jeff
Senior Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by jeff on Nov 7, 2014 13:46:18 GMT 1
I wonder if someone would like to explain the differences in:
Dependent Arising
Dependent Origination
Dependent Designation
Thank you!
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Nov 9, 2014 20:25:34 GMT 1
There are three dependencies, and not surprisingly they are interdependent, in other words if you delve deeply into them you will find they all lead to emptiness, so there is great overlap in that respect.
You have only listed 2, because dependent origination and dependent arising both refer to phenomena being dependent on causes and conditions. They are interchangeable terms, as is Interdependence. These are three names for the same dependency.
Dependent on Parts: is the second dependency. You probably have heard Buddhists analyze an object having components. An example is a wall in your house. With stick and frame construction, for example, the wall has components, wood boards (sticks), nails, sheet rock, screws, plaster and paint. We say there is a wall and treat the wall as a thing, and in doing so overlook that the wall is comprised of components. So the wall is not only a physical construct, it is also a conceptual one.
The third is Dependent Designation: This is saying in order for there to be a wall, or a Matt or Jeff, then there needs to be a conventional, i.e. conceptual, designation. If we looked at the wall and only saw causes and conditions for the wall, or only the parts of the wall, then we would have a very different perception of reality. Instead we see a wall, which is a conceptual construct to which we apply the designation: wall. So in this way the very existence of the wall is dependent on its designation. It works for all phenomena, including you and I, if you apply the right analysis.
|
|
dan
Senior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by dan on Nov 10, 2014 9:08:02 GMT 1
I like Matt's response. I would add one thing, though.
He gave the general aspect of the definition of dependent arising/origination. It also, more specifically, pertains to the 12 links. I tend to think of them when the term "origination" is used, since it's often spoken of as "the 12 links of dependent origination." Also, as ignorance is the first of the links, it seems to me to be a sound origin, be it thought of as primordial, or currently arising.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Nov 11, 2014 3:24:06 GMT 1
Well… Dan…according to wikipedia, which I just looked it up on, those two terms, dependent arising and dependent origination are both translations of the same Sanskrit term. You are right that the 12 links are considered the more specific designation, according to this article anyway:
Pratītyasamutpāda (Sanskrit: प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद; Pali: पटिच्चसमुप्पाद paṭiccasamuppāda) is commonly translated as dependent origination or dependent arising. The term is used in the Buddhist teachings in two senses:
On a general level, it refers to one of the central concepts in the Buddhist tradition—that all things arise in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions.
On a specific level, the term is also used to refer to a specific application of this general principle—namely the twelve links of dependent origination
To me the two concepts, the general and the specific (and honestly I have never heard them referred to that way, but it does make sense) have very different uses. The first, dependence on causes and conditions, is an explanation of the mundane nature of reality and as such points to emptiness. It may seem like a straightforward linear explanation at first, but it opens to sky-like voidness (visualization). The second is an explanation of how things manifest in samsaric reality and this seems to me like a more cyclic or linear view, where one can possibly cut or stop the habit of conceptualizing or even manifesting. On the other hand, if you concentrate on the emptiness of any of the 12 links, then that would work very well, I would think. And for all I know the 12 links may open if you contemplate them as well. I haven't done much of that.
Interesting. Are we helping, Jeff? Do you have anything to add?
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Nov 11, 2014 4:02:11 GMT 1
Way back in ancient India, Buddhist philosophers took up and debated the concept of atoms, which at the time were believed to be the smallest indivisible particle of matter. The Buddhists said that an atom would have to be a dimensionless point in order to be indivisible, because if it had any dimension what-so-ever, then it would have a left side and a right side, and so could be divided. Therefore the theoretical atom could not be indivisible. If it was a dimensionless point, nothing could be built from it. This was important because Dependent on Parts is another Buddhist Wisdom teaching which points to emptiness, rather than the eternalist philosophy of Buddha's and early Buddhist philosopher's Hindu contemporaries, who were likely to believe in theoretical atoms. Contemporary physicists are very impressed with these early Buddhist "thought experiments." Contemporary physics has also borne them out. Thus far no one has found an indivisible component, and subatomic particles are believed to manifest as probability fields. Very Buddhist idea, probability fields, if you ask me. lol.
If something indivisible can be found in reality, then it points toward there being an immutable essence to reality. If nothing indivisible can ever be found, it points to impermanence and thus emptiness being the ultimate nature of reality. This is why it was an important debate. In recent history that kind of high level Buddhist philosophy was extinct in most of India until the Tibetan diaspora. There were Tibetan style Buddhists in the far Eastern portions of India, which are near Bhutan, Tibet and Nepal, but in the mainland area of India, which was once a Buddhist Empire and had developed the Nalanda Tradition that was so rich and sophisticated, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism were wiped out centuries ago.
|
|
jeff
Senior Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by jeff on Nov 11, 2014 14:03:54 GMT 1
Interesting. Are we helping, Jeff? Do you have anything to add? Yes... as always... very much so. When I wrote this question I also wrote down the following to see how it compares with the answers I received: Dependent origination is referring to the method of cause and effect or how conventional phenomena come into existence Dependent designation is referring to what the object or phenomenon is (the thing not the method) Dependent arising is referring to how phenomena occur on a conventional level Now I understand that Dependent Origination and Dependent Arising are basically synonyms. It also occurred to me that the reference to 12 links of dependent origination is relevant regarding how things come into "existence". When I think of the terms, selflessness, voidness, emptiness, suchness, dependent arising, the true nature of reality (and others) I also see them as virtually synonymous. Sometimes it seems counter-productive since it can be difficult for learners to make these equations when reading or listening to teachings. On the other hand, it does allow us to get at the same understanding from different angles. I think of trying to chop down a tree and how it weakens the tree when it is chopped at different angles rather than continually trying to get at it in one way. Thanks guys... |
|
