Interconnectivity Quote Attributed to the Buddha?

[danieLion]

This quote:

"Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."

is attributed to the Buddha all over the internet, but I can't find it the Canon anywhere, or anything in the Canon it could be inferred from.

Anyone know the source?

DL

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

My guess is that it's a contemporary misinterpretation of what is actually meant by the first nidana in the dependent origination sequence.

Metta,
Retro.

[ground]

"Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."

"exist" does not apply, neither does its negation.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kind regards

[danieLion]

Thanks retro, but what is

..the first nidana..

?

[danieLion]

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kind regards[/quote]
Thanks TMingyur. So if it's not be found in the Canon, it seems to me this demonstrates that this quoted is not only a mis-attribution, but a misunderstanding of the Buddha's Dhamma, e.g., with D.O., as retro suggests.
DL

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Danielion,

As requested, the first nidana relates to...

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.

Or, further to TMingyur's comment, things are only perceived to exist or not-exist based on a foundation of ignorance (avijja)... we're essentially saying the same thing, just with reference to different portions of the same text (see his linked sutta)

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

"Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."

"exist" does not apply, neither does its negation.

Except in a conventional sense.

[danieLion]

Thanks all,
I understand what you've said. What I don't see is how anyone got interconnectivity out of this. I wouldn't be surprised if it involved some Mahayanist interpretation. We might be interconnected (and probably are "quantumly"), but as far as the Canon's concerned the Buddha never taught interconnection.
DL

[tiltbillings]

but as far as the Canon's concerned the Buddha never taught interconnection.

But the Buddha also did not teach that we are stand-alone entities.

[rowboat]

Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes how the concept of interconnectivity is one of the most common misattributions to Buddhism in his essay The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism.

http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhistRomanticism.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tiltbillings]

Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes how the concept of interconnectivity is one of the most common misattributions to Buddhism in his essay The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism.

http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhistRomanticism.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The real question is what is meant by "interconnectivity."

[danieLion]

Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes how the concept of interconnectivity is one of the most common misattributions to Buddhism in his essay The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism.

http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhistRomanticism.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks a lot, Row. Spot on. For instance:

However, Buddhist Romanticism also helps close the gate to areas of the dharma that would challenge people in their hope for an ultimate happiness based on interconnectedness. Traditional dharma calls for renunciation and sacrifice, on the grounds that all interconnectedness is essentially unstable, and any happiness based on this instability is an invitation to suffering. True happiness has to go beyond interdependence and interconnectedness to the unconditioned. In response, the Romantic argument brands these teachings as dualistic: either inessential to the religious experience or inadequate expressions of it. Thus, it concludes, they can safely be ignored. In this way, the gate closes off radical areas of the dharma designed to address levels of suffering remaining even when a sense of wholeness has been mastered.
It also closes off two groups of people who would otherwise benefit greatly from dharma practice.
1) Those who see that interconnectedness won't end the problem of suffering and are looking for a more radical cure.
2) Those from disillusioned and disadvantaged sectors of society, who have less invested in the continuation of modern interconnectedness and have abandoned hope for meaningful reform or happiness within the system.

[danieLion]

Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes how the concept of interconnectivity is one of the most common misattributions to Buddhism in his essay The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism.

http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhistRomanticism.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The real question is what is meant by "interconnectivity."

Indeed. I'd definitely be interested in exploring that. I don't doubt that somehow and in some way sentient beings are connected to each other, and that we've gleaned some good leads from quantum physics/philosophy/psychology. But we're still largely ignorant (avijja?), which brings us back to D.O. But that's just a psychology. It's not an investigation of existence , but an investigation of a particular experience. How does one squeeze inter-D/inter-C out of that?

[danieLion]

but as far as the Canon's concerned the Buddha never taught interconnection.

But the Buddha also did not teach that we are stand-alone entities.

I concur.

[tiltbillings]

However, Buddhist Romanticism also helps close the gate to areas of the dharma that would challenge people in their hope for an ultimate happiness based on interconnectedness. Traditional dharma calls for renunciation and sacrifice, on the grounds that all interconnectedness is essentially unstable, and any happiness based on this instability is an invitation to suffering. True happiness has to go beyond interdependence and interconnectedness to the unconditioned.

Of course, however, we also have to take responsibility, as it were, in terms of our interconnectedness -- that is, the precepts, and the virtues of compassions, lovingkindness, and sympathetic joy are about interconnectedness. And it is in the very unstable nature of "interdependence and interconnectedness" that awakening is possible. While interconnectedness is not an end in itself, it is a "reality" that we have to deal with. And this, of course, is simply stating the obvious.

Also, there is no "the unconditioned" to go to beyond the awakened individual's mind/body freed from greed, hatred, and delusion.