A wonderful exposition of Dependent Origination

Mumuwu hipped me to this video and I wanted to share it with everyone. It's a very clear and practical explanation of the process of dependent origination by Sister Khema of Dhamma Sukha. Highly recommended.

Nadav,

The video has made DO much clearer for me. Now I can take notice of this in real time.

Thank you for posting this!

-Tina

Yeah, this was very good. Thanks, Nadav.

This is very useful! I'm about half-way through the video, writing notes along with her.

Sister Khema discusses Dependent Origination with Chuck Kasmire on DHO:
www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discu...oards/message/401038

Thanks for that link, andymr!

Call me Andy, Chris.

Okay, Andy it is!

BTW - knowledge and seeing in real time of dependent origination, in a deep insight way, was the most important event in my practice. To be able to see it occur means it can be applied in every situation. To be able to see it occur means it can change the relationship one has with the universe. To be able to see it occur means one has cracked the code of reality, of what "seeing things as they really are" actually means.

It is a very, very powerful insight. Wisdom derives therefrom.

I have a different opinion of this video. The good sister takes the very different slant on things of Bhante Vimalaramsi . His thing is one can feel a "mental" tightness that one can consciously relax and break the cycle that leads to suffering.
My interpretation of DO is that full mindfulness of feeling tone prevents it leading to desire and clinging and finally to suffering. I have much more to say about DO but I will leave it. I bring this up not to start an argument but to suggest to anyone that is new to DO to also do more research. Interesting that this Sister takes the name of a famous and respected author who died several years ago.

jack

I believe that the chain of DO can be broken at any point. This video suggests one method for doing that, one that is very useful.
From Wikipedia:
"Khema was one of the two chief female disciples of Buddha (the other being Uppalavanna).
The name Khema means well-composed and she was quite beautiful. The nun belonged to the royal family of Magadha and was one of the chief queens of King Bimbisara."
Interesting that a famous and well respected author who died several years ago took the name of this disciple. Oh wait, actually it isn't. I would assume that both "Khemas" were aware of the original.

Great video. To The Top.

"I have a different opinion of this video. The good sister takes the very different slant on things of Bhante Vimalaramsi . His thing is one can feel a "mental" tightness that one can consciously relax and break the cycle that leads to suffering.
My interpretation of DO is that full mindfulness of feeling tone prevents it leading to desire and clinging and finally to suffering. I have much more to say about DO but I will leave it. I bring this up not to start an argument but to suggest to anyone that is new to DO to also do more research. Interesting that this Sister takes the name of a famous and respected author who died several years ago.

jack"

Jack, can you post some links to the alternate view of Dependent Origination that you refer to?

Also, why do you find it interesting that "this Sister takes the name of a famous and respected author who died several years ago." Whom are you referring to? I'm not sure I understand how this is relevant. Can you help?

"Jack, can you post some links to the alternate view of Dependent Origination that you refer to?

"

andymr, Here are articles from two of my favorite teachers. Phra Prayudh Payutto's book Buddhadhamma is the go-to book for southeast Asia's Buddhist monks. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu is, in my opinion, the most important voice in Thera in the last 100 years.
www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Payutto_Bhikk...dent_Origination.htm
www.vipassati.ch/english/books/Paticcasa...igination_ebook.html
www.suanmokkh.org/archive/ps/ps_intro.htm

Here is the condensed interpretation of the Cycle of DO that I use. In any mind moment phenomena appears at a sense door. This is contact or phasa. Arising with this contact is vedana or feeling tone. Since vedana is due to past conditions, it can't be changed. Nothing can be changed in this mind moment up to this point in the cycle. If vedana is positive it has a tendency to turn into desire or tanha. If negative, it has a tendency to turn into aversion, the other side of desire. Tanha has a tendency to turn into upadana or grasping. This is where the problem lies and suffering results. This Cycle of DO then dies. However, this Cycle also conditions negatively the birth of the Cycle of DO in the next mind moment. Underlying the whole negative process of DO is a sense of 'I'.

My understanding is the best place to break this chain leading to suffering is vedana=>tanha. Full mindfulness of vedana breaks the chain that leads to suffering. The other place to break the chain is seeing through the sense of an 'I' that all this happens to.

Jack

"
Also, why do you find it interesting that "this Sister takes the name of a famous and respected author who died several years ago." Whom are you referring to? I'm not sure I understand how this is relevant. Can you help?

"

andymr, the Sister Khema that I know through her writings was a German nun: www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/K/Khema/noSelfKhema.html . I was surprised when the "new" Sister Khema was someone else. I meant no dispersions on her.

jack

Keep in mind, all of these things can be seen by the practitioner, so practicing with DO, watching it play out, is the best way to find out what works and what doesn't.

"andymr, the Sister Khema that I know through her writings was a German nun: www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/K/Khema/noSelfKhema.html . I was surprised when the "new" Sister Khema was someone else. I meant no dispersions on her.

jack"

The same Pali and Sanskrit terms show up in different people's dharma names. There's the Hindu guru Swami Vivekenanda, for example, as well as the Mahasi-lineage teacher U Vivekananda. So, yes, there was a (fantastic) teacher named Ayya Khema, the German nun in question, but I don't think that means that the Sister Khema in this video is somehow taking Ayya Khema's name or that the two necessarily have any relationship to one another at all...

EDIT: Aside from the definition of suffering as tension and tightness, are the two approaches to DO all that different? I guess Sister Khema says the 'I' comes into the picture at the level of the stories we tell ourselves, whereas in the other model the weakest link in the chain is feeling tone. It does seem like if you could catch the process at feeling tone, you'd be less likely to drop into story mode...

"The same Pali and Sanskrit terms show up in different people's dharma names. There's the Hindu guru Swami Vivekenanda, for example, as well as the Mahasi-lineage teacher U Vivekananda. So, yes, there was a (fantastic) teacher named Ayya Khema, the German nun in question, but I don't think that means that the Sister Khema in this video is somehow taking Ayya Khema's name or that the two necessarily have any relationship to one another at all...

EDIT: Aside from the definition of suffering as tension and tightness, are the two approaches to DO all that different? I guess Sister Khema says the 'I' comes into the picture at the level of the stories we tell ourselves, whereas in the other model the weakest link in the chain is feeling tone. It does seem like if you could catch the process at feeling tone, you'd be less likely to drop into story mode... "

My bhikkhu name when I took robes for 12 days in Burma was U Kheminda, Lord of Serenity. Serenity now!!! Hehehe.

"Serenity now!!.. (insanity later)". Thanks for a good laugh hehehe

"
It does seem like if you could catch the process at feeling tone, you'd be less likely to drop into story mode... "

In my own experience (and certainly not stating any absolutes here nor claiming things more special than some other experience), one can see how observing vedana can interfere with the arising of a felt sense of existing/me-ness/being/presence etc. I always considered the becoming part the part where these things arose in experience.

If one allows this me-ness/presence/sense of existing/location etc to be, and simply recognises it in the field of expericne, one can then broaden the mind's focus to become more panoramic. When panoramic, one allows the mind to fall on the grossest vibration or sensation within the field of experience. Maybe it will be at the chest or throat or wherever. It might be seen as tension or pleasurable or unpleasant or whatever. It is usual the grossest sensation and it easily pulls the mind's attention there.

Then one can do varying things to see the sense of 'me-ness' etc (what I call becoming) get interfered with.

One can note the gross sensations as they are with feeling tone as well as note the phenomena being misread as 'me-ness', such as sensations, image, thought. This will eventually make all the phenomena be seen as it is, without the phenomena being misread as 'me-ness'. This interrupts the flow of becoming as I see it. This levels the playing ground so to speak seeing vedana in vedana without it having a mental overlay of me-ness jumping from it. This is what I did to get 1st path and MCTB 4th.

continued...

One can also use certain arupa jhana aspects (space, consciousness, nothingness, signlessness) as 'anchors' to juxtapose the grossest sensations against them to also interfere with the sequence that leads to the arising of 'me-ness'. This is the 'actualising jhana' approach i used to get the post-MCTB 4th path shift which resulted in a huge shift from experiencing full blown affect and 'me-ness' as before. It left a some 'residue' though to deal with (shadow being).

One can use the rupa jhanas (1-4) as described in the suttas to interfere with the arising of 'me-ness' as well. Here one maximises the factors of the 1st jhana to a great degree rather than directing the mind to the post MCTB 1st path versions. That means maxing out on full body awareness, joy and pleasure as well as directed and sustained thought towards these factors. When these factors are maxed out to a great degree, one can move to dropping certain factors to uncover the factors supporting the other rupa jhanas.

Essentially when one maxes out pleasure and joy etc, the mind gets pulled towards these factors and sits on them without attention getting pulled away to certain 'vedana' that may have been the jumping board for the sequence leading to 'me-ness' arising.

The mind's tendency to land on certain vedana (say at the chest) is interfered with via the maxed out rupa jhana route. The vedana is seen as just vedana and ceases being a leaping point for the becoming sequence. It is 'neutralised' so to speak via being included in the mix of pleasure and joy etc permeating the full bodied awareness. I had a recent shift a month or so ago in the 2nd jhana which resulted in a massive reduction in what I have been calling 'shadow being'. There is now a serious lack of perceived free will and no more residual 'looking' for 'me-ness'.

Each time, for each of these shifts, the sequence of becoming as I currently see it (subject to change) was interrupted at the vedana link to neutralise the mental reaction that led to tension, the arising of 'me-ness' and so on. The vedana was seen as just vedana in and of itself rather than being perceived through the filter of tension and 'me-ness' via reacting towards it ignorantly. This led to a dropping away of 'me-ness' for short moments (1st and MCTb 4th) and longer moments (shift in July and shift a month ago).

vedana-> reaction to vedana leading to tension (craving) -> attention getting pulled to vedana incessantly to continue the flow of tension resulting in mental proliferating and the arising of 'me-ness' (becoming).

When I noted my arse off and noted all the phenomena being automatically read as 'me-ness' as the phenomena really were, such as images, sensations, thoughts, the 'me-ness' dropped away for several seconds. Only a mass of vedana was experienced. Within 10 minutes of this, my 1st cessation occurred. A similar occurrence led to the centrepoint dropping away later on. When I juxtaposed the gross sensations that seemed to be a leaping point for a sense of 'me-ness'/being/existence with the natural actual arupa jhana aspects, this caused the gross sensations to be seen as vedana in and of itself without a mental overlay of 'me-ness' jumping from them for a much longer period. This lead to a cessation and permanent shift. When I did the same thing with the rupa jhanas, the gross sensations were included within the full-bodied awareness of the jhana factors of pleasure and joy. These factors acted as an anchor to juxatpose the gross sensations thus neutralizing them causing them to be seen as vedana in and of itself without the mental overlay of 'me-ness' jumping from them. A cessation resulted again.

My 2 cents

So, Nick, is it fair to say that this process leads ultimately to a deepening recognition that the sense of self is as impermanent, uncomfortable (causes suffering) and is not self, just like all other objects? It seems to me that's what you're saying, and that by investigating phenomena over and over, rapidly, as they occur, it can all be seen as it is -- empty of essence.

"
So, Nick, is it fair to say that this process leads ultimately to a deepening recognition that the sense of self is as impermanent, uncomfortable (causes suffering) and is not self, just like all other objects? It seems to me that's what you're saying, and that by investigating phenomena over and over, rapidly, as they occur, it can all be seen as it is -- empty of essence.

"

Hi Chris,

Due to the permanent shifts I would say yes, this process leads to what you describe. The fact that things like the experience of 'me-ness' can change and ultimately stop arising really rams home the fact that phenomena is empty of essence.

Edited: And yes the process leads to very deep recognition that even the slightest arising of the subtlest version of 'me-ness' shadow or not, is suffering, at least for myself it has been like so.

Nick

So do you believe, Nick, that there is any effective difference between a self not arising and a self seen through as empty? I see it as the latter but I think you see it as the former. For example, I would say "Since the self is completely empty, is seen through as being exactly like all other phenomena, it is harmless, as is all that arises that surounds it." You seem to be saying, "Eliminating the sense of self entirely, or substantially, avoids completely the arising of the things that surround it."

Fair, or not fair?

I'm not trying to pin you down, just trying to see which facet of the Jewel we're each discovering. I suspect there are many facets.

Thanks.

Cool question Chris. I think this gets to the nugget of some of the difference in perception.