Does anyone know whether the Buddha teaching about the 12 causal link is just merely explaining the phenomenon of life or perhaps it is actually connected to the direct vision in practice of meditation path ?!
SN 12.3 refers to dependent origination as the wrong path & dependent cessation as the right path therefore there are suttas that refer to dependent origination as a ‘path’ (paṭipada). 
It is something that can be seen in meditation, but that seeing involves both direct vision and inference. Inferential understanding is what allows us to apply what we see to the past and future.
5 Likes
Our venerable friend @Brahmali has recently lead beautiful sutta retreats having as main topic this very subject.
I strongly recommend you to give a try listening to what he has to say about it. You can do it at your pace, a tape a day, before you start your day or in the evening. It is a nice way to learn and grow with Dhamma.
https://deeperdhamma.podbean.com/mobile/e/1-sutta-retreat-2016-introduction-by-ajahn-brahmali/
2 Likes
OK will do , thanks .
1 Like
Would you think dependent is not a good translation , Interrelated and intertwined could be a better one !?
Hi James
Assuming you addressed your question to me, I do not know the exact translation, however, in my opinion, ‘intertwined’ is a useful perspective because each condition appears to be affected/tainted by ignorance, as the contact is described in SN 22.81:
Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation—what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorant-contact (avijjāsamphassajena), craving arises: thence that formation is born.
Thus, bhikkhus, that formation is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that craving is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that contact is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen.
SN 22.81
Regards 
Hi Deeele , sorry as I am not familiar in using with the icon and didn’t specify your username in the first place . 
"Dependent origination (paticcasamuppada) or to be accurate the process of causality, can be seen at work, in the process of perception, in the following manner:
Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. With feeling as a requisite condition there is craving. MN148
“Thus, bhikkhus, that formation is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that craving is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that contact is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; SN22.81
It is possible to see this process happening now, as seen below:
"If anyone were to say, ‘The eye is the self,’ that wouldn’t be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that ‘My self arises & falls away.’ That’s why it wouldn’t be tenable if anyone were to say, ‘The eye is the self.’ So the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, ‘Forms are the self,’ that wouldn’t be tenable… Thus the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say, ‘Consciousness at the eye is the self,’ that wouldn’t be tenable… Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, ‘Contact at the eye is the self,’ that wouldn’t be tenable… Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, ‘Feeling is the self,’ that wouldn’t be tenable… Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, ‘Craving is the self,’ that wouldn’t be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that ‘My self arises & falls away.’ That’s why it wouldn’t be tenable if anyone were to say, ‘Craving is the self.’ Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self. MN 148
There are insight (Vipassana) meditations that allow a person to see this. By seeing causality, one seeing impermanence, suffering and non-self (as well as seeing that everything is insubstantial SN 22.95).
with metta
@Mat,
Thanks , 
By the way ,
Can you help to explain " sanna" or perception in plain English or easy to understand language
, is it involves process of " thinking " and " memories " ?!
Hi James
Rupa -Form (internal)- the sense organs + the body (external)- all sights, sounds etc, anything that is liquid, solid, has a temperature and has movement. E.g.: a flower is seen by the eye
Vedana- feelings (that arise due to sensory stimuli) -Pleasant feelings arise.
Sanna- Perceptions -the label of identification given to what is seen heard etc.- the shapes and colours is recognised as ‘a flower’.
Sankhara- intentions -to pick the flower
Vinnana- consciousness, that arises early in this process, that makes us aware of the flower
with metta
Mat
: thanks