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

[Sam Vara]

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 .

No, I didn't say that if the Buddha had met me he would just do like my teacher and focus on one aspect. I said that maybe he would do this, given that I have no understanding of the whole thing.

Of course my teacher could be leading me astray. But, if I took you seriously, so could you be.

The fact remains that there are umpteen different views on DO, all of them different. The main problem seems to be that there is serious disagreement on what the constituent terms actually refer to, either in everyday experience or as abstractions. All I can do is take it on faith that there is a coherent meaning to DO which is potentially realisable. I'm quite happy to hold that as a working hypothesis, but even then it doesn't help much with everyday practice. Being mindful of how craving arises, however, seems more fruitful at the moment. That's something I can actually do.

[SDC]

Focus on virtue and, if you wish to deepen your practice, sense restraint.

This is a fine piece of advice. Understanding grows out of behavior that first emulates the right things, and the lifestyle must be developed around this. Enjoyment of sense pleasure or the embrace of acts of ill will that extend beyond the limits of the precepts, prevent the basis for knowledge from developing. Understanding of DO will come from what remains when dwelling within the limits of virtue and sense restraint and valuing that lifestyle. If things are unbridled and without the proper limits, any given situation puts one at the mercy of mind’s preference, and any resulting action will serve to obscure the availability of recognizing it. Being tethered in that way will make it impossible to understand anything as being a condition for something else. That type of discernment requires a certain amount of non-doing of unwholesome because any action that doesn’t remain within wholesome constraints reinforces the principle of the wrong view.

This cannot be stressed enough. And this is why, over the course of the last few years, it seems odd to have discussions about very deep and subtle matters without mentioning it. So, if you’re having an issue understanding DO, practice virtue, the precepts, five or eight, but more than just that: find value in that “aggregate of virtue” instead of merely holding to it.

[Ceisiwr]

Focus on virtue and, if you wish to deepen your practice, sense restraint.

This is a fine piece of advice. Understanding grows out of behavior that first emulates the right things, and the lifestyle must be developed around this. Enjoyment of sense pleasure or the embrace of acts of ill will that extend beyond the limits of the precepts, prevent the basis for knowledge from developing. Understanding of DO will come from what remains when dwelling within the limits of virtue and sense restraint and valuing that lifestyle. If things are unbridled and without the proper limits, any given situation puts one at the mercy of mind’s preference, and any resulting action will serve to obscure the availability of recognizing it. Being tethered in that way will make it impossible to understand anything as being a condition for something else. That type of discernment requires a certain amount of non-doing of unwholesome because any action that doesn’t remain within wholesome constraints reinforces the principle of the wrong view.

This cannot be stressed enough. And this is why, over the course of the last few years, it seems odd to have discussions about very deep and subtle matters without mentioning it. So, if you’re having an issue understanding DO, practice virtue, the precepts, five or eight, but more than just that: find value in that “aggregate of virtue” instead of merely holding to it.

[User13866]

The fact remains that there are umpteen different views on DO, all of them different. The main problem seems to be that there is serious disagreement on what the constituent terms actually refer to, either in everyday experience or as abstractions. All I can do is take it on faith that there is a coherent meaning to DO which is potentially realisable. I'm quite happy to hold that as a working hypothesis, but even then it doesn't help much with everyday practice. Being mindful of how craving arises, however, seems more fruitful at the moment. That's something I can actually do.

Sadhu, this is the way to grow into it as i see it.

it doesn't help much with everyday practice

Nor should it. Luckily that which helps is quite simple, restraint and being around good people will go a long way.

Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."[1]

"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

[asahi]

Of course my teacher could be leading me astray. But, if I took you seriously, so could you be.

No , it was just a friendly reminder .