DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - dependent origination- a dilemma

**xIuvyAuT** · 06-13-2011, 08:00 AM

when we say everything exists dependent on other factors, are we not implying the existence of other factors as somewhat inherently existing, otherwise the same fact will have to hold true for the factors themselves and they too will be lacking an essence in themselves being dependent on other factors themselves but as i make this latter statement, it gets kind of cyclical and it feels as if emptiness cannot be truely expressed in such language (dependent on factors etc) as it gets caught up in cyclical reasoning without a proper reference point(factors).

welcome phoenix

my opinion may be similar to yours, in that this kind of explanation of emptiness can go a little too far

you are certainly correct when you say the causal factors themselves lack an essence to themselves. but there is a limit here. for example, the Buddha spoke of the basic elements/causal factors of life (earth, wind, fire, water, space & consciousness) but did not really go beyond that

the dhamma of emptiness (Suññatā/Śūnyatā) has the sole purpose of being an antidote or remedy for suffering. when the Buddha taught emptiness, he primary explained it as the mind 'empty of self' because ending self-views is what is necessary for the ending of suffering

for example, to assert the emptiness of a "tree" is not so necessary for the ending of suffering. all that is necessary is to comprehend the impermanence of the tree and to not take possession (claim ownership) of the tree

further, as you seem to say, one will get stuck attempting to reason the infinite emptiness of a "tree". it can be reasoned:

1. there is no tree because it is composed bark, roots, leaves, etc,

2. there are no bark, roots, leaves, etc, because they are composed of the earth, water, fire elements, etc;

3. there is no earth, water, fire elements because they is composed of various atoms;

But then one gets stuck because these causal factors cannot be broken down any further

so the Buddha regarded it sufficient the body is broken down into earth, wind (breath), fire (warmth) & water so the mind can see directly this physical body is not permanent, not something 'solid' and not a 'self'

this is sufficient for liberation

to assert all things (apart from Nirvana) arise from a cause goes a little too far, imo

kind regards

Ye dhamma hetuppabhava
tesam hetum tathagato aha
tesañca yo nirodho
evamvadi mahasamano 'ti

Of all those things that from a cause arise,
Tathagata the cause thereof has told;
And how they cease to be, that too he tells,
This is the doctrine of the Great Recluse.

06-13-2011, 08:00 AM	#4
xIuvyAuT Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 550 Senior Member	when we say everything exists dependent on other factors, are we not implying the existence of other factors as somewhat inherently existing, otherwise the same fact will have to hold true for the factors themselves and they too will be lacking an essence in themselves being dependent on other factors themselves but as i make this latter statement, it gets kind of cyclical and it feels as if emptiness cannot be truely expressed in such language (dependent on factors etc) as it gets caught up in cyclical reasoning without a proper reference point(factors). welcome phoenix my opinion may be similar to yours, in that this kind of explanation of emptiness can go a little too far you are certainly correct when you say the causal factors themselves lack an essence to themselves. but there is a limit here. for example, the Buddha spoke of the basic elements/causal factors of life (earth, wind, fire, water, space & consciousness) but did not really go beyond that the dhamma of emptiness (Suññatā/Śūnyatā) has the sole purpose of being an antidote or remedy for suffering. when the Buddha taught emptiness, he primary explained it as the mind 'empty of self' because ending self-views is what is necessary for the ending of suffering for example, to assert the emptiness of a "tree" is not so necessary for the ending of suffering. all that is necessary is to comprehend the impermanence of the tree and to not take possession (claim ownership) of the tree further, as you seem to say, one will get stuck attempting to reason the infinite emptiness of a "tree". it can be reasoned: 1. there is no tree because it is composed bark, roots, leaves, etc, 2. there are no bark, roots, leaves, etc, because they are composed of the earth, water, fire elements, etc; 3. there is no earth, water, fire elements because they is composed of various atoms; But then one gets stuck because these causal factors cannot be broken down any further so the Buddha regarded it sufficient the body is broken down into earth, wind (breath), fire (warmth) & water so the mind can see directly this physical body is not permanent, not something 'solid' and not a 'self' this is sufficient for liberation to assert all things (apart from Nirvana) arise from a cause goes a little too far, imo kind regards Ye dhamma hetuppabhava tesam hetum tathagato aha tesañca yo nirodho evamvadi mahasamano 'ti Of all those things that from a cause arise, Tathagata the cause thereof has told; And how they cease to be, that too he tells, This is the doctrine of the Great Recluse.
	Quote