Does the dependent origination leads to becoming? If so, will then the reversal of the same i.e Dependent cessation brings the cessation of becoming?

Upvote:1

There is in fact, a forward version and a reverse version of dependent origination. Rather than calling it the two sides of the same coin, they are more like heads and tails - two different sides of the same coin (of samsara).

This is the forward version which starts with ignorance (avijja) and ends with suffering (dukkha):

β€œThus, bhikkhus, with ignorance as proximate cause, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as proximate cause, consciousness; with consciousness as proximate cause, name-and-form; with name-and-form as proximate cause, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as proximate cause, contact; with contact as proximate cause, feeling; with feeling as proximate cause, craving; with craving as proximate cause, clinging; with clinging as proximate cause, existence; with existence as proximate cause, birth; with birth as proximate cause, suffering;
SN 12.23

And it continues with the reverse version which starts with suffering (dukkha) and ends with the knowledge of destruction (of ignorance):

with suffering as proximate cause, faith; with faith as proximate cause, gladness; with gladness as proximate cause, rapture; with rapture as proximate cause, tranquillity; with tranquillity as proximate cause, happiness; with happiness as proximate cause, concentration; with concentration as proximate cause, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are; with the knowledge and vision of things as they really are as proximate cause, revulsion; with revulsion as proximate cause, dispassion; with dispassion as proximate cause, liberation; with liberation as proximate cause, the knowledge of destruction.
SN 12.23

OP wrote:

Shadow can be ceased only when the real object is perceived, if not the shadow thinks it as real, even though it's unreal or non existing thing! Previously perceived snake was actually the rope, when the wisdom dawns upon. This shadow is false 'I', the illusion, the non-existant thing. But only when one sees it with eyes of wisdom! Can we say that?

This sounds like the language of Advaita Vedanta of Hinduism, and not Buddhism.

There is no true "I" that's discovered when the false "I" is removed, in Buddhism.

Buddhism teaches "sabbe dhamma anatta" (Dhp 279) - all phenomena is not self. Also please see Vina Sutta and Sunna Sutta. This means absolutely ALL phenomena, including Nibbana, is not self.

Upvote:1

We should be careful with this line of reasoning (as with all lines of reasoning). One doesn't eliminate a shadow by moving the light; moving the light casts a shadow in a different direction. 'Dependent cessation' sounds like dependent origination in a destructive mode. Just as the presence of a thing can be 'caused', the absence of it can be 'caused' as well. "I am not that" is merely that opposite side of the coin from "I am that"; both can be identifications.

To eliminate the shadow of identification, one must become transparent. Something to meditate on...

More post

Search Posts

Related post