Dependent Arising

[Zoid]

All things are...

dependent arising - arising dependent on causes and conditions, dependent upon its parts, and dependent on thought

(The Dalai Lama: How to See Yourself As You Really Are)

Discuss!
:argue:

[scameter]

In the beginning, there was.... cause?

[schrodinger]

In the beginning, there was.... cause?

Well, that all depends......... :lol:

[Winfried]

In the beginning there was cause. A noble cause.

[Taeguk]

Hi!

Very interesting topic, Zoid! :thumbsup:

scamter, you wrote:

In the beginning, there was.... cause?

Ah, but with dependent origination, how can there be a "beginning" in an ultimate sense? That beginning had to have been dependant on causes and conditions which already existed.

I think this idea basically posits an eternal universe! :)

[scameter]

Ah... of course. Nobility in a karmic existence. :)

[Winfried]

Nobility as the cause of anything :)

[Starry_Canopy]

Nobility, aesthetics, honour, love, beauty, transcendence....

All difficult to define... and yet we all seem to know what they mean... are they the characteristics on one thing, say our soul in its purest form, that we can all relate to them... knowing them without being taught what they are... just pointed to them through examples... ?

Or are they certain patterns of excitation of our neurons in our brains... ?

I recently read articles on our brain and consciosness and mind, etc in the Time magazine, Feb 12th issue, asian edition... a very good compendium on the scientific research in these areas and hence these higher level doubts :)

Its all so intriguing...

[scameter]

Why must the spiritual and physical be seperated? I have never understood this logic people use; to people, the physical cannot contain the spiritual, and the spiritual is totally seperate from the physical. To me, they are brothers in one family, from one father and one mother, mind and spirit; the physical has a heart and a breath and a life of spirit, and a body of matter. And spirit has an expressive and creative outlet that is physical, a home for it's enduring enthusiasm to create. Mind drives it, follows it, encourages it. Those arbitrary characteristics, such as the partial list you gave, are simply apart of our mind, as is everything else; just as everything is also apart of our brain, our body, our living, our spirit. They are all connected, all with familially-related blood.

[Starry_Canopy]

When two people say 'nobility' what is it that makes them sure that they are saying the same thing?

[Starry_Canopy]

Indeed, do they? What is it that makes them sure that they are saying the same thing, which is the basis for communication? That, I felt, might yield some perspective into matters beyond the mind-brain.

[Zoid]

when two people say 'dance' do they mean the same thing

And that, in part, is the point of my original post... Definitions, and the nature/reality of all things, depend on so many factors - not least of all, each individual person's perception of that thing. Each individual person's perception of a table, or a TABLE (Platonic Table-ness), is based on the unique experiential context in which that person defines "table." Nothing exists in and of itself. No object, no concept, no idea. This is the kind of point that the Dalai Lama makes. That is not to say that there is no such thing as a table, but we cannot say that a table is one, definite, bounded thing, unique in itself. It can only truly and accurately be defined in the context of all that it is - its parts, its history and each individual consciousness's experiences of such.

This could be just a dry philosophical point of interest, except that the Dalai Lama goes on to speak about how the concept of Dependent-Airising is an important one to recognise, in the context of the Self, morality and one's (each individual person's) place within the universe. It is humbling to think that everything is in flux, nothing is absolutely definable and everything depends on numerous other things for its existence. Including ourselves. Including "Me"/"I"... and everything "I" think about who I am, my purpose and my place in the universe.

A fine and highly popular and (I would think!) generally understandable allegory for this concept is the background behind the world of the film (and various offshoots of) "The Matrix"... everything, in this story (at least within The Matrix itself) is literally connected... and it is possible, in theory, for each individual soul to affect, in any possible way, any part of any "object" within that matrix... Is there any way that we can know or even be reasonably sure that we do not actually live within such a world? (is this a topic for another thread?) B)

[Winfried]

Each individual person's perception of a table, or a TABLE (Platonic Table-ness), is based on the unique experiential context in which that person defines "table."
So, this is why I've been putting my drinks on a stool for over a year by now? :D

[scameter]

Indeed, do they? What is it that makes them sure that they are saying the same thing, which is the basis for communication? That, I felt, might yield some perspective into matters beyond the mind-brain.

They aren't sure. Hence why such definitions are debated; but, some things are simply known, even if their definition isn't always readily clear, such as what beauty is or what water feels like.

[Starry_Canopy]

On the contrary, they are sure :) I am sure too, when someone speaks about nobility that I know exactly what they mean. The question is, how is this possible? It can always be argued that one can never be sure that it's the same thing both the speaker and the hearer are refering to. But in practise, there are very few 'misunderstandings' on that score. Also, it can be said that somethings are just known/ simply known. However, for a thing like nobility, unlike a thing like how water feels against the hand, what could be the experience based on which it could be known? How is beauty spontaneously recognized/ appreciated?

Maybe I'm wrong. maybe the most complex of concepts can be broken down to an empirical assembly of experiences and value indoctrinations. Or, it could be that what is understood as beauty is simply something that imparts a set of stimuli that excite our neurons in a particular fashion that causes some gland to release a substance/ protein that causes the sensation of 'happiness'. So also for things like 'nobility' and 'honour'.

However, as Scam said earlier in this topic, our physical, mental and spiritual aspects may all be interconnected/ overlapping/ melded and simultaneously existing. In that case, the spiritual aspect of the thing of beauty must reflect its physical/ mental aspect's emanation of that set of stimuli. Also, the spiritual aspect of the 'appreciater' must reflect the reactions brought about in his/ her mind-body upon exposure to that stimuli.

On further thought, it could be that what are interacting are actually the spiritual aspects of everything, directly with one another, resulting in the corresponding transformations in the mental and physical planes. This would correspond to the mutually interdependent (mutual dependency) nature of existence as posited elsewhere in this site, quoting the Dalai Lama.

[scameter]

On the contrary, they are sure

I don't think you understood what I said. I didn't mean are they themselves sure; I said that they often disagree. This disagreement is verbal, and derives from people's disagreement of thought; not of feeling, or knowing, but of thought. One may know what nobility is, and so may another, and even everyone, and yet nobility's definition is debated; debate is thoughtful, and disagreement arrives from thought. How else could there be disagreement but with/in thought?

[Zoid]

...therefore even though every dance may be different the experience of dance may be the same...

... "the same" how? Would we not subtly adjust our perception/definition of "dance" upon each unique experience of it?

Or, it could be that what is understood as beauty is simply something that imparts a set of stimuli that excite our neurons in a particular fashion that causes some gland to release a substance/ protein that causes the sensation of 'happiness'.

...Beauty, therefore, is a totally subjective concept, based, as it is, on each individual's unique experience/definition of such... (?)

[Taeguk]

Hi!

Zoid, you wrote:

... "the same" how? Would we not subtly adjust our perception/definition of "dance" upon each unique experience of it?

I don't think we would!

We might say: "Oh! I've never seen this type of dance before!" or "While I've seen this particular ballet numerous times, I've never seen these dancers dancing it before" but each time we recognize the dance as what it is---dancing.

That's because while each unique experience of dance may be different, they all share the same basic intelligible structure that allows us to recognize it as dance!

This intelligible structure (or "form" if you want to be Platonic), of course, can be revealed in myriad ways, but all they share in the same structure. As psyche says:

therefore even though every dance may be different the experience of dance may be the same

Plato might have gotten a lot wrong, but I think it's safe to say he got this much right!

After all, you don't find yourself walking into a furniture store and going: "Huh?! these aren't tables!" do you, Zoid? :lol:

And if we had this much trouble understanding each other within a single language, how is it at all possible that we are able to learn other languages and communicate with other people?

Language is certainly a limited tool, and we shouldn't invest it with too many imagined powers---but we shouldn't shun it, either! If things were really this uncertain, communication would be impossible! We wouldn't have any kind of society, civilization, or technology, and we wouldn't be able to have this conversation over the internet if things were really so uncertain! Our ancestors wouldn't even be able to coordinate a simple mammoth hunt if they couldn't be reasonably sure they could understand each other! :blink:

Granted, the examples of "table" and "dance" are pretty basic! I will definitely grant you that when it comes to things like "beauty", "truth", "God", etc., we can't necessarily be sure we're talking about the same thing!

That's why philosophers can be so anal about definitions---they want to make sure they're on the same page! :lol:

[Zoid]

What do you mean by "page"?

:D