The end of suffering and its causes '“ NOT the end of feeling

EndInSight: 'It is deeply surprising to me that no one who has disagreed with me wants to talk about vedana-->craving-->clinging-->becoming. That progression is the point of the article to which this thread is attached.'

Yeah, I guess that was the point. I didn't really want to go into an exposition about the ins and outs of this sequence. I mostly wanted to support the fact that vedana is here to stay so long as there is a human body. On this point, now, it seems that we all agree. Mission accomplished.

Part of the reason I didn't get into the particular sequence you continue to bring up (i.e. vedana-->craving-->clinging-->becoming) is because: (1) I don't think the sequence is necessarily linear, and (2) the Buddha orders the sequence differently in different parts of the canon. Sometimes clinging is what conditions craving. Not only that, but the whole of DO is a mess of feedback loops. Craving also leads to vedana, which can lead to more craving or to clinging, which can lead to fabrications or craving or more clinging, which can'¦ and so on, and so forth.

The other thing to keep in mind is that DO is meant to be a description at both the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels. The practice of the path leads to the cessation of the various processes in the sequence, leading to the cessation of ignorance, which leads to the momentary cessation of all experience at the level of sense media '“ which is the 'experience' of the unconditioned. Between this first momentary experience and the final release of parinibbana, the canon seems to say that it's possible to end ignorance completely, which takes the 'clinging' out of the 'clinging-aggregates', and one alleviates as much suffering as possible prior to death.

And that's why I didn't get into talking about your particular sequence; not because it's wrong, but because there's so much more to it than a simple four-step progression.

(continued below)

Understanding DO in terms of feedback loops is very helpful in tying what Kenneth says about mindfulness of vedana and the cessation of craving. One can apply their practice to any point in the loop (i.e. link on the chain) and intercept the process. But, because it's a feedback loop, it takes time for the continuous input of wisdom (i.e. seeing things in light of the Four Noble Truths) to affect the whole system. But, this is why Mahasi-style noting works. It more or less cuts off the loop at the level of perception (mental labeling) by going from one phenomenal appearance to the next, not letting perception spin into further elaborations that lead to becoming. When this is done for long enough, the system can't sustain itself any longer, and the result is momentary cessation.

Thanissaro and Mahasi prefer different methods for working with DO, but both are theoretically and practically sound, in my view.

We can always start more threads about DO, since it never hurts to get an understanding of how it works.

-Jackson

First of all, Jackson, I'm not sure whether we agree or disagree, so I wasn't sure whether to include you in the group I had in mind.

"Part of the reason I didn't get into the particular sequence you continue to bring up (i.e. vedana-->craving-->clinging-->becoming) is because: (1) I don't think the sequence is necessarily linear,"

When you are interested in discussing dependent origination with me, please let me know (in precise, phenomenological terms) what experiences you observe after vedana (e.g. after noticing a sensation on your skin or anywhere).

Alternatively, if you could identify three of the experiences that I'm talking about (vedana, craving, becoming) by applying my instructions to mumuwu, that would be interesting to hear about.

Keep in mind that, as I have said, observing vedana is difficult, and for a large part of my practice I confused the experience of vedana with the experience of later steps in the DO chain. As this discussion will be for the sake of better understanding, please do not assume that, if you observe something that appears to be a skin sensation, that such a sensation is vedana. The purpose of my instructions to mumuwu was to clarify exactly what is vedana and what isn't. By observing something that was prior to what I previously thought of as vedana, I saw a lawlike progression of four experiences; without having done so, I could only have interpreted DO in a very "impressionistic" way (i.e. that this "vedana" stuff causes some kind of high-level psychological reaction which is craving-clinging-becoming...and, as with all high-level reactions, they are quite mutable and changeable and variegated in their manifestation).

"Keep in mind that, as I have said, observing vedana is difficult, and for a large part of my practice I confused vedana with later steps in the DO chain. As this discussion will be for the sake of better understanding, please do not assume that, if you observe something that appears to be a skin sensation, that such a sensation is vedana. The purpose of my instructions to mumuwu was to clarify exactly what is vedana and what isn't."

I might have made this mistake, too. i compared vedana in a PCE vs. vedana out of a PCE - but perhaps what i was really referring to was vedana in a PCE, and vedana-craving-clinging-becoming out of a PCE.

"Understanding DO in terms of feedback loops is very helpful in tying what Kenneth says about mindfulness of vedana and the cessation of craving. One can apply their practice to any point in the loop (i.e. link on the chain) and intercept the process. But, because it's a feedback loop, it takes time for the continuous input of wisdom (i.e. seeing things in light of the Four Noble Truths) to affect the whole system."

I agree. Mindfulness of vedana is a good practice. I think it leads to the end of ignorance (and thus craving) in time. However, I do not think that whatever practice Kenneth is describing leads to the end of craving in the moment that it's implemented, as the end of craving (in that moment) is the end of becoming (in that moment) is the experience of full liberation (in that moment).

And full liberation is a pretty high standard, I think.

This matters, as understanding craving, when it has ceased, and when it hasn't ceased, is likely to be quite important if one's goal is to end ignorance (or to come close to ending ignorance). Seeing what craving is allows the mind to incline away from it. Not seeing craving, but still being mindful, is probably effective, but not as effective as when one has separated craving from everything else in experience.

"Hi Malt,

While in direct mode, I would often experience a 'repreive' from that burny-ness that I often thought to be 'craving and clinging'. So perhaps i know where you are speaking from."

Hey Nick,

Glad you decided to stick around! =]

Yes I think you are right on in your assessment of where I'm coming from here. I would say that the "distortions" that receive gentle attention / mindfulness, are what could be identified as clinging / craving / aversion; mental distortions overlayed over vedana. For the vast majority of my own direct mode practice, even though to a large extent these distortions are attenuated with proper mindfulness, there is some sense of presence, a field of knowing, etc. So, becoming for me is not cut off for the majority of my direct mode practice. This is not due to any shortcoming in the practice instruction itself, but my own ignorance, there is definitely still plenty of work to be done for me. =)

However, I have also experienced brief moments of what I think would fall under a full blown PCE. When this occured, it fit with "in the seeing only the seen" ; there was simply directness of experience, the becoming of "self" dropped away.

I have previously identified in my own practice, the relishing and clinging to equanimity, as a key area I must work on, so I appreciate you pointing this out and again I say you're right on. I will have to play around with jhanas as you suggest.

I am not really in any position to speculate about the final end of ignorance, I do pretty much assume that the buddha achieved this. Kenneth is right on as usual, awakeness now conditions awakeness in the future right?

In my current view it is not vedana itself that must lead to clinging / craving / aversion by law, but contingent upon the chain of D-O including those unskillful mental tendencies arising with vedana.

Malt,

In my experience - the seeing as an artist instruction is that which reduces clinging/craving/aversion and leads to PCEs when doing direct mode. Grounding the mindstate in the body exposes the tanha underlying it. Paying attention to the senses seems to really reduce the tension over time.

"Malt,

In my experience - the seeing as an artist instruction is that which reduces clinging/craving/aversion and leads to PCEs when doing direct mode. Grounding the mindstate in the body exposes the tanha underlying it. Paying attention to the senses seems to really reduce the tension over time."

Hi mumuwu!

Thanks for the clarification. Your description fits with my experience with direct mode practice as well.

metta!

Justin

"As I have practiced Direct Mode quite a bit in the past, and have (I thought) been reasonably successful with that practice, and have benefited from it, and *still* do not believe that mindfulness applied within Direct Mode cuts off craving (as a general rule), do you think it's possible that we mean different things by craving?"

Hey EndInSight,

If you experienced PCE's from your direct mode practice, then I would suggest that in those moments you had cut off craving with mindfulness. =]

Justin

Well, I did qualify the statement with "as a general rule". It is not that a moment of mindfulness is a moment in which there is no craving, but that mindfulness can gradually and temporarily redirect the mind in that direction.

However, I have experienced things that are more wonderful (in some ways) after this last shift than I had in past experiences that I thought were PCEs. Nick claims the same. So, my personal theory is that there is still a subtle form of craving that was present in these PCEs, which is being eradicated...the eradication of which is responsible for the change in experience. Thus, past PCEs were not necessarily craving-free, but close enough to give one a glimpse of what the value of the end of craving is.

"Well, I did qualify the statement with "as a general rule". It is not that a moment of mindfulness is a moment in which there is no craving, but that mindfulness can gradually and temporarily redirect the mind in that direction.

However, I have experienced things that are more wonderful (in some ways) after this last shift than I had in past experiences that I thought were PCEs. Nick claims the same. So, my personal theory is that there is still a subtle form of craving that was present in these PCEs, which is being eradicated...the eradication of which is responsible for the change in experience. Thus, past PCEs were not necessarily craving-free, but close enough to give one a glimpse of what the value of the end of craving is."

Here it might be worth mentioning that I distinguish moemntary PCEs from 'full blown' ones. The momentary ones were probably more like very high end EEs where craving has seemingly reduced but is still active on a much subtler level (not seen). The 2 full blown PCEs I had, which lasted 3 hours and 20 or so hours, were extremely telling of the absence of any craving. I would say the sequence of DO had dropped away entirely for those two periods. They were the convincers.

Yup!

My experience is, depending on your current practice, that it could take each practitioner a varying amount of applied / sustained mindfulness, which eventually can culminate in a full blown PCE, where craving / clinging / aversion .. becoming, is cut off completely. The "self" drops away, becoming has been interrupted.

"Here it might be worth mentioning that I distinguish moemntary PCEs from 'full blown' ones. The momentary ones were probably more like very high end EEs where craving has seemingly reduced but is still active on a much subtler level (not seen). The 2 full blown PCEs I had, which lasted 3 hours and 20 or so hours, were extremely telling of the absence of any craving. I would say the sequence of DO had dropped away entirely for those two periods. They were the convincers. "

What is your explanation for recent moments which were much more wonderful than your previous PCEs (or, if I recall what you said accurately, more wonderful than any past experience)?

"My experience is, depending on your current practice, that it could take each practitioner a varying amount of applied / sustained mindfulness, which eventually can culminate in a full blown PCE, where craving / clinging / aversion .. becoming, is cut off completely. The "self" drops away, becoming has been interrupted."

For what it's worth, I'd like to explicitly say that I have no major disagreement with Kenneth insofar as practice is concerned. My goal for this conversation is to reach a balanced viewpoint on what the fundamental issues that practice concerns are (so as to give a boost to practice), and also try to move closer towards a reconciliation of the different "camps" who hang out at KFD. (I don't really think they are different camps at all; just people who have adopted different sets of terminology [irrelevant], and perhaps different ways of analyzing experience [IMO relevant]).

That's why we agree that mindfulness is part of the path and can lead to PCEs.

"What is your explanation for recent moments which were much more wonderful than your previous PCEs (or, if I recall what you said accurately, more wonderful than any past experience)?"

My first PCE was, as far as my memory serves me, pretty perfect and wonderful. I may have said what you indicate but I can't really say with full certainty that the first PCE was not as good as the current ongoing moments I have now a la 'universe experiencing itself' type thingie. I can't really think in gradients these days concerning PCEs and now.

In the full blown ones there was no mental tension nor stress at all. Now there is no mental stress nor tension at all. And when I look up at the Andes soaring up into the sky here from where I sit at their feet (the university where I teach), there is the thought that this is perfect and so was that 1st PCE. Distinctions is key to dusting off the lens. Thus my thinking is as it currently is. I think I got a little poetic in wiritng what you indicated and didn't consider true comparisons.

We shall see how things develop. I think that conversations like these are at the very cutting edge of our understanding. I am sure my beliefs (regarding PCEs) may easily change as things become clearer.

"[...] I would say the sequence of DO had dropped away entirely for those two periods. They were the convincers. [...]

"

[Part 1 of 2]

This is not directed at Nik's post (quoted above) per se, but is something that's been eating at me in all discussions of Dependent Origination on this forum.

Do we all agree that DO is two chains, not one? There is a chain of arising, and there is a chain of cessation.

I often hear language implying that we can exit DO, or skipping individual steps in DO. But I don't think we can be alive and breathing for a moment without DO operating in its full form. It's not a chain of things unfolding over time. It's the description of the underpinnings of each experience in each moment.

The suttas often sum up the Depndent Origination chain this way: "With the arising of this, that arises" and "With the cessation of this, that ceases".

This is not "A leads to B", but rather "A and B are upheld by each other in a relationship of utter dependence (along with C, D, and E, by the way)".

In other words, Dependent Origination isn't a chain of cause-and-effect. It's the opposite of cause-and effect.

A cause-and-effect view describes a process that links, in time, two independently-existing pheonamena. A dependent-origination view says "there are no processes; everything is utterly dependent for its "existence", moment-to-moment, on all its underpinning factors".

The 12-step Dependent Origination list just enumerates a set of factors underpinning a phenomenon IN THIS MOMENT. When the underpinnings cease, the phenomenon does not arise IN THIS MOMENT.

[continued...]

[part 2]

So you can't say "craving does / doesn't exist for me", you can only say "In this moment, the underpinning factors for craving ceased and therefore craving did not arise" or "In this moment, the underpinning factors for craving were present, and so craving arose".

This is true (I posit) even if you have attained a condition where you experience nothing but the cessation chain unfolding moment after moment. It is still DO.

In other words- DO always operates; it is a description of nature; it is just a question of whether it is the "arising" chain or the "ceasing" chain in each moment.

I am actually (really! honestly! ) prepared to be proven wrong on this. I have not actually consulted the suttas and could easily be dissuaded by a well-placed quote (that's an invitation ).

Rob - what you said reminded me of this:

dependentorigination.fortunecity.com/cycle.gif

Check out that gif

Suffering leads to faith
Faith is condition to contentment.
Contentment is condition to rapture.
Rapture is condition to calmness.
Calmness is condition to bliss.
Bliss is condition to samadhi.
Samadhi is condition to Wisdom sight to see Truth.
Wisdom sight to see Truth is condition to disenchantment.
Disenchantment is condition to dispassion.
Dispassion is condition to deliverance.
Deliverance is condition to the Wisdom that initiates cessation towards nibbana.

"We can always start more threads about DO, since it never hurts to get an understanding of how it works."

Seems like it's happening here, so I'll ask my question here --- but if we move it to another thread, then that's cool too.

So here's my question: if "wisdom" seems to be able to be applied at various stages in the chain and thus relieve suffering/unsatisfactoriness at various stages, why does DO start with Ignorance?

I used to think that 4th path MTCB dealt with that first step of "ignorance", but it seems like folks are saying that isn't true.

(Confused)

"[part 2]

So you can't say "craving does / doesn't exist for me", you can only say "In this moment, the underpinning factors for craving ceased and therefore craving did not arise" or "In this moment, the underpinning factors for craving were present, and so craving arose".

This is true (I posit) even if you have attained a condition where you experience nothing but the cessation chain unfolding moment after moment. It is still DO.

In other words- DO always operates; it is a description of nature; it is just a question of whether it is the "arising" chain or the "ceasing" chain in each moment.

I am actually (really! honestly! ) prepared to be proven wrong on this. I have not actually consulted the suttas and could easily be dissuaded by a well-placed quote (that's an invitation )."

PCE then is the ceasing chain. There is an absence of 'becoming' in the fullblown ones as far as I could see it. I may well be wrong. But I am equating 'becoming' to all that mental tension, me-ness, 'being', sense of existing, which, to me, was dukkha.

I am gonna hold off on making absolute statements about my current condition. Everything is pretty peachy for the moment. Let's give it a few years.

(ed. this is semi-responding to betawave's post about DO starting with ignorance)

've seen a lot of writers question whether the placement of "ignorance" at the head of the list was really meant to suggest that it was a 'root' or 'first step'.

Check Muwuwu's link just above- there's quite a good article at the top-page of that URL. It's a "debunking" of the Visuddhimagga view of DO that saw it as a process that unfolds over 3 lifetimes. But it has a lot of interesting perspectives on DO.

Maybe we should all make a pact to read it through before we start a thread on it.

BTW, thanks, Mumuwu! As you see, I took your advice.

"So here's my question: if "wisdom" seems to be able to be applied at various stages in the chain and thus relieve suffering/unsatisfactoriness at various stages, why does DO start with Ignorance?"

Basically, almost every part of DO can loop into almost every other part. Tangled skein, indeed. I think every link-transition depends on ignorance. So, you can cut it off wherever you can direct your attention well enough.

It seems formations are more elemental, so that is why they are at the beginning.

""We can always start more threads about DO, since it never hurts to get an understanding of how it works."

Seems like it's happening here, so I'll ask my question here --- but if we move it to another thread, then that's cool too.

So here's my question: if "wisdom" seems to be able to be applied at various stages in the chain and thus relieve suffering/unsatisfactoriness at various stages, why does DO start with Ignorance?

I used to think that 4th path MTCB dealt with that first step of "ignorance", but it seems like folks are saying that isn't true.

(Confused)"

In my own experience the full blown PCEs I had after MCTB 4th path showed me what I had previously never seen or overlooked. To me, in the absence of fabricating emotions, and sense of me-ness, being or existing, I saw what I had just accepted as the be all and end all of my condition as ultimately unsatisfactory and stressful.

"Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play should be known. The diversity in stress should be known. The result of stress should be known. The cessation of stress should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be known." Nibbedhika Sutta

"
So yes, I maintain that craving is something we do, and can learn to not do. We can learn to do something else, until we don't need to do anything at all."

Very succinctly put!