Interconnected

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Interconnected

Post by Spiny Norman »

pegembara wrote:Interbeing is somewhat related to iddapacayata (conditionality). But instead of using it in the classical DO formulation, it is applied to other things. It is still Dhamma. I am not too familiar with TNH's teachings but I don't see him saying that I am everything, I am everywhere, only that all things exist due to causes. The corollary is when the causes aren't there they ceased.
Yes, that's how I understand it. Interbeing is an "outwards-looking" application of conditionality.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Interconnected

Post by chownah »

Outward relative to what?
chownah
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Interconnected

Post by tiltbillings »

daverupa wrote:
In Analayo's Satipatthana, back in section XIV.4 nibbana: neither all-embracing unity nor annihilation & starting on page 262, there is some discussion about 'experiences of oneness' and 'unity' and how these experiences, not unknown to the early Buddhists, were carefully distinguished by the Buddha from nibbana.
Thanks. The passage looked familiar.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Samma
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Interconnected

Post by Samma »

Some comments from:
http://ask.metafilter.com/174977/Help-m ... sciousness
"This can only be if that also exists", etc. refers to the Buddhist doctrine of pratityasamutpada, translated as "dependent origination", "dependent co-arising", "conditioned genesis", etc. (e.g. here). It can be used to mean causation in general (the fact that every event has a cause), but it almost always means a specific causal chain of 12 phenomena that supposedly explains how suffering (dukkha) arises and is sustained. The actual list of 12 things doesn't seem to make much make sense, and experts differ on how to interpret it.

Anyway, I think it would be a stretch to use this as justification for a claim that everything in the universe is "interconnected" in some way, since it only says that a few specific mental phenomena are interconnected in a few specific ways. If it's being used to refer to causality in general...well, it's just wrong that everything in the universe is causally related to everything else (in fact, relativity makes that impossible).

Another place where "interconnectedness" comes up is the ontology of the Yogacara school of Mahayana Buddhism, which forms a big part of the philosophical basis of Zen. Basically, it holds that the only thing that really exists (in a technical sense) is some kind of "universal mind" or consciousness, which we mistakenly think is divided up into all the various objects of the universe. (By "really exists" they mean something very specific: not dependent on a cause, and not reducible to smaller parts. So everyday things still exist in the ordinary sense, even though, strictly speaking, there is inly universal mind.) As esoteric as this doctrine sounds, Zen Buddhists tend to use it as a way to claim that all people and things are interconnected in a way so concrete that we can all intuitively realize it if we work hard at meditation. Thich Nhat Hanh refers to this unity as "interbeing" and even uses it to justify his ethical positions (if we're not really independent beings, we shouldn't want to hurt each other).
It may be important to note that Thich Nhat Hanh is a Zen Buddhist, and Zen is said to have been heavily influenced by philosophical Taoism (which holds a lot of similar beliefs about interconnectedness, unity, and the relative nature of reality).
Thich Nhat Hanh: Dependant Co-arising & Inter-Being:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5460
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Interconnected

Post by beeblebrox »

Hi Samma,

That quote seems to have some assumptions, or some misunderstanding in it.

Further down in that discussion, there is another quote from Thich Nhat Hanh:
"What is non-self, Anatta (Pali)? It means impermanence. If things are impermanent, they don't remain the same things forever. You of this moment are no longer you of a minute ago. There is no permanent entity within us, there is only a stream of being. There is always a lot of input and output. The input and the output happen in every second, and we should learn how to look at life as streams of being, and not as separate entities. This is a very profound teaching of the Buddha. For instance, looking into a flower, you can see that the flower is made of many elements that we can call non-flower elements. When you touch the flower, you touch the cloud. You cannot remove the cloud from the flower, because if you could remove the cloud from the flower, the flower would collapse right away. You don't have to be a poet in order to see a cloud floating in the flower, but you know very well that without the clouds there would be no rain and no water for the flower to grow. So cloud is part of flower, and if you send the element cloud back to the sky, there will be no flower. Cloud is a non-flower element. And the sunshine…you can touch the sunshine here. If you send back the element sunshine, the flower will vanish. And sunshine is another non-flower element. And earth, and gardener…if you continue, you will see a multitude of non-flower elements in the flower. In fact, a flower is made only with non-flower elements. It does not have a separate self.
His metaphor of how "the flower is only made up of non-flower elements," is his description of anatta. When you look at the "self," you will see that it's made up entirely of things which can't be described as the self. He even sometimes says that the "Buddhism" is only made up of "non-Buddhist" elements.

:anjali:
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Interconnected

Post by chownah »

For me the idea of interconnectedness is an expression of a doctrine of self. For me, interconnectedness conjures up images of lots of little pieces with some kind of fasteners binding together......lots of selves being held together by lots of other selves. For me it seems better to use a word more like continuum.
chownah
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Interconnected

Post by tiltbillings »

chownah wrote:For me the idea of interconnectedness is an expression of a doctrine of self. For me, interconnectedness conjures up images of lots of little pieces with some kind of fasteners binding together......lots of selves being held together by lots of other selves. For me it seems better to use a word more like continuum.
chownah
It would depend upon the context of how it is understood.

"As I am, so are others;
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed.
Sn 705

Certainly here the Buddha is not talking about some "doctrine of self" self, nor would it be so, I would surmise, of Buddhadasa or Thich Nhat Hahn.

SN 55.7 wrote:"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones reflects thus: 'I love life and don't love death. I love happiness and abhor pain. Now if I — loving life and not loving death, loving happiness and abhorring pain — were to be killed, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to kill another who loves life and doesn't love death, who loves happiness and abhors pain, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?' Reflecting in this way, he refrains from taking life, gets others to refrain from taking life, and speaks in praise of refraining from taking life. In this way his bodily behavior is pure in three ways.

"Furthermore, he reflects thus: 'If someone, by way of theft, were to take from me what I haven't given, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me... If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me... If someone were to damage my well-being with a lie, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me... If someone were to divide me from my friends with divisive speech, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me... If someone were to address me with harsh speech, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me... If someone were to address me with idle chatter, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to address another with idle chatter, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?' Reflecting in this way, he refrains from idle chatter, gets others to refrain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of refraining from idle chatter. In this way his verbal behavior is pure in three ways."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/stream2.html
— SN 55.7
"'I shall protect myself,' in that way the foundations of mindfulness should be practiced. 'I shall protect others,' in that way the foundations of mindfulness should be practiced. Protecting oneself one protects others; protecting others one protects oneself. And how does one, in protecting oneself, protect others? By the repeated and frequent practice of meditation. And how does one, in protecting others, protect oneself? By patience and forbearance, by a non-violent and harmless life, by compassion and loving kindness." -- S 52,8
Whether we want it or not, on some level there is an interconnectedness. You are reading this and it is eliciting a response in you. Ooops, interconnected, and no need for a "doctrine of self."
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Interconnected

Post by Spiny Norman »

chownah wrote:Outward relative to what?
chownah
I mean looking out into the world and seeing conditionality - as opposed to looking inwards to see conditionality.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Interconnected

Post by chownah »

Outward or inward relative to what? Inside and outside what?
chownah
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Interconnected

Post by mikenz66 »

Perhaps the Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties (more usually translated "elements") is also relevant, as it speaks of observing internal and external elements:
"'One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? And how is one not negligent of discernment? These are the six properties: the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, the wind property, the space property, the consciousness property.

"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind.
...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
:anjali:
Mike
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Interconnected

Post by beeblebrox »

chownah wrote:Outward or inward relative to what? Inside and outside what?
chownah
Hi Chownah,

Ironically, I think that is the basis for Yogacara, or the vijnanavada school (consciousness only)... I think their practice is to use the mind as the only frame of reference.

So, everything that a person sees, is in his mind. Basically, there is no inside or outside in relative to the mind. How do you get more "interconnected" than this?

:anjali:
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Interconnected

Post by Spiny Norman »

chownah wrote:Outward or inward relative to what? Inside and outside what?
chownah
Attention directed externally to the world v. attention directed internally to mind and body ( eg as per the 4 frames of reference ). Theravada focusses on the latter, some traditions focus more on the former - I think Thich Nhat Hahn's tradition ( Interbeing ) is one of these.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Interconnected

Post by Spiny Norman »

mikenz66 wrote:Perhaps the Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties (more usually translated "elements") is also relevant, as it speaks of observing internal and external elements:
Yes, the distinction between internal and external elements is made in the suttas, but not strongly developed in terms of practice.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Interconnected

Post by mikenz66 »

Spiny Norman wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Perhaps the Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties (more usually translated "elements") is also relevant, as it speaks of observing internal and external elements:
Yes, the distinction between internal and external elements is made in the suttas, but not strongly developed in terms of practice.
No, but lines like this:
Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property.
are very suggestive.

:anjali:
Mike
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Interconnected

Post by chownah »

I agree that lines like this........:

Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property.

.........are very suggestive. To me it suggests that the concept of internal and external is arbitrary, artificial, and perhaps based on illusion. If one reads the Loka suttas and The All Sutta it is difficult to think of the concept of internal vs. external to be anything other than conventional speech.......seems like conventional speech whose purpose is to engage people by using their conventional views of the world and then encourages them to see the arbitrary, artificial, or illusory nature of that view........I guess.......don't know for sure.......
chownah
Locked