to concepts of “self” and “universe,” how those concepts lead to suffering, and how suffering ends when ignorance of those processes is brought to an end. To reframe this teaching, limiting it to a description of what occurs in the universe or in the self, prevents it from leading beyond the universe and beyond the self.

The second reason why it’s ironic for Buddhist Romanticism to present dependent co-arising as a description of the Oneness of all things is that the Buddha explicitly cited dependent co-arising as a teaching that avoided the question of whether things are One or not [*]. In other words, his rejection of the teaching of the Oneness of the universe was so radical that he refused to get involved in the issue at all.

[*] SN12.48
“How is it, Master Gotama: does all exist?”
“‘All exists’: this, brahmin, is the oldest cosmology.”
“Then, Master Gotama, does all not exist?”
“‘All does not exist’: this, brahmin, is the second cosmology.”
“How is it, Master Gotama: is all a unity?”
“‘All is a unity’: this, brahmin, is the third cosmology.”
“Then, Master Gotama, is all a plurality?”
“‘All is a plurality’: this, brahmin, is the fourth cosmology.
Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle. With ignorance as condition,….”
:heart:
Mike
Post Reply