Two Kinds of Buddhist Interdependence: Dependent Origination and Indra's Net
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- Interdependence is one of the hallmarks of Buddhist dharma. We will look at how ideas of interdependence changed, and how ideas about dependent origination changed to those more in line with the later metaphor of Indra's net. We will also consider how these relate to Buddhist notions of ecology.
☸️ Free mini-course at the Online Dharma Institute: onlinedharma.org.
🧡 If you find this material useful, check out my Patreon page and get fun benefits like exclusive behind-the-scenes videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: / dougsseculardharma
🧡 You can also make donations through: paypal.me/doug...
Facebook: / onlinedharmainstitute
Twitter: / dougsdharma
✅ Video mentioned:
Dependent Origination: • What is Dependent Orig...
✅ Some references:
Anālayo, Mindfully Facing Climate Change (2019) www.buddhismus...
Lambert Schmithausen, “The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ecological Ethics”, in Journal of Buddhist Ethics, Vol. 4, 1997. pdfs.semantics...
On Assaji: www.themindingc...
On Buddhism and the Vedas: www.buddhisma2...
On Fa Tsang: www.iep.utm.ed...
Thomas Cleary, The Flower Ornament Scripture (Shambhala, 1993). amzn.to/2wuHni8
Garma C.C. Chang, The Buddhist Teaching of Totality (Penn State, 1971). amzn.to/34jL6eT
✅ Suttas mentioned:
suttacentral.n...
suttacentral.n...
Pictures courtesy of Pixabay.
❤️ Thanks to Patrons:
Anonymous (1)
Matthew Smith
Kathy Voldstad
Bob Snead
JC
Pritom Phookun
Shantha Wengappuli
poikkiki
jonitomato
Margo
Karma_CAC
Johan Thelander
Michael Roe
Jorge Seguel
Christopher Apostolof
GailJM
Steven Kopp
Brett Merritt
David Bell
T Pham
VCR
#onlinedharmainstitute #buddhism #earlybuddhism #secularbuddhism
Disclaimer: Amazon links are affiliate links where I will earn a very small commission on purchases you make, at no additional cost to you. This goes a tiny way towards defraying the costs of making these videos. Thank you!
Consider joining us on Patreon if you enjoy these videos, and get fun benefits like exclusive behind-the-scenes videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma
An excellent and very challenging video. Indra's net is a pretty trippy idea, but it does make sense to me. Also, always love Fazang and Huayan Buddhism, though I think his Rafter Dialogue is easier to follow than the Golden Lion.
As far as the ecology part is concerned, the move from nondual metaphysics to ethics to action can be a difficult journey to chart. I tend to think that it is for that reason that Mahayana tends to emphasize compassion and wisdom as core virtues to perfect. There may not be a hard line separating "good" and "bad", as things simply are what they are, but we can recognize the unnecessary suffering of others and feel naturally inclined to remedy it if we are reasonably able to do so.
Yes, well said Dialask. Thanks! 🙏
Indras Net is a fair representation of the multiverse and an excellent metaphor for other dimensions of existence. Boundless infinitude of all possibility and potential, all ideals become manifest and mirrored within each other. Micro and macro inter-are, non dual. This is fact. This is profound insight not to be disregarded because it doesn't fit nilihistic "Buddhism". Chittamatra-yogacara and it's evolution into Hua Yen has the correct understanding where mind/consciousness as the substrata of the universe giving shape to all illusory and impermanent matter. Also, The temple of Borobudur in Java displays excerpts from the Avatamsaka sutra. This Sutra was well known in early days of Buddhisim 1C.E for it to have been popular by the time of Borobudur'd construction. Western Scholars do not get to redefine or negate the teachings of buddhism so that it fits into the sterile nihilism that is "western buddhism" a degenerate amalgamation for atheists who want a religion.
Like the last of your statement about Atheists wanting a religion. You sound like a dogmatic proponent of any religion. Actually Buddhism isn’t a religion in the traditional sense. Also if there is “one way” why are there so many derivations of Buddhism or any other religion? I view this as discussion delving into Buddhist psychology or even a type of Western Phenomenology. If that interpretation threatens the “purity” of Buddhism then so be it! I didn’t know a comparative view of religion was so threatening to the purity of dogmatic belief!
@@alexhamilton2871And the Lord saw those people who were looking for a boat, looking for a raft, and binding together a raft of reeds to get to the other side. And seeing their intentions, he uttered this verse on the spot:
'When they want to cross the sea, the lake or pond,People make a bridge or raft - the wise have crossed already.
-Mahaparinibbana Sutta 1.34
@@alexhamilton2871And the Lord saw those people who were looking for a boat, looking for a raft, and binding together a raft of reeds to get to the other side. And seeing their intentions, he uttered this verse on the spot:
'When they want to cross the sea, the lake or pond,People make a bridge or raft - the wise have crossed already.
-Mahaparinibbana Sutta
I think they're very different. Buddhism does say anything about other realities.
The manner in which all dharmas interpenetrate is like an imperial net of celestial jewels extending in all directions infinitely, without limit. … As for the imperial net of heavenly jewels, it is known as Indra’s Net, a net which is made entirely of jewels. Because of the clarity of the jewels, they are all reflected in and enter into each other, ad infinitum. Within each jewel, simultaneously, is reflected the whole net. Ultimately, nothing comes or goes. If we now turn to the southwest, we can pick one particular jewel and examine it closely. This individual jewel can immediately reflect the image of every other jewel.
As is the case with this jewel, this is furthermore the case with all the rest of the jewels-each and every jewel simultaneously and immediately reflects each and every other jewel, ad infinitum. The image of each of these limitless jewels is within one jewel, appearing brilliantly. None of the other jewels interfere with this. When one sits within one jewel, one is simultaneously sitting in all the infinite jewels in all ten directions. How is this so? Because within each jewel are present all jewels. If all jewels are present within each jewel, it is also the case that if you sit in one jewel you sit in all jewels at the same time. The inverse is also understood in the same way. Just as one goes into one jewel and thus enters every other jewel while never leaving this one jewel, so too one enters any jewel while never leaving this particular jewel.
"Huayan texts"
If untold buddha-lands are reduced to atoms,In one atom are untold lands,And as in one,So in each.The atoms to which these buddha-lands are reduced in an instant are unspeakable,And so are the atoms of continuous reduction moment to momentGoing on for untold eons;These atoms contain lands unspeakably many,And the atoms in these lands are even harder to tell of.
"Avatamsaka Sutra"
In each of the lion's eyes, in its ears, limbs, and so forth, down to each and every single hair, there is a golden lion. All the lions embraced by each and every hair simultaneously and instantaneously enter into one single hair. Thus, in each and every hair there are an infinite number of lions... The progression is infinite, like the jewels of Celestial Lord Indra's Net: a realm-embracing-realm ad infinitum is thus established, and is called the realm of Indra's Net.
The Huayan Patriarch Fazang (643-712) used the golden statue of a lion to demonstrate the Huayan vision of interpenetration to empress Wu:
From japan?
This channel is a gem
Very kind of you to say SemNikit, thanks!
Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.
Chief Seattle 🙏🏼
🙏
The idea of micro-macro interdependence reflecting itself in its infinite scale seems to be somewhat similar to fractal geometry, where everything is self-similar but only vary in scale.
So intriguing how everything seems to echo everything else. I can’t explain it, but my gut says that we are all going back to the source someday, somehow ❤
Yes it's very similar to ideas in fractal geometry.
its just saying that anything implies everything
You got it man. If you study cosmology, biology, physics whatever you will connect the dots and see all is one if you can overcome limited/fragmented thinking. Not only are we going back to the same source one day; we are the one source.
Thank you! This was super helpful and easy to understand. I really enjoy watching your videos!
You're very welcome Claire, thanks for the comment!
Very clear. Thanks Doug.
The net is fractal in a sense
Infinite(ly repeating) & the whole reflected in each subunit.
Yes that's one way to look at it, Michael.
I'd love to have a deeper explanation of the 12 chains of dependent origination
I have a video on that, which should be linked in the show notes: ua-cam.com/video/A2cDhGVgb9A/v-deo.html
Thank you Sir. The idea of Indra's net can be traced to even erlier text, like in Atharva Veda.
Yes thanks, I recall reading about that somewhere, but that it had a different meaning. Do you have a reference?
Thank you Doug!
Very welcome Graham!
An excellent talk. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it Nancy!
My Dzogchen teacher refers to the "dharmakaya mandala" I think this is a similar concept also.
Interesting, I'm not familiar with that concept.
Great explanation. Helped me a lot. Thank you.
Glad it helped Cornelius, you're very welcome!
Hey Doug, could you share your insights on how one should practice the skill of letting go, forgiveness, practising loving kindness in the context of relationships. How to practise letting go of emotions of possessiveness, anger, jealousy and control. I know you'd previously made a video on letting go of control, but one focused on these emotions one experiences in romantic relationships would be very helpful.
I have a playlist on non-attachment, and one of the videos there deals with non-attachment to those closest to us. ua-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRiCb2Jxe488IqJQvT8uARjm.html
you let go because theres nothing to hold onto.
all aggregates are empty
Translation of Avatamsaka Sutra dates to 2nd c. CE, implying that the parts from which it is composed are earlier than that. Atharva Veda seems by most estimates to pre-date Sakyamuni, it does call Indra's net the whole world, as well as employ the use in which it is the heavens tied down at the four directions. Since the early Buddhists, at least the Ashoka era Buddhists were versed in medicine and Atharva is considered the origin of Ayurveda, it's hard to believe there was no familiarity with this veda, more a feeling that Buddha does not mention it for some other reason.
But absolutely, the dependent origination thesis and the Mayajala/Indrajala thesis are two very different things. You do mention people having experience of the 'fractal' nature of the latter in meditation, I have had this only once, when it was over, I recalled a professor of mine, who used to like to intone, "Space. --- Space, --- There is a lot of Space in Hilbert Space," and couldn't stop having his voice play that back in my head the whole day.
One other thing, David Mumford (mathematician) wrote a book called Indra's Pearls, which contains a lot about recursive geometry and fractals. Mentioning it because the illustrations are fantastic. The boundaries of some sets (Julia sets) when they are fractal are interconnected in a way that resembles Fazang was reputed to have described it.
🙏😊
I think of Indra's net as a model for all of reality but without the gems. And infinity as an inexhaustible potential, with Indra's net starting from a single relation and then expanding forever (infinity can never be reached). This produces the arrow and movement of time, and impermanence as an ever ongoing change, expansion and evolution yet the past net is actually permanent. And since the net only contains relations that's the emptiness, and all relations connected to each other, that's the interdependence. So all space, energy and matter are this net. All objects are "made" of only the relations in the net, including thoughts and feelings. Consciousness is a state where the net becomes self-aware from individual viewpoints within the net such as through us humans. The start of the net is now, so all the past is only in the now.
Hi there. Do you by chance use Quora? If so there’s a space devoted entirely to Buddhism and it would really be Great if you would follow it and answer questions regarding Buddhism. You’ll be able to help a lot of People and it would really mean a lot. May the Triple Gem Bless you! Have a Nice day!
Thanks Duv, I do look at Quora sometimes, but my hands are pretty full with the stuff here! 🙂
In 2016 my bf passed. A few month later his spirit appeared in my living room, then disappeared. I felt the need to meditate.
When I did so, energy rushed from my spine- I couldn't support my neck. Then a blue netting dropped over my body.
Where the net intersected, were crystals. I've recently discovered this is Indra's Net...but it's a metaphor??
Indra's Net is intended to be a metaphor for the interrelatedness of all things, yes.
@@DougsDharma how did I see a metaphor with no frame of reference as to what it could be? I've only just learned of Indra's Net this Christmas - yet it covered my whole body in 2016. I do not mean I saw it with my "minds eye" either. I quite literally saw it with my own two eyes.
This was always something that had just happened to me - something without explanation. A story to share with those who would listen.
Now, a part of my experience has a name. One in which all sources, call a "metaphor". 😞😭
@@bootzbaby55 It may or may not have been the Indra's net. However, the unconscious mind seems to communicate in symbols and metaphors. We could extrapolate that Reality itself, if it communicated with us, would also communicate using symbols and metaphors...
Repeating patterns contained in other repeating patterns regardless of scale... sounds a lot fractals. There is a fractal consciousness theory that also sounds similar to this.
Yes, it is reminiscent of fractals, a lot of recursion.
Great video, thank you!
You’re very welcome Dawid!
Hi, Doug. There might be a (partial) parallel in yet another theme in India: wiśwarūpa ('omni-form'). This form contains multiple forms inside, like the many reflections in one jewel of Indra's Net. The R̥g-weda already mentions the Cosmic Being, Puruṣa, radiating with thousands of heads, eyes and feet on his exterior and containing, in his interior, the forms that materialise in the world; and creation is an act of giving birth.
In the Hariwaṁśa, Wiṣṇu in his dwarf awatāra takes a wiśwarūpa transformation, in which the form reflects cosmic
vastness and contains in his body the numerous deities and forms of the universe.
In the Great Miracle at Śrāwastī as described in the Sanskrit Prātihārya-sūtra I see a parallel too. In one of the feats witnessed by the attending crowd, the Buddha multiplies his body to an innumerable quantity, filling the air in all directions. In the Saddharma-puṇḍarīka-sūtra, the Buddha reveals the presence of as many lands in the cosmos as there are grains of sand in five hundred countless millions of myriads of Gaṅgā rivers. Each land has its own buddha, who is surrounded by countless myriads of bodhisattwas.
These images of 'explosion of forms' give me the same kind of psychedelic effect that Indra's Net does. While Wiṣṇu Wiśwarūpa is described in the Bhagawad-gītā with an emphasis on body parts -“many arms, eyes, bellies, mouths”-, both the Hindu and Buddhist visions release a feeling of overwhelming and endless repetition, with no end, no beginning, no middle.
Thanks!
My pleasure
🙏👍😔🥰🌍🌌. Respect your wisdom.
🙏😊
The 'problem' of mortal relativity is solved by the two truths doctrine. Yes, on the 'ultimate' level morality is *(possibly!)* all relative, even in the Therevada canon there are Arhats who commit suicide and do other normally unskillful things and the Buddha isn't bothered by it (even though in some cases Sariputra and Mahamogallana are.) On the conventional level though, which is also truth, we know that our bodies and the bodies of other beings are conditioned by the natural environment so it's only reasonable as Buddhists to take actions that benefit the well-being of sentient beings rather than harm them.
Caveats:
1. Madhyamaka rejects the existence of an 'ultimate' reality, but in this case it refers to the knowledge of the true nature of dharmas as empty.
2. Tathagatagarbha sutras and later Mahayana seem to not regard morality as relative. As all dharmas have as their root the Tathagatagarbha, destruction of any dharma is unskillful. Even later, Japanese Tendai regarded good and evil as nondual in the ultimate reality due to the doctrine of original enlightenment. This could probably be its own video, it's a complex issue. Regardless, morality on the conventual level is not relative. Sila was and is very important to Mahayana.
Yes, for sure sila is very important in the Mahāyāna. Thanks for that. 🙏
Is there any approximations on the similarities of Indra's net and the brains functions, in which each neurons reflects-transmits, therefore building the while brain?
I'm not sure about that one. You wouldn't want to say that each neuron reflects all the other ones, it just reacts to inputs by producing its own outputs, which is a somewhat simpler thing.
Is Indra's net a Mahayana concept?
The Avataṃsaka Sūtra is in the Mahāyāna tradition.
Indra's net is started as a vedic concept. It was said to be one of the weapons of the king of God's, Indra
Athrava Veda, verse 8.8.6. says:
"Vast indeed is the tactical net of great Indra, mighty of action and tempestuous of great speed. By that net, O Indra, pounce upon all the enemies so that none of the enemies may escape the arrest and punishment."
Athrava Veda, verse 8.8.8. says:
"This great world is the power net of mighty Indra, greater than the great. By that Indra-net of boundless reach, I hold all those enemies with the dark cover of vision, mind and senses."
🙏🏽
🙏😊
Science is closely related to budhhism and gautam budhha's teachings
Yes Rahul, many of his broadest conclusions are compatible with science.
He was born in Nepal❤️
For me The Gautam Buddha is the greatest scientist of all the time..
Fantasmagoria. Perfect idea.
Yes it certainly can be! 😀
Indra's net is started as a vedic concept. It was said to be one of the weapons of the King of Gods, Indra
Athrava Veda, verse 8.8.6. says:
"Vast indeed is the tactical net of great Indra, mighty of action and tempestuous of great speed. By that net, O Indra, pounce upon all the enemies so that none of the enemies may escape the arrest and punishment."
Athrava Veda, verse 8.8.8. says:
"This great world is the power net of mighty Indra, greater than the great. By that Indra-net of boundless reach, I hold all those enemies with the dark cover of vision, mind and senses."
Ah, thanks for the citations Venom. 🙏
No evidence of written vedic text on indra net, before buddhism, only in latter times added in vedas when text got written...
@@tandinpenjor4580 It was present in the Vedas, but very few hymns have references to it, and the concept wasn't much developed. It wasn't a metaphor for the interconnection of actions in this world. The Buddhist further developed and improved it.
@@jamesloganhowlettwolverine1553there’s no evidence of Vedas during Buddhas period. Vedas and Vedanta are based on “atma Gyan” meanwhile Buddha dismissed Atma with No-self ( depend origin ). Buddhas theories dismantles the concept of God or creator. In Hindusim you’ve gods of all type
@@tandinpenjor4580 vedas aren't adulterated after Buddhism. All of the hymms in vedas cannot be younger than Buddhism due to its linguistical properties
It continues on and on......is this the same as the wheel of the samsara?
Well it's a little different of an idea, though it's related. Samsara involves the idea that there is no permanence within experience.
Indras net is the same as quantum entanglement?
They are superficially similar but deep down completely different.
@@DougsDharma hmm
I appreciate your videos very much Doug, but I have to admit I'm much more interested in the present than the past. And your own perspective seems far more relatable to me, than historical narrative. Keep up the good work though!
Thanks for the comment Geoff. I find history fascinating, so it's part of my appreciation of the dharma. That said, I'll be doing both kinds of approaches!
From the way I understand interdependent origination, time is irrelevant because time does not exist and so there are no past events that give rise to what we would call of 'other events' The cause is the effect and there is no time progression because the effect that is arisen by the cause is happening at the same time, otherwise it would not exist because a past event does not exist and so cannot create a 'change', what changes is the present which is influenced by the present conditions that give rise to it. The belief that times exists creates an illusion of cause and effect by things appearing to happen in linear progression.
So in this way there is no difference between indras net and pratityasamutpada. In the buddha's words: 'this arises, that becomes'
Sure, this is one way to interpret it, but the historical question is where this interpretation originated. It does not go back to the early texts: the Buddha never talks as though time does not exist. "This arises, that becomes" implies temporal passage. First this, then that. First the sense doors, then pleasant experience, then attachment, then dukkha.
@@DougsDharma This view is implied right from the beginning and told explicitly by Nagarjuna: Time does not exist; a thing (bhava) or its substance (bhavasvabhdva) and time (kala) are relative to or dependent upon one another. two things cannot be related unless they are coexistent. Hence, if present and future are held to be contingently related to the past, then both present and future should be in the past. Otherwise they cannot be contingently related. On the other hand, present and future could not exist without being contingent on the past. Hence, according to Nagarjuna, there is no justification for the recognition of a past, present, and future time, which were comparable to such concepts as as (uttamadhamamadhyama), or arising, enduring, and passing away (utpadasthitibhanga).
'This arises, that becomes' does not imply temporal passage, because you don't get first 'this' and then 'that', because they arise together, otherwise it would be dualistic and illogical. In the same way you can't have a 'back' without a 'front'. you only know 'that' in relation to 'this'.
Yes, this may well be in Nāgārjuna, but it is not in the early texts. (That said, one has to be careful not to overinterpret Nāgārjuna. He isn't arguing for complete nonexistence, since that would imply nihilism. He is arguing against the *absolute* time of the Sarvāstivādins).
@@DougsDharma In the same way Nagarjuna states things that are not stated in the early texts, does that make his claims of unmentioned things untrue? I don't think so.
he seems to be arguing against the 'realness' of time in the same way as he argues against svabhava. Not nihilism, just neither existence nor non existence, but certainly not 'real'; and as it's not 'real' it goes back to refuting the idea of 'this' arising before 'that'.
Thanks
Nagarjuna is trying to describe the absolute Truth, which can only ever be approximated by words. No matter how sophisticated, words are just metaphors.
From a certain level of Buddhist realization time experientially appears to be an illusion. Below that level of realization time appears to be real. The metaphor of planting seeds to get future results is extremely functional for people who are experientially "embedded" in time. Higher level metaphors that are closer to the absolute Truth have questionable usefulness for such people. Intellectual musings regarding absolute Truth metaphors have many caveats.
Look, ALGO gives me video from 3 years ago.
Great!
indras net or indrajal is like maya or illusiion ,illiusion of this world is true
It can be thought of as a great illusion, conventional reality.
This is for people who are confused by this video about two kinds of Dependent Origination.
As a matter of fact, there is no two but only one dependent origination; there's is no comparison or another dependent origination and if there is than that's a corruption or distortion of Buddhism. Paticcasamuppada is not a theory, doctrine or philosophy and most importantly it's not the invention or creation of Buddha but it's the law of nature called the law of Causality. Hence, there cannot be two laws of causality----- just like there cannot be two laws of gravity. Paticcasammupada is very crucial to Buddhism without understanding it thoroughly and deeply one cannot reach Nirvana. As Buddha said, whoever sees Dependent Origination sees the Dharma, whoever sees the Dharma sees Me.
Further, Tipitaka is Buddha Vacana (teachings or words) hence Tipitaka is Buddhism. Avatamka sutta is not found in Tipitaka therefore it's not Buddha's teachings and if it's not Buddha's teachings than it's a distortion or corruption of Buddhism.
Also it's important to bear in mind that "There's nothing to change, there's nothing to add, there's nothing to delete; Buddha's teachings is sufficient & complete." However, nothing is permanent even Buddha's teachings according to the law of impermanence but only a Samma-SumBuddha can change, add or delete the teachings of another Samma-SumBuddha; a Buddha, Boddisattva , Arhant, saint or a Deva cannot change the teachings of Samma-SumBuddha.
Thanks for your thoughts Sunshine.
Practicaly speaking every thing is dependent except you get arahantship. It is very clearly observe once anyone on the path of arahantha(aharat). In the state you have the capability to choose the states. Thats why budha is having great psychologycal power. Other examples by Padmasambhava, unimagible experimental truths.
Indra net is not belivable. I have not read it but many of these are just written to contradict the budhist philosophy. They are not beliavable or not observable by any persons known in history.
Thanks for your thoughts Mana.
Vedic religionn follower or u can. Say scholar are knowns as brahmin .
But vedic knowledge is knowledge of rishi muni thousand of year before any religionn ....
By saying it brahmin vedism u want to show it as inferior...
❓This is how it's called within scholarly circles, it has nothing to do with comparing it to any other religion or belief system.
@@DougsDharma The word Dharma itself is comes from vedic sanskrit...