Just a light scribbling abt dependent origination.
bc this is my own wrong understanding before,
And became an obstacle to further insights,
I think this needs pointing out more often
When understanding dependent origination,
We often mistaken it by understanding it as dependent “existence”.
If the example of a car- we like to say dependent origination is .. car made up from parts.
Eg the wheel + steering + engine + body = car.
Car cannot be found but it is only “made up” of parts.
Self is made up of 5 aggregates.
But the Buddha wasn’t trying to say this.
The Buddha was trying to say.. imo..
if car is made up of a+b+c+d… does it even “exist”?
If yes, where?
In a or b or c or d?
I cannot find it, so..
Is there really a car then ?
So what is it that you are looking at moving around on the road?
Just an appearance ! Right . ?
illusoriness will arise if this is probe deeply.
We don’t even need to talk about parts.
Why go into parts? What for ? We r not mechanics.
Form is itself emptiness.
The whole car is an empty presence.
Yes you can see it, drive it, it can knock u down,
But no it doesn’t exist.
That’s dependent origination imo.
Which will bring forth the insight of non-arising..
As everything that dependently arise do not eventually arise..
and direct experience will gradually becomes really illusory like in a pop up installation once this understanding is clear. This is my personal experience.
Understanding it from dependent existence doesn’t reduce any grasping -
I mean how could it?I still could be attached to a car despite it has many parts lol
Or a girl despite it has many beautiful body parts.. right ?!
Not sure why ppl teach that way (breaking down to parts) but ..
More importantly I believe isn’t the intent of the Buddha.
I’m going to get bombed bad but u just take what is beneficial away lah bc this point is crucial for insight to arise, personally.
U cannot do inferential deduction on your death bed so any understanding needs to be able to be translated into direct experience or else just mental m*ast*rb*ti*n. Lol.
The parts understanding will not be strong enough when I’m on my death bed imo.
Ling Yin, thanks for calling out the conventional interpretation of. D.O. directly. Really useful and much much needed.
"Everything that dependently arise do not 'eventually' arise"
Do you mean the assembly of parts conventionally labelled as a car do not "literally" arise, and do not "really" exist?
Or are you saying the car don't arise because it doesn't have an inherent essence and existence?
"The whole car is empty presence" and "just an appearance" and "illusion"... "but it doesn't exist".
Are you saying that there really isn't anything at all (there is a mirage, but it is not real), or are you saying that things are simply labels and they do not have an inherent essence?
And lastly, even illusion and appearance (like a mirage) can "arise" yah?
William Lim the car does not exist out there like we think it does
The parts also are dependent on the whole(car), so if the car does not exist out there like we think, to me the parts doesn’t exist out there too, equally. As they are mutually dependent.
As for the labels part - if the understanding is the whole phenomena js “mere name”- exist bc we name it, then it’s what I understand
If it’s a label for something existing behind the label, imo we are still finding sthg to “hold on”. What for? Hehe
The mirage understanding imo is a correct one and can be directly experience
All in my humble opinion !
And a list of the 12 nidanas (links of dependant origination)
Fundamental ignorance (Pali: avidya)
Name and form (namarupa)
Sense faculties (salayatana)
Feeling or sensation (vedana)
Craving or thirst (tanha)
Clinging or grasping (upadana)
Becoming or worldly existence (bhava)
Birth or becoming (jati)
Old age and death (jaramarana)
Then we start all over again.
Yes i think i see where your coming the 5 aggregates/skandas - An ordinary person views all things of this world as possessing their own shape or form, he/she grasps and clings to them, not understanding that their presence is empty of a permanent, separate self. Or many separate parts D/O into non arising?
I find the heart sutra & emptiness insights also interesting - and therefore all dharmas are presently void
Daniel Lester the 12 links explanation imo hard to bring out an “emptiness” understanding. It is a provisional teaching linking 2-3 lives and that was what I learnt initially too.
Understanding DO in terms of what I mentioned above is helpful for me to understand “emptiness” and further along “non-arising”. It’s really helpful for insight and experience. In fact, crucial, imo.
I really don’t know if without a correct understanding of Emptiness from DO could anyone arise an insight of non-arising, which is important to turn experiences illusory to come to see the “moon”, so to speak, haha.
But that is purely my own experience and learning from my own mistakes just hopefuly ppl don’t get stuck too long in what I have mitskenly did
This was a really useful post. I’ve been delving deep in to emptiness lately and this is a good pointer. It’s often easy to overlook the simplicity of the sense as all that there is in experience. I often get stuck i between the complete illusion and physicality.
Lee Sanderson thanks.
That was my experience too- swinging in between physicality and illusion , like two poles.. I rem calling it metronome lol.
But somehow the experiences will integrate once we have clear DO and emptiness understanding imo. The mind slowly learns to sync and is able to see table itself is the emptiness .. as it is with everything else , then it becomes super cool haha
All the best !
This article I reread many times have helped me greatly to integrate the view hope it benefits u too
"The parts understanding will not be strong enough when I’m on my death bed imo."
There is no Dharma (teaching) that will help one in his or her death bed. Did not the Buddha say, "there is no Dharma that the Buddha teaches"? There are skillful means used to point to different types of mind to drop the mind.
Yin Ling, no ... its OK. Constructive dialogues add to each other. What I wanted to say in regard to 'death bed', which BTW, I think is a fundamental issue, is that there are times for analysis, deconstruction, comprehension, etc... and times for synthesis or immediacy. In our death bed we probably will benefit more from the latter then the former ones.
I have never understood it better after reading your post on D.O. brilliant. Hail, hail, hail.