Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums
Simona

Dependent Origination

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody!

 

On one level all the phenomena are dependently originated. That is the fact of the natural law (as I understand it).

What is the difference between "dependence" and "attachment"?

 

Best regards,

Simona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön

If phenomena depend on ever changing causes, conditions and mind stream, where is the ground for attachment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If phenomena depend on ever changing causes, conditions and mind stream, where is the ground for attachment?
The ground is that neither of them exists by itself. Neither attachment, nor dependence. Maybe the difference between them lies in the difference between the two laws, first being of cause & effect and the second of nature (?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön
first being of cause & effect and the second of nature (?)

Do you mean "illusory nature", in fact, "grasping at the appearance as real"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you mean "illusory nature", in fact, "grasping at the appearance as real"?
I understand the illusory nature is not real by itself, yet it is real in the terms of dependent origination, which is also the point of the ultimate truth. This is how I see it. By the law of nature, I mean the law, which is not created by karma. It is exactly in the domain of that law the questions like why the effects do follow the causes...etc. So, I was thinking the attachment is the phenomena of the karma, because for the karma creation there must be involved an individual, an agent and the dependence is rather the phenomena of nature. I am aware that division might appear as rough, though both laws are dependently originated, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön
What is the difference between "dependence" and "attachment"?
I see the first as the characteristic of phenomena to appear from the ever changing net of consciousness, causes and conditions, like from a huge kaleidoscope.

I see the second as the impulse of our mind to keep or reject the phenomena, to freeze them, on the basis of illusionary belief that they exist by themselves.

 

From another angle: It is said that the first moment of our perception is clear - we see things as they are. The second moment we grasp at them, which gives rise to attachment / aversion (connected to karmic conditioning as well as free will). After realization of Emptiness, one can observe "dependence" without "attachment".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does living in the now fit into this arguement about dependence and attachment? What has gone before is gone, though it leaves a trace to be ripened in the future. What about the now - in this moment in the ever-changing scheme of things. Is this where we can find some kind of reality without attachment and although the now is dependent on the past, without that dependence really being present? Do we need the now, the present, to understand emptiness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...