Can you see Dependent Origination instantly at this (thought) moment?

[justindesilva]

The idea that it can be "seen" will likely presuppose that it is an observable phenomena in the classic sense: that it appears directly in some stream of thinking. The dependency in DO/PS is implied, it can be known by virtue of the nature of arisen phenomena. In other words, the relationship/dependency endures as long as ignorance remains (avijjā paccayā sankhārā being the most fundamental of all the pairs of PS/DO). Dependency of that sort does not appear directly in a stream of thoughts: the subtle but profound significance implied with the presence of that stream - any stream, thinking in general, or even just presence in general - is one dependent upon ignorance and vice versa, i.e. that it is "my" stream. That is what matters in the context of DO/PS. Moments are beside this point.

Can we see a reaction of chemicals that takes place in a test tube except for the color changes and heat. So are human beings. Human beings are a lot who are undergoing chemical and physical changes with consciousness , another form of cosmic energy.
The consciousness involved has manipulations through morals of the being for a wholesome or unwholesome nature responsible for stress ( dukka) .
Lord budda explained this psycho physico nature of existence as the movement of natural phenomena of energies that continue as samsara. That is why paticca samuppada cannot be seen as it is a process of conditioning of rupa ( matter) with energies of the mind ( nama) conditioned by consciouness ( another form of universal energy as vingnana).
In another form it is a manifestaion of energies , with an unseen reaction.

[SarathW]

Hi Justine
Agree.
That is why Retro qualifies the question to include thoughts observation in Vipassana sense.
For instance, can you see how thought arise and perishes in the empirical sense?

[SkillfulA]

I have experienced states where the perceiver and the perceived is clearly felt to be two different things/separated. On the other hand I have also experienced states where everything is one, no difference and separation between perceiver and perceived is perceived, same nature, the mind boundless, perception boundless.

I think I know what you are referring to and it would seem the significance and meaning of it depends on the intention towards experience.

In experience, there is the quality of a certain thing as being the subject opposed to an object, yet in a certain sense is that very subject which too has appeared (if it didn't then the distinction would not be possible). So it would seem that the subject has the quality to both appear and be the reason for appearance. But in order for a thing to be deemed the subject (the "I"), it should primarily (perhaps fully) be that thing doing the perceiving of things, not be there completely among the things themselves. In other words, that distinction between subject and object does not take into account the direction towards that which has appeared. It is that direction itself which always remains outside of the appearance, but without it appearance wouldn't be. Nevertheless there is the intention to draw it out as a tangible appearance. That intention is simply the belief that the direction can be pushed out into the field to be seen, that it can be transferred or brought into the realm of appearance, failing to take into account that no matter what the appearance is, all appearance comes with the direction that does not appear, it is merely implied. This, like any implication, is knowing that a thing is there without actually seeing it. That direction is therefore a thing, but not just any thing.

I think it is safe to say that there is not problem with that direction being known in this way. Clearly it is there. The problem arises by assuming its nature: that it belongs to a subject, that it is the subject. Of course that assumption is negatively present, for it is even more obscure than that directionality in terms of not having that nature to appear positively. But that negativity takes on the quality of something positive. Why? Because we are accepting of its elusive nature that too is implied...by ignorance: whether or not it is accepted, denied, both accepted and denied or neither accepted nor denied the subject, that subject has a valid position in experience.

A determination [sankhara] is essentially negative—'Omnis determinatio est negatio' said Spinoza --, and a negative, a negation, only exists as a denial of something positive. The positive thing's existence is asserted by the negative in the very act of denying it...and its essence (or nature) is defined by the negative in stating what it is not... A negative thus determines both the existence and the essence of a positive. -Notes on Dhamma, A Note on PS

my emphasis

That is why it seems as though both subject and object appear and that both are tangible. There will always be that aspect of subject, but the arahat has cut off the significance of it being the reason for the appearance of things. For the arahat it is that thing that used to point to "I" but now points to nothing.

You have lost me in the first paragraph once you started talking about "direction". No clue what you mean with that word.

I usually can't really follow Nanavira s line of thought.

Second paragraph made a bit more sense to me means I could detect a certain statement which certain Thai teachers make. They say paraphrased that the knower/the subject/the citta/the mind is the seat of avicca. First you practice very hard to develop the mind (the boat) , later you have to let go of him (once you reach the secure shore).

[SkillfulA]

Greetings xofz,

Why can't we change our vote?

It's a checkbox when you create a poll... it's either checked, and re-voting can happen... or it's not.

How about this... I didn't vote in this poll because I disagreed with the premise and definitions... maybe PM your "new vote" to me and I'll vote that. It should at least cancel out your initial vote...

Metta,
Paul.

Like in YouTube you can like a video but if you change your mind, which is a normal thing which can happen, you can unclick it again and click dislike.
I also would like to change my vote. Would be welcomed and useful if you or your website developer could implement the ability to change ones vote aka mind.

[Noahs ark]

I have experienced states where the perceiver and the perceived is clearly felt to be two different things/separated. On the other hand I have also experienced states where everything is one, no difference and separation between perceiver and perceived is perceived, same nature, the mind boundless, perception boundless.

I think I know what you are referring to and it would seem the significance and meaning of it depends on the intention towards experience.

In experience, there is the quality of a certain thing as being the subject opposed to an object, yet in a certain sense is that very subject which too has appeared (if it didn't then the distinction would not be possible). So it would seem that the subject has the quality to both appear and be the reason for appearance. But in order for a thing to be deemed the subject (the "I"), it should primarily (perhaps fully) be that thing doing the perceiving of things, not be there completely among the things themselves. In other words, that distinction between subject and object does not take into account the direction towards that which has appeared. It is that direction itself which always remains outside of the appearance, but without it appearance wouldn't be. Nevertheless there is the intention to draw it out as a tangible appearance. That intention is simply the belief that the direction can be pushed out into the field to be seen, that it can be transferred or brought into the realm of appearance, failing to take into account that no matter what the appearance is, all appearance comes with the direction that does not appear, it is merely implied. This, like any implication, is knowing that a thing is there without actually seeing it. That direction is therefore a thing, but not just any thing.

I think it is safe to say that there is not problem with that direction being known in this way. Clearly it is there. The problem arises by assuming its nature: that it belongs to a subject, that it is the subject. Of course that assumption is negatively present, for it is even more obscure than that directionality in terms of not having that nature to appear positively. But that negativity takes on the quality of something positive. Why? Because we are accepting of its elusive nature that too is implied...by ignorance: whether or not it is accepted, denied, both accepted and denied or neither accepted nor denied the subject, that subject has a valid position in experience.

A determination [sankhara] is essentially negative—'Omnis determinatio est negatio' said Spinoza --, and a negative, a negation, only exists as a denial of something positive. The positive thing's existence is asserted by the negative in the very act of denying it...and its essence (or nature) is defined by the negative in stating what it is not... A negative thus determines both the existence and the essence of a positive. -Notes on Dhamma, A Note on PS

my emphasis

That is why it seems as though both subject and object appear and that both are tangible. There will always be that aspect of subject, but the arahat has cut off the significance of it being the reason for the appearance of things. For the arahat it is that thing that used to point to "I" but now points to nothing.

You have lost me in the first paragraph once you started talking about "direction". No clue what you mean with that word.

I think what SDC means by 'direction' is yoniso manasikara.