A simple or impossible question(s) on dependent origination...

Why did the buddha put "ignorance" prior to fabrications/consciousness/name-and-form instead of somewhere between contact and craving/clinging/becoming? It seems to suggest that without ignorance, there wouldn't be the other things (e.g., consciousness and contact), is that true?

Because ignorance is the cause (according to DO) of the entire mind-body process via rebirth, not just the cause of the craving that arises in response to vedana. Which sounds like how you were thinking about it.

However, another point is, ignorance isn't conditioned by vedana, so the linear pattern of conditionality that the Buddha uses in explaining DO would break down if ignorance was inserted after vedana.

Thanks EIS,

I've thought about this too much, probably, so I'm feeling pretty dumb. Let me ask the question another way, because I didn't understand your answer...

Ignorance in DO is ignorance of the four truths. But it seems unlikely that someone that really understood the four truths wouldn't have consciousness or sense contact, right? If ignorance goes away, then does consciousness and sense contact go away?

Obviously ignorance is listed first, but why?

Ah, by the way, my premise is that understanding the four truths is possible and this understanding has an effect on one's experience of dependant origination. But if so, how?

Someone who completely understood and developed the four noble truths would be an arahant, and so would not be reborn after death, and so would not have consciousness or sense-contact etc. after that point. However, they would still have a body before that point and so continue to experience those things until death. The existence of their body is caused by past ignorance (which caused them to be reborn with that body at the beginning of their current lifetime), and, although ignorance has ceased for them, their body's existence is sustained at that point by normal physical processes rather than ignorance, and so continues until the physical processes end.

Understanding the four noble truths at a lesser level than an arahant affects one's experience of DO by reducing the tendency towards craving conditioned on vedana, and making the visible process of DO gradually clearer, at least. But, keep in mind that the 4th truth is the eightfold noble path, and "understanding" it means practicing it.

Helpful?

Yes, I think I understand now... DO talks about reincarnation-type rebirth not psychlogical rebirth as a self. Understanding the 4T stops reincarnation. Understanding the 4T also stops psychological rebirth by removing the link of craving normally hardwired to vendana/feeling during this incarnation. (right?)

The only confusing part of your explaination is "although ignorance has ceased for [the arhat], their body's existence is sustained at that point by normal physical processes rather than ignorance" which suggests that DO doesn't refer to reincarnation-type rebirth but rather something post-physical birth, i.e., the unenlightented's ignorance is some sustaining factor during life, not just the initial cause of birth.

So I guess I'm closer, but I still don't get it.

"Yes, I think I understand now... DO talks about reincarnation-type rebirth not psychlogical rebirth as a self. Understanding the 4T stops reincarnation. Understanding the 4T also stops psychological rebirth by removing the link of craving normally hardwired to vendana/feeling during this incarnation. (right?)"

Agreed. "Becoming" is closest to an experience of psychological rebirth in my experience, even though craving / clinging are experientially "self"-y too.

"The only confusing part of your explaination is "although ignorance has ceased for [the arhat], their body's existence is sustained at that point by normal physical processes rather than ignorance" which suggests that DO doesn't refer to reincarnation-type rebirth but rather something post-physical birth, i.e., the unenlightented's ignorance is some sustaining factor during life, not just the initial cause of birth."

All I meant is, the body's existence is caused by ignorance, and once it exists, it remains until the physical processes that govern bodies do away with it...it requires no further input from ignorance in order to continue until physical death, beyond the input that created it in the first place.

Hopefully that's clearer?

By the way, the significance of this is that (since you were reborn and have a body already) it is sufficient to concern yourself only with the parts of DO that can be influenced during this life.

Right. These questions came from a very practical mindset.

I was thinking about the crux of what practice is and what I came up with is: the causal link of ignorance in this life is sensations/thoughts are believed to be "my" sensations/thoughts. The heart of practice is becoming more clear on their nature. The practical side of practice is to attend to sensations/thoughts as they arise as "intimately and objectively" (I don't have a good word for this, normally these are seen as contrary but they can be in practice complimentary) as possible.

(Am I on track, any suggestions/refinements?)

Your practice idea sounds good to me. I would say, anything that helps you see thoughts and sensations more clearly will help.

Ultimately, "ignorance" is the state of not having developed the eightfold path completely, so cultivating things like mindfulness, concentration, and right view will efface it.

Thanks! A lot of this thinking was originally motivated by getting clear on right view.

Right view:

seeing what is suffering,
seeing what is the cause of suffering,
seeing what is the cessation of suffering,
seeing the way to the cessation of suffering.

Very simple and non-theoretical. See these things in your direct experience. There isn't anywhere else for them to be.

By the way, this is part of developing the frames of reference:

"Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the four noble truths. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the four noble truths? There is the case where he discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress.' He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is the origination of stress.' He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is the cessation of stress.' He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is the way leading to the cessation of stress.' " (Satipatthana sutta)

I would suggest reading The Shape of Suffering, by Thanissaro Bhikku (available for free, e.g. www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/than...shapeofsuffering.pdf ). It goes into D-O in far more detail than I would be able to, here (and I haven't finished reading it).

A quick thing to immediately address your question: D-O is not linear. Each link can go to any other link. And I think each transition (to go from one link to the next) requires ignorance. So there is constant ignorance fueling the whole mess.

I think Thanissaro's interpretation of 'consciousness' is different than EndInSight's, here, so it might be worthwhile to just read it up to that point. Practically, I'd suggest adopting whichever take on it proves most beneficial to ending suffering.

"I think Thanissaro's interpretation of 'consciousness' is different than EndInSight's, here, so it might be worthwhile to just read it up to that point."


Or maybe you can read it all and decide for yourself after reading other material from other sources on the same topic.

Just to weigh in here with a some cautionary remarks -- to my knowledge there is not one authoritative version of exactly how dependent origination works or what some of the terms mean, especially across the various Buddhist traditions. A thorough reading of more than one version is advisable, IMHO. What you are getting here is but one version, not THE version.

"I was thinking about the crux of what practice is and what I came up with is: the causal link of ignorance in this life is sensations/thoughts are believed to be "my" sensations/thoughts. The heart of practice is becoming more clear on their nature. The practical side of practice is to attend to sensations/thoughts as they arise as "intimately and objectively"

I think this is very well stated, Betawave.

Thanks Chris and Beoman, I did a bunch of reading (both before and after my original post) and I totally understand the point of different versions of DO in the Sutta and in interpretations. Not that I found a good resolution to my questions through the reading -- the more I read, the more nuanced and sometimes contradictory it got.

I still have the feeling that I could get realy doctrinal and spend too much time on studying the words on the page. (And I probably will, but over time.) But my main goal was just to make sure I was looking at the sweet spot for this stage of my practice. Right now I'm in a bit of a limbo of noting/labeling being too crude but not having confidence in dropping it.

Frankly, I'm almost swaying to a less granular and more panoramic view for my attending to sensations/thoughts. I wrote this reminder poem to myself:

As one is aware of breathing, one feels the body.
Aware of the nature of breath, aware of nature of body.
Favoring relaxing the breath, relaxing the body.

And as far as thoughts/sensations:

Heavy in thoughts: note category of thought, have a lack of interest in content. Return to aware of breath and body.

Heavy in sensation: note category of sensation, have lack of interest in 'meaning' of sensation. Include awareness of particular sensation with breath and body (the whole field of sensation).


Time will tell where this approach leads...

The Shape of Suffering: 112 pages!

We'll see if reading or sitting wins....

Sitting should always win

"Why did the buddha put "ignorance" prior to fabrications/consciousness/name-and-form instead of somewhere between contact and craving/clinging/becoming? It seems to suggest that without ignorance, there wouldn't be the other things (e.g., consciousness and contact), is that true?

"

Here's another take on this...

Looking at DO as a psychological process happening in every moment we can look at Ignorance about the 4 noble truths and the 3 characteristics as a basic problem in our perception of the world. For example we see habits (which are conditioned = sankhara) as permanent aspects of ourselves (ignorance of impermanence and not-self). Seeing habits in that way, we condition our consciousness in a certain way (imagine a filter on a lens) and perceiving with a filtered consciousness, we're unable to see things as they are, leading to craving, clinging, birth (of a self) and all the suffering that follows. Does that makes sense?

I like that, Eran.

I'm reviving this thread...

In a kinda lazy way of reading/listing to podcasts about this over time, I've come to the (temporary) conclusion that "dependant origination" isn't the >chain< of dependant origination.

I was confused for a long time because there seemed to be two camps -- one that tried to describe experience as arising strictly and linearly according to these links, and one that said that the links occured in any number of ways, jumping around between different dependant links. The latter camp write-ups were inconsistent and tautalogical... but I think that's the point! Right now I'm thinking that D.O. is more of a training guide and is there to show how solidity is created in any number of ways -- so more consistent with the second camp. Things are "linked" by D.O. in the sense that interpretation of an experience is the result of compounding ideas (creating a con-text: from Latin contextus a putting together, from contexere to interweave, from com- together + texere to weave, braid), but not necessarily linked in the sense that D.O. is supposed to be an exact model of arising consciousness.

Just throwing that out there for reaction. I don't think I'm done learning about D.O. at all!

I suggest you read Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's explanation of the Cycle of DO at www.dhammatalks.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddh...Paticcasamuppada.htm . His view is that the Cycle of DO is moment to moment not what happens after physical death.

While ignorance is defined in the suttas as understanding the 4NT's, I think a deeper reading is that ignorance is living our life as if our self is independent and not transient. That ignorance is the root cause of our suffering.

I think DO means 2 things. Dependent Orgination by itself means that all phenomena is in a cause and effect relationship. The 4NT's are one formulation of a cause and effect DO relationship. The Cycle of DO is a specific list of links that lead to suffering or non suffering

jack

It's really easy to make dependent origination a complicated thing. I don't believe it is. It describes the process of perception, very simply. We humans are so good at creating complexity and confusion and it's kind of sad that this simple model of how we experience the world has become so... well, so complicated. Rather than reading a million and one interpretations of dependent origination by a million and one other people -- just go sit and watch it work. That's all we really need to do to figure it out, anyway.

Experience has this funny tendency to remove all the doubt and interpretation, doesn't it?