Dependent Arising

[Legion]

I was speaking with a friend of mine the other day who happens to be a Buddhist. And I was curious to know what, if anything, the Buddhists had to say about entailment. So after a few difficulties in communication, I was able to hint at the concept that resides behind the word “entailment” and my friend gave me the phrase “dependent arising” and said this was the Buddhist equivalent.

 

I did a few Google searches and have discovered several interesting things. But I wanted to run a few of these things by those of you here who are familiar with Buddhist philosophy and see what thoughts you might have.

 

From this webpage… http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/dependArising.htm

 

Dependent Arising : Patticca Samuppada - By Bhikkhu Bodhi

 

The Buddha says "One who sees dependent arising sees the Dhamma and one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent arising". The Dhamma is the truth discovered by the Buddha. In his statement the Buddha makes an explicit equation between the profound truth he has realized and dependent arising. Again in describing his own quest for enlightenment, the Buddha says that immediately before his enlightenment, when he was sitting in meditation he began enquiring into the chain of conditioning, seeking the causal origination of suffering, and this inquiry led him to the discovery of dependent arising. So from one angle one can equate the discovery of dependent arising with the attainment of enlightenment itself.

And from the same guy here… http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/conditionality.htm

 

In the abstract form, as a structural principle, Dependent Arising is the most fundamental law underlying every process and all phenomena. This law is beginningless and endless. This structural principle that underlies all phenomena is the law of conditionality. That is, whatever arises, arises in dependence on conditions; everything that exists, exists in dependence on conditions. And without the support of the appropriate conditions, the given phenomena will not be able to remain in existence.

 

This is illustrated by this formula:

 

"When there is this, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When there is not this, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases."

In some sense, I see this concept of dependent arising as residing at the intersection of science and spirituality. What thoughts do you guys have?

[Deva]

I'm not exactly sure what your question is LR. I don't know what the word "entailment" means.

 

"Dependent origination" is a vast, important and deep subject in Buddhism. The Buddha's core insight was that there is no separate individual self because everything is conditioned, relative, constantly changing (and so impermanent) and interdependent. It has very profound spiritual implications. I am not sure about the scientific side of it but there isn't any conflict that I am aware of.

 

I am a novice in Buddhism. I recommend the books of Thich Nhat Hanh. He expresses this core principal better in his writing better than most.

[florduh]

Chaos Theory.

[Legion]

"Dependent origination" is a vast, important and deep subject in Buddhism. The Buddha's core insight was that there is no separate individual self because everything is conditioned, relative, constantly changing (and so impermanent) and interdependent. It has very profound spiritual implications. I am not sure about the scientific side of it but there isn't any conflict that I am aware of.

Thank you Deva. From what I can gather of dependent origination I don’t see any conflict with science either. In fact, they seem to me to resonate quite nicely together. It even seems to me that if someone were to study dependent origination then they would be doing the Buddhist equivalent of science.

 

I am a novice in Buddhism. I recommend the books of Thich Nhat Hanh. He expresses this core principal better in his writing better than most.

Thank you for this too. I may look and see what I can find by the guy. It may be a nice change of pace from what I normally read.

[Deva]

Thank you for this too. I may look and see what I can find by the guy. It may be a nice change of pace from what I normally read.

 

Thich Nhat Hahn has written a lot of books, so getting a bit more specific on the recommendations, I have read and liked "Peace is Every Step," "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching" "The Diamond that Cuts Through Illusion" and "No Death, No Fear." I did not care for his "Living Buddha, Living Christ". The problem with this last book is that I don't think he has a good grasp of Christianity. I also think this is true of other Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama.

[nightflight]

Thich Nhat Hanh is really good. I've read his book No Death No Fear and he uses this very teaching, that all is contingent.

[nightflight]

“Things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves”

Nagarjuna

[Rev R]

hey Legion,

 

Long time no see.

 

Probably the best explaination I can give for Dependent Origination is such:

 

Consider for a moment the action of writing this very post.

 

This action requires:

Me, you, the computer I'm using, the computer you are using, the internet, this website

 

But these factors require other factors.

 

Hence the idea of "emptiness", that all things are devoid of a separate existence but are instead a web of interrelated action.

[Legion]

Hey Rodney,

 

Yes, it has been a while. There is still a certain fellow that I don’t care to interact with on your site. Otherwise I would hang out there more often. But I have seen that some of your site’s potential has become realized. My hope is that it will reach its full potential.

 

If I understand this idea of dependent origination (or arising) correctly then I completely groove with it. I am curious though. Do you know of any Buddhists who actually try to tease forth the dependent originations of phenomena? If so, who are they? I mean, is there a school of thought within Buddhism which is devoted to discovering this web of interrelation and making it explicit? I am unsatisfied to merely acknowledge its existence. You see, I want to understand. It is not enough for me to merely acknowledge that understanding can, in principle, be obtained.

[Ouroboros]

I saw this in one of your links RL: http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/firstCause.htm

 

Very good view, and I agree.

[Rev R]

Good Evening Legion,

 

Yes, it has been a while. There is still a certain fellow that I don’t care to interact with on your site. Otherwise I would hang out there more often. But I have seen that some of your site’s potential has become realized. My hope is that it will reach its full potential.

Only time will tell, but thanks for the well wishes.

 

If I understand this idea of dependent origination (or arising) correctly then I completely groove with it. I am curious though. Do you know of any Buddhists who actually try to tease forth the dependent originations of phenomena? If so, who are they? I mean, is there a school of thought within Buddhism which is devoted to discovering this web of interrelation and making it explicit? I am unsatisfied to merely acknowledge its existence. You see, I want to understand. It is not enough for me to merely acknowledge that understanding can, in principle, be obtained.

 

The heavyweight champ of dependent origination (arising, interdependent origination, emptiness...whatever you wish to call it) was without a doubt Nagarjuna. He wrote extensively on the subject. Hui Neng included it in a major portion of his Platform Sutra. The principle of non-self (anatman) is identical to dependent origination except the focus is the nature of "I" where D.O. broadens out to cover all phenomena of existence.

 

Zen focuses heavily on the direct experience of emptiness through meditation rather than simple acceptance and academic understanding.

[PandaPirate]

I'm new to Buddhism. I read a book over the summer called The Yoga of Jesus by Paramahansa Yogananda. I would call myself a Buddhist if I had to call myself anything. I seek not to interfere as much as possible. I've read the Tao of Pooh, which is very nice reading.

 

And I agree, Thich Nhat Hanh is VERY good!

[Vomit Comet]

Correct me if I'm off base, but what do premodern metaphysics have to do with modern science? One time this guy was going on about how the Aztecs were attuned with modern science centuries before Descartes and whatever, and then he started getting into MesoAmerican cosmology, and then a friend of mine (a physicist at one of the UC schools) said "bah! Nothing but creation science with huaraches!!"

[Deva]

Correct me if I'm off base, but what do premodern metaphysics have to do with modern science?

 

Only that they happen to correspond.

 

I can't say about the Aztec religion, but creation science is one thing you are very unlikely to find in Buddhism.

[florduh]

I'm probably just dense.

 

The interdependence of all is self evident. The old tale of how a kingdom was lost for want of a nail comes to mind. Nothing exists independently in a vacuum, or can arise to existence by itself.

 

Why is that fact of life a mystical concept?

[Legion]

Hans thanks for pointing out that link. I saw it but didn’t look at it. With your recommendation I will likely go back a take a look.

 

Rodney thanks for the name of Nagarjuna. Nightflight mentioned him too. It seems I’ll have to go the book store sometime this week.

 

Correct me if I'm off base, but what do premodern metaphysics have to do with modern science?

VC, I can tell you how dependent arising came to my attention and maybe that will illustrate the connection.

 

I have been trying to understand the work of a certain biologist. In his youth this biologist asked himself the question, “What is life?” And the remainder of his life was devoted to finding an answer and reporting on his progress as he went. In the course of his study he became convinced that Newtonian mechanics and its generalizations (much of contemporary science) were unsuited to address the question he was asking. So he strategically retreated to modes of explanation that pre-date Newton and this brought him to Aristotle.

 

Apparently Aristotle was forever asking, “why?” about things. And, as we know, this is often answered with “because.” Further he said that these answers fall into at least four different categories which he named: material, efficient, formal, and final cause.

 

There is even a branch of mathematics which arose out of Topology in the 1950’s called Category Theory which makes some of these relations explicit. It deals extensively with what it calls mappings and they are denoted like this… g: X-->B. (Sometimes read as… g implies (or entails) that X implies (or entails) B. We could even write g--> (X-->B ). ) If we are given b (a member of B ) and ask why about it, then this mapping provides us with two answers: because x (a member of X) and because of the specific mapping g. These two answers correspond to material and efficient cause, respectively. That is, x is the material cause of b and g is the efficient cause of b.

 

Anyway, as I said in the OP, I was curious to know what the Buddhists had to say about entailment since it seems to be such a fundamental and important concept. And my friend told me that the Buddhists give this concept the name of “dependent arising” (or dependent origination).

[Ouroboros]

Some scientists have suggested that consciousness itself is entailed from the universe, since the universe exists, and the consciousness exists, and if we assume it isn't supernatural, it must arise from the existence of nature. Even life must be entailed in the existence of the universe. It's not like the Universe "created" something, but life came as a result of how the structure of the universe just is.

 

I have not studied category theory, can you define those variables a little more, or clarify, because I think something didn't make sense there?

 

x is member of X

b is member of B

X-->B

 

So far I'm with you.

 

g is the mapping, or efficient cause of b

 

So shouldn't it be: x-->b, since X and B are sets, and x, b are the items of those sets? Like this: g:(x-->

 

I was thinking about causal description in the discussion in the other thread about Kalam, and this info helps a bit. But there I was starting to think more like this: g(x)-->b, meaning g is the actual event/process or causal agent and x is the material, and all this leading to another material result.

 

--edit--

 

Oh, wait, I think I get it! g:(X--> is the definition of the mapping. So x-->b, because g:(X-->.

 

Interesting. I probably have to take a look at this math too. Curse you LR!

[Legion]

Oh, wait, I think I get it! g:(X--> is the definition of the mapping. So x-->b, because g:(X-->.

I think you may have it Hans. I also suspect you have a good head on your shoulders.

 

Interesting. I probably have to take a look at this math too. Curse you LR!

 

If you do look into it further, then please allow me to make a suggestion. I looked high and low for a gentle introduction to Category Theory. The best I found was Conceptual Mathematics: A first introduction to categories written by F. William Lawvere and Stephen H. Schanuel.

 

Here's a link... http://books.google.com/books?id=o1tHw4W5M...=result#PPP1,M1

[Ouroboros]

One thing that entered my mind while grooming my ever-growing beard, was that this description of Cat Theory doesn't account for multiple agents. Sometimes there could be several--parallel--processes resulting in one output, right? At least I think it's possible. (For instance, sex, resulting in one baby, it takes two actors, not one.) So the correct way might be to let b, and x, be subsets of B and X rather than elements, and the math still holds true. This might even be clearer: g:({x1,x2,...}-->{b1,b2,...}). two persons have sex, resulting in twins, triplets would be expressed: sex(person1, person2)-->{baby1, baby2}

 

This is why I felt the other notation: g(x )->b, could be easier to use, since it could be expressed: g(x1,x2,...)-->b, or g(x1,x2,...)-->{b1,b2,...}

 

I got the other book btw, but I haven't had much time to reading it. After Wednesday I have two weeks before next exam, so I might be able to start.

[Legion]

I am still trying to understand category theory myself Hans. So I don’t want to make too many assertions about notation and concepts. But there are many, many different kinds of categories. We are probably more accustomed to thinking in the category of sets. But I don’t feel qualified to speak extensively about it all just yet, and we also stand in danger of derailing this thread. We are speaking of math in the spirituality forum!

 

Please take your time with Rosen's Life Itself. I know that you’re a busy man. When you get to it, you’ll get to it.

[Rev R]

Why is that fact of life a mystical concept?

 

Who said it was mystical?

 

 

 

Rodney thanks for the name of Nagarjuna. Nightflight mentioned him too. It seems I’ll have to go the book store sometime this week.

 

Here I'll save you a little money for the time being. This is a pretty good primer to Nagarjuna's thought and free to boot.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/nagarjuna.pdf

[PandaPirate]

Correct me if I'm off base, but what do premodern metaphysics have to do with modern science? One time this guy was going on about how the Aztecs were attuned with modern science centuries before Descartes and whatever, and then he started getting into MesoAmerican cosmology, and then a friend of mine (a physicist at one of the UC schools) said "bah! Nothing but creation science with huaraches!!"

 

The Tao of Physics by Frijtof Capra sums it up quite nicely for me. I read it in college so I can't do a summary at the moment. Plus, I'm hungry.