I cannot recall reading anywhere that dependent arising means everything is interdependent. Could you elaborate? If possible, let’s explore this in a separate topic:
This is simply a term for samadhi, and despite what various interpreters wish, has nothing to do with a supposed “original mind”, which as i stated, is found nowhere in the suttas.
These are not part of the EBTs. The verses are a late addition to the Khuddaka, and in any case the verses rarely if ever deal explicitly with the Bodhisattva path. The Bodhisattva path is part of the prose, which is commentary. Having said which, it was developed to some degree earlier, in the late (non-EBT) canonical texts Buddhavamsa and Cariyapitaka.
2 Likes
It’s what Mahayana Buddhism teaches, that dependent origination entails the interpenetration of all phenomena.
A key doctrine of Huayan is the mutual containment and interpenetration of all phenomena (dharmas) or “perfect interfusion” (yuanrong). This is associated with what the Huayan sees as its unique contribution, the “dharmadhatu pratityasamutpada”. This is described by Wei Daoru as the idea that “countless dharmas (all phenomena in the world) are representations of the wisdom of Buddha without exception” and that “they exist in a state of mutual dependence, interfusion and balance without any contradiction or conflict. This thought essentially argues that there is no relationship of cause and result among phenomena and that things are not formed sequentially. Instead, they constitute the world by the mutual interfusion of complete equality.”[17]
According to this theory, any phenomenon exists only as part of the total nexus of reality, its existence depends on the total network of all other things, which are all equally connected to each other and contained in each other.[18]
The Huayan patriarchs used various metaphors to express this, such as Indra’s net, a hall of mirrors and the world text. To illustrate the doctrine to Empress Wu, the patriarch Fazang:
“called for a candle and placed it surrounded by mirrors on every side. When lit, the candle was reflected in each mirror, and each of the reflections in every other mirror so that in any one mirror were the images of all the others.”[19]
Huayan - Wikipedia
We might need to agree to disagree on this one. The Theravadin interpretation of the Nikayas/Agamas is not the only possible interpretation.
Mahayana Buddhists might read the same passages and come to the conclusion that there is a universal mind. Scriptures aren’t interpreted in a vacuum.
Probably the oldest inspiration for the Bodhisattva path is the Buddha’s decision to teach others “with little dust in their eyes,” rather than remaining as a lone hermit.
The Bodhisattva ideal is that one seeks to attain enlightenment for the expressed purpose of then leading all other beings to enlightenment, rather than keeping enlightenment to oneself.
I am not proposing the Theravadin interpretation. I am not a Theravadin, and I really wish people would stop insinuating that I was.
The meaning of this passage is easily derived from multiple other sources in the Pali canon, as I explained in an essay on the subject.
Indeed. And he did this after he already became a Buddha. No early text suggests that this had anything do with why he wanted to become a Buddha.
7 Likes
I’m sorry, Bhikkhu. What monastic tradition are you affiliated with?
This explains the relations between emptiness and appearances as understood by the Huayan, but it doesn’t explain this here:
If all things are mutually interdependent, that includes enlightenment. The attainment of one being is for the attainment of all beings.
Is ‘enlightenment’ (or Nibbāna, I assume) interdependent (which I am taking to mean ‘dependently arisen’)?
1 Like
What I mean is, because dependent origination is universal to all existence, the attainment of one being is mutually dependent on the attainment of all other beings.
The Bodhisattva Path offers a telos, a final end, for us and Nature: we’re here to help all beings awaken, and because of Dependent Origination, the whole of reality supports us in this endeavor. It’s not just our endeavor, it’s the Universe’s. As the 13th Century Japanese Buddhist monk Eihei Dogen might say, “earth, grasses and trees, fences and walls, tiles and pebbles” co-participate in our enlightenment, our enlightenment transforming space and time as we co-awaken with the whole of reality. Within this non-dual framework, our purpose is to cultivate wisdom and compassion. It’s this purpose that provides an external standard for judging the morality of actions: Actions that help ourselves and others to actualize wisdom (i.e., the realization of emptiness, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, non-self, and non-duality) and facilitate mindful awareness, non-harming, compassion and non-grasping are moral. Actions that detract from it are immoral. We instantiate this moral process in all of our activities, e.g., in meditating, raising and educating children, dealing wisely and compassionately with others, being mindful in speech and behavior, exercising restraint in our desires, and so on.
Dependent Origination – The Existential Buddhist
If I attain enlightenment, it’s because of those who’ve taught and helped me, so that I can then teach and help all other beings to attain the same enlightenment.
Thanks for asking!
I was ordained in Thailand, so my monastic lineage is what they call “Mahanikaya”. In truth, though, Mahanikaya doesn’t really mean anything historically, it’s just a name given to the majority of the Thai Sangha who are not Dhammayuttika. No-one really knows what the history of the different Sangha lineages all over Thailand is, but it’s safe to say, it’s complicated!
Anyway, regardless of the historical background, these days Mahanikaya is considered a Theravada lineage, ultimately stemming from the Mahavihara in Anuradhapura.
But monastic lineage is not a Vinaya concept: there’s just monks and nuns. As far as I’m concerned, I’m just a Buddhist bhikkhu trying to practice the Dhamma. I don’t personally make any distinction between monks and nuns based on their lineage or sectarian background.
In addition, monastic lineage is quite different thing than Dhamma. In the Mahayana schools, for example, the Vinaya lineage comes from the early schools—Dharmaguptaka or Mūlasarvāstivāda—but the Dhamma studied includes the Mahayana teachings as well.
My own understanding of Dhamma is shaped by the EBTs and my meditation experience, assisted and supported by my teachers and the Sangha and other Dhamma friends I’ve had over the years. Of course I have studied Theravada teachings over the years, both ancient commentaries and texts, and modern teachers, and such ideas have influenced me to some degree. But I don’t see anything in Theravada as normative, and on many points I disagree with Theravadin orthodoxy. I see the Theravadin tradition as a loosely affiliated tradition of people trying to understand and practice the Dhamma, and in that way, is just like any other tradition.
For me, a tradition is not a fixed body of doctrine, but is an ongoing struggle to live according to the Dhamma. The fundamental questions we raise are the same, but the way we go about answering them changes according to time and place.
20 Likes
Thank you for your response, Sensei. What if you had a meditation experience which suggested that a Mahayana doctrine is true?
1 Like
Interesting question! I don’t know.
There is much in the Mahayana sutras that suggests that meditation experiences were indeed one of the sources of inspiration.
This reminds me of Paul Tillich’s Dynamics of Faith, in which he writes that new religious teachings arise from the unconscious mind, whether individually or collectively.
I thought you are pupil of Ajhan Braham.
Perhaps you should write your autobiography.
Otherwise future internet forum uses will waste countless hours arguing about this.
1 Like
Going back to the original topic for a moment.
Since there is a common historical trend in all Buddhist traditions to replace the early teachings with commentary, interpretations, textbooks, poetic works, etc. How can one help revive and keep alive the study of such a large and complex body of texts like the suttas? Of course, suttacentral is a good step, the suttas are now out there and available for free. Amazing!
However, part of me still feels like this might not be enough for most people. The texts themselves can be intimidating, repetitive and sometimes dry. People first coming to them might need more than just “here are the words of the founder, read them, good luck”.
This is why works like Bhikkhu Bodhi’s in the Buddha’s words are so useful, or presentations like the Tibetan Lamrim. These kinds of works walk people step by step. I wonder if something like this (like lamrim) could be done, but more extensively quoting key sutta passages, without the repetition and background settings stuff.
Idk, its one idea. Another idea is something which is very common in the Christian Bible study world, daily devotional books. These are designed for daily reading, sometimes they come with 365 passages (to last a whole year) and each day has certain scriptural passages etc for contemplation
I guess its time to think about this stuff because, as history shows, just collecting the suttas has not been enough. Other people will come around and write much more modern and attractive literary works and people will just read that instead of the suttas.
5 Likes
LOL! If I could I’d give 5 likes.
3 Likes
I think we should remember that the Saddhamma has been surviving only by a thread since the last and final deaths of the remaining direct disciples of Buddha Gotama.
It has always been a very narrow and small number of people that have been truly striving to live and embody the Noble Eightfold path, even during the contemporaneous times of the historical Buddha Gotama. This has been consistent for 2,500 years and is unlikely to change due to the counterintuitiveness of the practice when you take into account the vastness and depth of human defilements.
Right now the internet is unifying a small number of people globally who’ve (re)discovered the Saddhamma for themselves in a variety of individualistic ways. This new technology surge in communication that was started by truely affordable mass printing of books in the 19th century and the arrive of the internet at the end of the 20th century has produced an anomaly in the history of Buddha-Dhamma. Some credit also goes to the unfortunate colonization of Buddhist countries that lead to revivals there and the spread West.
The Saddhamma was originally a microcosm and it will always be one. No matter how hard or innovative you may be in trying to change that, ultimately people live for their cravings and temporary pleasures because it’s easy. You can clearly see and know them simply. People want an “easy button” and that just doesn’t exist within the Saddhamma, such a thing is antithetical to it. Most people are better suited to nearly any other other religious practice, faith or spirituality(this oddly includes “Buddhism” too) besides the Saddhamama, because it is a path laid by the defiled for the defiled. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!!! I am not trying to disrespect anyone’s faith, tradition or religion at all, just make a distinction. Also, Saddhamma isn’t modern Theravada either: please don’t get me wrong here.
Don’t crave for the expansion and continuation of the Saddhamma beyond the expectation of simply replacing yourself with another practitioner who will after your death teach someone else: so on and so forth.
I wouldn’t concern myself too much. “Peoples is peoples.”
3 Likes