What should I do if I’m having a difficult time fully processing dependent arising?

[Sam Vara]

An approach I've found helpful is just to observe how I react to things, thinking of how tanha arises in dependence upon vedana in DO.

Yes, I agree. This is what my teacher told me to try - looking at just one or two links in the chain, the easiest being around vedana and tanha. Better that than having some fully-worked out intellectual view of what the whole thing means.

[asahi]

An approach I've found helpful is just to observe how I react to things, thinking of how tanha arises in dependence upon vedana in DO.

Yes, I agree. This is what my teacher told me to try - looking at just one or two links in the chain, the easiest being around vedana and tanha. Better that than having some fully-worked out intellectual view of what the whole thing means.

If that is the case , Buddha would have taught this specificly without mentioning other criterions .

[Spiny Norman]

An approach I've found helpful is just to observe how I react to things, thinking of how tanha arises in dependence upon vedana in DO.

Yes, I agree. This is what my teacher told me to try - looking at just one or two links in the chain, the easiest being around vedana and tanha. Better that than having some fully-worked out intellectual view of what the whole thing means.

If that is the case , Buddha would have taught this specificly without mentioning other criterions .

The problem here is the lack of consensus on how DO as a whole should be interpreted. Given that, a practical focus on some pivotal nidanas seems like a pragmatic approach.
Alternatively, one could observe how craving and aversion lead to suffering in one's personal experience, thereby developing insight into the Second Truth. Remember that DO is an elaboration of the Second Truth.

[Sam Vara]

An approach I've found helpful is just to observe how I react to things, thinking of how tanha arises in dependence upon vedana in DO.

Yes, I agree. This is what my teacher told me to try - looking at just one or two links in the chain, the easiest being around vedana and tanha. Better that than having some fully-worked out intellectual view of what the whole thing means.

If that is the case , Buddha would have taught this specificly without mentioning other criterions .

Maybe if he had met me, he would have done.

[Tl21G3lVl]

If X is the catalyst for suffering:

Ignorance of X (avija) arouses wrong views and intentional actions (sangkhara) towards X.

Intentional wrong views and actions about X then becomes conscious (vinyana) wrong views and actions.

Conscious wrong views and actions about X then becomes part of mind and body (namarupa).

Conscious mind-body with wrong views about X creates wrong actions involving all senses (salayatana).

Repeatedly or initially bringing X into contact (phassa) forms feelings (vedana).

Feelings of being without X causes craving (tanha).

Craving X constantly forms an attachment to X (upadana),

which then creates a need of X (bhava).

Having a need for X creates birth (jati) of X.

Birth (of X) creates aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair (jaraa-marana-soka-parideva-dukkha-domanassupaayaasa). Such is the origination (samudaya)of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

This is how I vaguely understand it. Please forgive any misinterpretations.

[asahi]

Maybe if he had met me, he would have done.

No , i doubt that . He doesnt speaks english .

[Sam Vara]

Maybe if he had met me, he would have done.

No , i doubt that . He doesnt speaks english .

Wouldn't need to. My Pali is getting pretty good these days, and I could always ask him to speak slowly.

[Ceisiwr]

Maybe if he had met me, he would have done.

No , i doubt that . He doesnt speaks english .

Wouldn't need to. My Pali is getting pretty good these days, and I could always ask him to speak slowly.

Wouldn’t he be able to just communicate telepathically, or use that to know English?

[asahi]

Maybe if he had met me, he would have done.

No , i doubt that . He doesnt speaks english .

Wouldn't need to. My Pali is getting pretty good these days, and I could always ask him to speak slowly.

Eh probably there is some difficulty since the Buddha spoke Magadhi Prakrit not exactly Pali .

[Spiny Norman]

No , i doubt that . He doesnt speaks english .

Wouldn't need to. My Pali is getting pretty good these days, and I could always ask him to speak slowly.

Eh probably there is some difficulty since the Buddha spoke Magadhi Prakrit not exactly Pali .

A time-travelling Buddhist would probably have a universal language translator.

[Sam Vara]

No , i doubt that . He doesnt speaks english .

Wouldn't need to. My Pali is getting pretty good these days, and I could always ask him to speak slowly.

Eh probably there is some difficulty since the Buddha spoke Magadhi Prakrit not exactly Pali .

Indeed, there would always be difficulties, wouldn't there, given that our minds are defiled. My point is that it might be entirely appropriate to focus on one aspect or another of Dependent Origination, and this might be preferable to gaining a merely intellectual view of what it means.

[asahi]

Indeed, there would always be difficulties, wouldn't there, given that our minds are defiled. My point is that it might be entirely appropriate to focus on one aspect or another of Dependent Origination, and this might be preferable to gaining a merely intellectual view of what it means.

No , i dont think defiled minds state has to do with learning and communication in certain languages . It is not appropriate to focus only on one aspect and undermine so called intellectual understanding which could be very misleading along the path .

A time-travelling Buddhist would probably have a universal language translator.

Is star trek your favorite movie ?
Time-travelling is not possible but you could travel with Hyperspace which is faster than warp speed by Millenium Falcon ?
Space, the final frontier !
But it should be ,
Nothingness, the final frontier !

[Sam Vara]

Indeed, there would always be difficulties, wouldn't there, given that our minds are defiled. My point is that it might be entirely appropriate to focus on one aspect or another of Dependent Origination, and this might be preferable to gaining a merely intellectual view of what it means.

No , i dont think defiled minds state has to do with learning and communication in certain languages .

it was you who brought up the issue of different languages, and you are now chasing after your own red herring.

I'll try again.

1) Spiny said that he finds it helpful to concentrate on one link of the chain of DO.

2) I agreed with him, saying that my teacher had encouraged me to focus just on feeling and craving. I think that it's better to understand one aspect completely and correctly, rather than have a superficial understanding of the whole DO sequence. (I've read hundreds of accounts of what intellectual sense people can make of DO; there are literally dozens of different varieties, so they can't all be right, even though their proponents insist they are, and sometimes get into lengthy and bitter arguments with those favouring other views. And having such an intellectually worked-out view doesn't seem to help them at all...)

3) You said that if point 2 above were correct, the Buddha would have only taught that aspect.

4) My response was that maybe the Buddha would have taught just one aspect if he had met me. By this I meant that the Buddha might have given me that one special teaching to focus on, just as my teacher did. The Buddha is often recorded as recommending just one teaching to a particular person.

Don't get distracted by the idea of the Buddha actually addressing me, and what language would be spoken. I just mean that it is sensible, when one cannot understand something in its entirety, to understand one bit correctly. Which brings us to:

It is not appropriate to focus only on one aspect and undermine so called intellectual understanding which could be very misleading along the path .

If our intellectual understanding - basically a view - of DO is correct, then focusing on one part couldn't undermine the whole. But if it's a false understanding - and most are - then I don't care if it's undermined. It can only be a hindrance on the path. So which of the many renderings of DO is correct? Yours?

[asahi]

I'll try again.

1) Spiny said that he finds it helpful to concentrate on one link of the chain of DO.

2) I agreed with him, saying that my teacher had encouraged me to focus just on feeling and craving. I think that it's better to understand one aspect completely and correctly, rather than have a superficial understanding of the whole DO sequence. (I've read hundreds of accounts of what intellectual sense people can make of DO; there are literally dozens of different varieties, so they can't all be right, even though their proponents insist they are, and sometimes get into lengthy and bitter arguments with those favouring other views. And having such an intellectually worked-out view doesn't seem to help them at all...)

3) You said that if point 2 above were correct, the Buddha would have only taught that aspect.

4) My response was that maybe the Buddha would have taught just one aspect if he had met me. By this I meant that the Buddha might have given me that one special teaching to focus on, just as my teacher did. The Buddha is often recorded as recommending just one teaching to a particular person.

Don't get distracted by the idea of the Buddha actually addressing me, and what language would be spoken. I just mean that it is sensible, when one cannot understand something in its entirety, to understand one bit correctly. Which brings us to:

It is not appropriate to focus only on one aspect and undermine so called intellectual understanding which could be very misleading along the path .

If our intellectual understanding - basically a view - of DO is correct, then focusing on one part couldn't undermine the whole. But if it's a false understanding - and most are - then I don't care if it's undermined. It can only be a hindrance on the path. So which of the many renderings of DO is correct? Yours?

Okay , try again . Forget about how others interpret DO . I suggested dont get it wrong for your own benefits as a whole . You said if Buddha had met you He would just do like your teacher did to focus on one aspect , i disagree because your teacher might not be entirely right and said all links are interconnected and focusing merely on feeling and craving could be leading you astray . If your intellectual understanding is correct you wouldnt focus on one aspect only . But if you do not agree , i would suggest you reconsider .

[User13866]

I think that not understanding DO is the norm. Understanding it is exceptional. Therefore one who has trouble is entirely normal and should follow the standard course of development.

I see people talk about focusing on different links. Id actually encourage simply memorizing the terms & their definitions and setting it aside to train meditation.

I think many people would go through the jhana and arupa ayatana way before they crack the DO. If i was living with one who doesn't understand, i wouldn't even try explaining lest there were some grave wrong views needing refutation.

I think that trying to simply understand it by means of explaining, thinking 'if only someone would explain it in a way that i understand, i would get it', is like trying to illuminate a dark room with a weak light. You can shine it on this wall or that wall but you won't see the whole thing.

Especially on a forum like this. Even if people understand it, they might make mistakes here or there in explaining and one will get stuck not to speak of people who teach here having no clue.

Honestly as i see it, developing the samadhi is a much more reliable way to develop the mind for one whose power of illumination needs a boost.

The samadhi will raise one's insight whereas thinking about the confusing Dhamma all day probably won't raise anything but doubt & confusion.