xabir2005

Existence is merely a word. What does it refer to? Hearing. Smelling. Tasting. Thought. Even a non-conceptual experience of existence (this can be a powerful one - and usually leads to 'self-realization') which is a form of non-conceptual thought. All experiences. All undeniable. Nothing is denied. Only the fictitious unicorn or self is illusion. But even that, as a thought, is not denied.

No... in the moment of seeing, just the seen. I do not say "just seen" is an eternal truth. I said... in the seeing, just the seen. In sleeping, just sleep. In closing eyes, just blackness. Blackness is not eternal...

Knowledge is not a concept. The knowledge and vision I talk about is... a realization. It is the realization and waking up to: the seeing is just seen. Nothing extra... not "seer seeing seen" or "unicorn seeing seen". It can be likened to waking up from a dream - a dream, like the dream of "I am a unicorn" and likewise the dream of "I am a self". Knowledge, in my meaning (not theoretical knowledge) of it, means clear vision of reality without distortion or delusion. It is about waking up... not intellectual enlightenment. In fact 'enlightenment' does not exist in the dictionary of Buddha. He only always said 'awakening'. And that is the right word.

What is unknowable, may be actual elsewhere (for another person?) but not actual here (as this experience). In any case, what is actual is just experience. What is not actual are the unicorns and selves you imagine (or he imagine) one to be.

Ok. Ear + sound + a previous moment of consciousness are the conditions for this moment of consciousness. When the body fails, consciousness no longer has the condition to manifest with that particular body.

Correct. As an experience, it is undeniable. As an inherent reality existing on its own apart from experience, that is just a concept. The thought is undeniable. The visual distortion induced by LSD might be illusory, but it is an undeniable experience nevertheless. No, actual experience is undeniable. The constructs we make for experience is a belief. In seeing there is just the seen, in hearing there is just the heard. There is nothing unclear, non-evident, about this. Reality/actuality = mere experience. In seeing just seen, in thinking just thought. Whatever realities, therefore are simply experiences. This moment of reality, just thoughts, sights, sounds. Previous moment of reality, just thoughts, sights, sounds. Some other person's reality, just thoughts, sights, sounds.

By seeing that the thought of unicorn looking at unicorn is simply another thought. Thinking is just thought. No actual thinker! Also: can you stop that sound of airplane being heard? No. No hearer or controller. It is just hearing... and is unavoidably happening due to causes and conditions.

How can sound be heard without hearer? Simple. There is no hearer needed. Hearing-sound arise when ear and sound meets. How can sight be seen without seer? Simple. There is no seer needed. Seeing-sight arise when eye and scenery meets. How can knowledge and vision of no-self be seen without seer? Simple. There is no knower needed. Knowledge arise when contemplating on no-self bears fruit, just like if you look closely enough and investigate the 'spot the object in this picture puzzle' suddenly bears fruit and bingo! You see that object in the picture, and you can never unsee it again. No seer was ever necessary. It is a process of interaction, conditions being met, then something manifest. And when the conditions meet, you cannot avoid it even if you wanted to! (more precisely: it cannot be avoided even if aversion arises) for example, if airplane passes by, it WILL be heard even if you hated it - no controller, no hearer. Hearing simply happens! Going into a blank state doesn't let you see that there is no self. And having thoughts doesn't prove a self. You need to investigate and see that there is no you in any experience. Thoughts arise, sure. A thought or story about myself arise, sure. Just a thought. When asked with "who does ..." Buddha would always reply with this: You asked the question wrong, I never said "I does". If I said "I does/feel/see", then the question "who does/feel/see" would apply. But since I don't, the correct question that should have been asked would be this: with what condition does the experience or action occur? There is no decider. Decisions happen. Due to various latent tendencies, imprints, influences, causes and conditions. Sitting here happens. No sitter. Typing happens due to the process of thinking, seeing words, pondering, intention to act, action... etc. An entire interdependent process. There is intention, there is no controller. This view is beyond the extreme of free will (in the sense that the subjective self controls the objects) nor determinism (in the sense that the objective universe controls this self) The 'middle' lies in seeing that intentions, imprints, influence individual actions. But actions do not arise without causes and conditions. It is not caused by others... nor self-made (free-will caused by an inner agent)... nor other-made (deterministic, caused by an outer agent) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html "It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that name-&-form is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form."

You are missing my point. The actuality of hearing has nothing to do with explanation. The brrrr is an actuality. Whether you want to deny it or not - it's there. And it can hurt, if it is a screeching sound. The words appearing on this screen too, is an actuality as a visual experience, which leads to a mental translation of that visual image of words into mental process of verbalization... which is in actuality a process of thoughts. All these are actual. Even the thought of unicorn is actual as a thought. It cannot be denied. The unicorn however is not actual, cannot be found anywhere in reality. Interpretation... is also actual, but only as a thought. Actuality has is there whether or not there is imagination - actuality of sights, sounds, is here whether you are having imaginations. Even imagination (like imagining unicorn) is actual as a thought, but the content of the imagination may not be actual. A thought of self, the fictional self is only actual as a thought... the imagined self is not in itself actual, it cannot be found in, or apart from the thought and all experiences.

I have already said, the actuality of it is this... In seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard. How can you deny that? You can't. To deny that, a thought of denial manifest, and that thought is undeniable - in thinking just thought. If you think there is a self, that thought of a self is actual - only as a thought. It does not actually refer to an actual thing. A thought of unicorn is actual as a thought, but the unicorn is not actual, it cannot be found or pinned down as a reality.

Chandrakirti's sevenfold inquiry. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Greg%20Goode The Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Persons Personal things often rivet our attention while impersonal things are hardly noticed. The conception of inherent existence of persons (such as one's self) causes more suffering and is harder to remove than the conception of inherent existence of non-personal phenomena such as cars and trees. According to Middle Way Buddhism, both kinds of conceptions must be refuted in order to end the ignorance that causes suffering and cyclical existence. The conception of the inherent existence of phenomena is the root of the conception of the inherent existence of persons. This is because the senses perceive phenomena such as shapes, sounds, colors, textures, etc. The mind, if it considers the final nature of these phenomena, considers them to be inherently existent. For some phenomena, perhaps the shape of an arm, a hand, or a face, or the sound of a voice, the mind attributes the entity of person. For the mind that considers the final nature of this person, the person is considered to be inherently existent. In Middle Way teachings, it is said that without realizing the selflessness of persons, it is not possible to realize the selflessness of phenomena.[2] So the meditative reasonings are done first on persons. Even so, it is often recommended to beginners to familiarize themselves with the reasonings by using the example of a car, or chariot, as in Chandrakirti’s example. (Back to top) We will simply list the seven steps for these phenomena, and then examine the reasonings in terms of persons. The Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Phenomena: The Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Phenomena: 1. The car is not inherently the same as its parts. 2. The car is not inherently different from its parts. 3. The car is not inherently dependent upon its parts. 4. The car is not inherently the substratum upon which its parts depend. 5. The car is not inherently the possessor of its parts. 6. The car is not inherently the mere collection of its parts. 7. The car is not inherently the shape of its parts. The Sevenfold Reasoning on the Selflessness of Persons: The reasonings on the selflessness of persons try to find the true person. They search by trying to isolate the inherent existence of the person in relation to the parts the body/mind. For purposes of one's meditation, the parts of the body/mind include everything related to what one thinks of as one's self. It can be any physical, mental, moral or psychological phenomenon whatsoever. We might think of ourselves as a body, a mind, set of memories, or a collection of character values, or something that essentially includes all of these. The reasonings go like this. With a firm sense of this inherent existence in mind, we try to isolate it – is the inherent existence of the self exactly the same as the parts of the body/mind? Is it different from the parts? These first two steps of the Sevenfold Reasoning logically cover all the bases. The self is either inherently the same as, or different from, the parts. The other steps of the reasonings are valuable to go into because they keep the meditation from being purely an intellectual exercise. We might, for example, truly feel that the self owns the body/mind. This is the conception to get at, even though it is logically entailed by the self being different from the body/mind. Once all the reasonings are gone through in depth and the inherent existence of the self is not found anywhere, this can upset one's conception of the way things are. At first it is disorienting and perhaps scary. Later, it can be the source of great joy. 1. The self is not inherently the same as the parts of the body/mind. 2. The self is not different from the parts of the body/mind. 3. The self is not dependent upon the parts of the body/mind. 4. The self is not inherently the substratum upon which the parts of the body/mind depend. 5. The self is not inherently the possessor of the parts of the body/mind. 6. The self is not inherently the mere collection of the parts of the body/mind. 7. The self is not inherently the shape of the parts of the body/mind. (Back to top) Taking these one at a time, 1. The self is not inherently the same as the parts of the body/mind. If we understand the parts as various groups of physical, mental, and psychological factors, we ask: Is the self equal to these things? Is it equal to them individually? If it is, then certain counterintuitive results apply. The self would be equal to each body part or each thought individually. The self would be many just as the parts are many. But we don't think of the self as many, so it cannot be found in all the parts taken individually. How about the parts taken as a whole? This is also not what we think of when we conceive of the inherent existence of the self. If the self is equal to the parts and the self is single, then the parts must be one single entity. This is clearly not the case. Also, if the self is equal to all the parts, then we could never get our hair cut, or lose a finger or gain a new thought. For that newly missing or added element changes the overall parts. If the self is equal to all the parts, this new addition or deletion would mean that we have a new self. But our strong intuition is clearly that the self can undergo change. So the self cannot be equal to all the parts. It is not just that we have not looked hard enough. We have looked at the possibility of the self being the parts. In the parts we have found the lack of inherent existence of the self. It cannot be there. (Back to top) 2. The self is not inherently different from the parts of the body/mind. If the self were inherently different from its parts, then too odd things result. You would be able to apprehend the self somehow in total isolation from the parts. Conceptually, you would be able to strip away the elements of the body/mind until none are left but nevertheless still be able to point to the self. You would have to still be able to distinguish this partless self from someone else's self. Where would this partless self be? It must be able to have a different location from the body. As they might say in Missouri, “Show me that self with no parts.” The self would be one thing and the parts would be a totally separate thing. So the self is not inherently different from the parts of the body/mind. 3. The self is not inherently dependent upon the parts of the body/mind. Is the self inherently dependent upon the parts? Sometimes we think so. Sometimes the self appears as something above and beyond the parts, but somehow supported or buoyed up by the parts. This relation of dependence is another case of (2) above, the self being a different entity from the parts, which has been refuted. If the self is dependent on the parts, it must be different from the parts. Why is dependence given as a separate meditation in addition to mere difference? So we can gain insight on the falsity of the sense we often have that dependence on the body/mind is a special way that the self truly exists. It is almost as though the sense of inherent existence is hiding out in the sense we have of dependence. Besides the problem that dependence entails difference, which was refuted, there is another problem with dependence. That is, what is the link between the self in question and this particular set of parts such that this self is dependent upon the parts? Why isn't another self dependent upon the parts? Conversely, why is the self in question dependent on these particular parts and not my next-door neighbor's parts? Two more odd consequences follow if there were inherent existence of the self in dependence on the parts. (a) The self related to these parts… What makes that self my self? This supposedly inherently existent self fails to satisfy the criteria that would make it my self. I would need another self to bind the parts and the self together under the auspices of "mine," but this second self does not exist. Even if it did, there would need to be yet another self to make that one mine, and so on ad infinitum. And (, why is there not more than one self dependent upon the same set of parts? Why not? This is consistent with the conditions given. Since this self is totally different from the parts, I cannot see this self; other selves can be supported by the same parts. These are all natural conclusions if there is a self different from the parts that is inherently dependent upon the parts. In a search for the inherently existent self which depends on the parts of the body/mind, this self has proved unfindable. (Back to top) 4. The self is not inherently the substratum upon which the parts of the body/mind depend. Do the parts inherently depend upon the self, which serves as their substratum? This is another case of the refuted alternative (2) above, the self being inherently different from the parts. And it is similar to alternative (3) above, with the dependence running in the opposite direction. Similar consequences occur with this alternative. "Why these parts? Why this particular self? Show it to me in isolation from the parts. No! Not that one over there, this self!" In addition, since we are looking for the substratum in this case, trying to isolate it as the inherently existent self, it is especially instructive to meditate on this? Can more than one substratum support the same set of parts? Either simultaneously or in succession over time? Assume for the moment a relation of an inherently existing self as the substratum of the parts of the body/mind. Is it the same at time T1 as at time T2? Going by the reasoning of case (4), there is no reason it cannot be a different self and no proof that it is the same self. But if it is different, then we have the absurd conclusion that the same body/mind is supported by two selves over time. Then, I would be an inherently different self at T2 than I am at T1. And if the body can depend on two selves simultaneously, then I am different from myself even now! Therefore, the inherent existence of the self cannot lie in its being the substratum on which the parts of the body/mind depend. (Back to top) 5. The self is not inherently the possessor of the parts of the body/mind. This is yet another case of (2), the self being different from the parts, as well as a bit of (1), where the self is the same entity as the parts. But it is very fruitful to go though this meditation completely on its own, since we have often have a strong conception that the self possesses the parts of the body/mind. This alternative deserves its own meditative refutation. Perhaps the self possesses its parts in the way that I possess my hand. This would be a case in which I am the same entity as my hand (as in (1) above.) If this alternative is gone into, it becomes quite doubtful, since for me to conceive strongly of possessing my hand, I must mentally pull away from the hand for the moment at least, and conceive of myself as something other than the hand. For me to be truly the same entity as the hand, I cannot possess the hand. A thing cannot possess itself. So the self cannot possess the parts in this way. (Back to top) Or, perhaps I possess my hand in the way that I possess the car. This is a case of (2) above, the possessor and the possessed as two separate entities. In addition to the impossibility of the self being a different entity from its parts, what is there in common that links the parts and the self as possessor and possessed? Just what is it that serves as the possessor of the hand? It is not the hand or any other part of the body or mind. Where is it? We can only come up with a vacuity, the emptiness of the inherent existence of such an inherently existing self. 6. The self is not inherently the mere collection of the parts of the body/mind. Perhaps the self is inherently the mere collection of the parts of the body/mind. The falsity of this one is a little harder to realize. Our sense of inherent existence of the self seems to put a little distance between the parts and the self. We seem to conceive of a bit of a gap between appropriator and appropriated, between agent and action, between "my" and "body/mind." In this alternative, all there is, is the body/mind. Why even talk about the self? There would be no need to have something called "the self" which is exactly the parts of the body/mind. Agent and action would be one. Self and body/mind would be one. The self would be redundant, and unfindable. Also, in the Middle Way schools of Buddhism that employ the Sevenfold Reasoning, it is said that the conventional self is not the parts themselves, but is posited on the basis of the parts. Based on apprehending those particular parts, a designated self is said to exist conventionally. It is not the parts, but is based on the parts. The appropriator and appropriated are slightly and subtlely different. There is room to make sense of "my life," "my actions." A self redundant with the parts cannot exist inherently. (Back to top) 7. The self is not inherently the shape of the parts of the body/mind. This alternative investigates whether the self is inherently the shape of the parts of the body/mind. Can this be? According to this, self would be a physical thing. Non-physical components such as a mind and thoughts and values do not have a shape. Even though these non-physical things are not inherently the self (as we saw in (1) above), it certainly makes no sense for them to be totally irrelevant to the self, as they would be if the self were merely the shape of the parts. Also, if the self is the shape, then this allows no change in shape without a corresponding change in identity of the self. Over time the shape of the body changes. People grow, gain weight, perhaps take up yoga or weightlifting and tone up. Perhaps they lose a limb, lose their hair, become bent with age. Even in the absence of these kinds of shape changes, there are the perceptual shape changes due to changes in posture, standing vs. sitting. There are other shape changes due to the angle from which the parts are viewed. From the left or the right, from near or far, the appearance of the shape changes. The shape criterion misses the point of our conception of the inherent existence of the self, since according to that conception, the inherently existing self is able to persist through changes in shape of the parts. So the self is not inherently the shape of the parts. (Back to top)

These are facts that can be realized and experienced, and I am not speaking from belief. It is a fact that in seeing there is just the seen. It is a delusion that there is a seer seeing seen - it is an afterthought pasted upon reality. There is no actual seer that can be found - but the experience of seeing is undeniable.

The truth is this: Seeing happens. Hearing happens. Experience of music... experience of scenery... Why truth? Because it is undeniable with or without thought, conceptualization, inference. It is CLEARLY, VIVIDLY manifest. If you deny direct experience, then you are deluded beyond hope. lol The delusion is this: A seer sees scenery. A hearer hears music. Mind imputes entities that cannot be found into the picture.

It is not "I" knows, but a direct seeing into the fact and nature of reality... this seeing does not require an "I". But ok I get what you're asking... This is seen for me, due to contemplation as per Buddha's instructions in Bahiya Sutta. There is in seeing just the seen, no seer. In hearing just the heard, no hearer. The seeing is the experience of scenery, the hearing is just the experience of music. The process itself knows. Any sense of a hearer, inside, outside, is an after-thought imputed due to latent tendencies and dualistic views upon direct experience. That sense of self is a mere mental construct, a thought, that bears no resemblance to actuality. A thought that refers not to an actual entity/self, but only a thought.

I don't "believe in" ruthless truth. I already know for a fact, before visting Ruthless Truth site, that there is no you. And I have said many times it is not "I do not exist" or "I exist" but "there is no I that could exist or not exist". There is a difference there. If you say I don't exist, you presume that there is an I that could be pinned down as a reality... as existence and non-existence only apply in reference to real entities. The realization that there is no you... is a direct, experiential seeing that in seeing there is just the seen, no seer. In hearing there is just the heard, no hearer. Hearing, seeing, awareness is just the object of perception. There is nothing behind experience. And there is nothing perceiving experience. The experience 'perceives'. The perceiving perceives. The process perceives... there is no knower. This has nothing to do with a story nor an experience nor a belief... this has to do with the permanent ending of the illusion of self, and everything effortless presenting itself without the notion, view, and sense of a self-agent, or any sense of separation at all. This is deeply experiential also as there is nothing more experiential and direct than "in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard". Every moment, ordinary sights and sounds reveal themselves in utter intimacy, wonder, delight.

Usually we perceive the world in this way: Seer.... sees... the seen/world/scenery. Hearer... hears... the sound/music/etc. But in seeing the world, there is just the seen, the seeing IS the scenery... seeing is occuring. In direct experience, isn't this the case? You think, "no, I heard it." But "I heard it" is an after-thought to the actual experience of hearing. Furthermore, the sense of 'me' in here... hearing that... is a conjured mental construct. A thought cannot hear. A feeling cannot hear. It isn't what is actually doing the hearing. It isn't the actuality of the hearing. The hearing is simply occurring. Perceiver, inside, outside... are all conjured. The actuality of hearing sound is not related with all these mental conjurations - the actuality of hearing sound is not inside, outside, there is just the hearing sound 'brrr' without a 'you' in relation to that. That sense of 'I' does not refer to an actual entity - it is just a thought. The sense of an observer hearing is a conjured mental fabrication... hearing is just 'brrrrr' (when the aircon blows) Hearing is just the sound! You may be thinking an unobservable observer is hearing it... but that is actually not what is going on. Hearing is the 'brrrr'... it has nothing to do with a hearer.

There is a big difference between "Experience" and "realization". Experiencing the dissolving of self in samadhi is merely an experience. Experiencing the merging of self with environment is merely an experience. Realizing that there never was separation, there never was a self... is vastly different. At that point, non-dual becomes seamless because you realize there never was separation to begin with. (non-dual is still not seeing there is no self, but is getting closer) Insight/realization: seeing what is always already the case, for example in the realization of no-self/anatta, you realize that in seeing there is always only the seen, no seer. You realize that seeing IS the seen, the experience of scenery only, no seer stands apart. And this is not an experience, this is the nature of reality, what has always been so. D.O. is likewise... Realization of the nature of reality is NOT a meditation experience... it is an insight, a knowledge and vision of the way things are. Experience doesn't liberate... realization does (it liberates you from the view of duality and inherency, the latent tendencies at viewing reality distortedly which always affect our daily life experience)

lol yeah. You probably won't realize it so fast. Truthfully, it took me years to see that. It can be faster for others. But you really need to investigate it... it does take effort and diligence and doesn't 'come cheap'... it is not an immediate thing. If it were that easy, I don't see why everyone in the world is not enlightened by now. You think a self exist. Now, apart from that thought "I exist", can you find the self? You may say, I feel like I am... that is a feeling, a mental construct.

Something I wrote in RT: When I am called by my name, this body-mind responds, but my name does not refer to a findable self. It is like the word 'weather' does not actually point to a findable, locatable, graspable entity. The word 'weather' is a mere convenient label collating the various ever-changing weatherly phenomena, such as rain, snow, wind, lightning, clouds, etc. Yet not one moment do they even remain the same. There is no such thing as a findable and real entity called 'weather' as such. It is a mere label. Similarly, names are used, and I respond to them, conventionally speaking. But that does not evince a real self. It just means a name is conveniently labelled collating this particular body-mind, which does not exist as an entity but are merely ever-changing bodily and mental sensations, phenomena, a sensation of itch arising and falling on my leg, the sound of music manifesting momentarily where it is, the thought popping up in my mind about something yet disappearing instantaneously like a bubble. Everything is just like this... phenomena manifesting... subsiding.... insubstantial like bubbles, like weather. Names are mere labels for a conglomerate of flickering and insubstantial phenomena that are simply aware where they are without an agent. Sounds are heard, no hearer. Thoughts arise, no thinker. Scenery sees, no seer. And they all self-releases, no traces are left, just as weatherly phenomena pass moment by moment leaving no traces whatsoever. Names are still useful even though the illusion of self has long ended.

RT's method is simple really. And it does deliver. There is no you... investigate is this true? In direct experience. In seeing... there is just the seen, no seer. Is this true? etc... (you can do it with anything)

D.O. is theory for you, not me. It is also not theory for the Buddha as the Buddha already stated he is free from theories and clearly know the causes and conditions for body, mind, etc (in other words: he clearly realize D.O. in direct experience). I am saying this not again to say "I see it, believe me" but I am saying this to let you know that it is entirely possible to see it for yourself, to experience it for yourself. Don't stop at theories or beliefs. Fundamentalists require you to believe them and there is no way you can know for certain. I am saying, what I, Buddha, and countless practitioners proclaimed by direct experience, can be directly realized, and experienced. We don't need your belief, just your open mindedness to deeply consider this, to see and experience this for yourself. Just like scientists. I am not saying faith is no good either. If you can have faith in what countless practitioners reported via direct experience - well great if it inspires you, but don't stop there. Investigate, see for yourself. That's what truly matters. If you don't have faith in what countless practitioners reported via direct experience - well, that's ok, but at least be open-minded would you? And do the experiment, see for yourself.

Like I said, 'you don't exist' implies there is a self that can exist or not exist. If a self cannot be pinned down inside or outside the five skandhas as the Buddha has stated so*, then there is no self that can exist, not exist, etc. As for 'know', knowing arises, no knower. Hearing is, no hearer. Seeing is, no seer. A knower is never needed in the first place for knowledge. Knowledge and vision arises due to conditions, not an agent. This, the Buddha has stated many many times**. It is nothing like a parodox, it is only a parodox to those who presumes a knower is necessary for knowledge - which is a warped view with a wrong premise. * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" ** http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html#fn-7 "Who, O Lord, feels?" "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html "Thus, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for kamma formations, kamma formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers).

No, it cannot be. Dependent Origination of Buddhism means INTER-dependent origination, not dependent origination in the sense that all things dependent on a single source/God. Nothing whatsoever is created, it arises only in dependence with various requisite conditions. If you experience, and realize interdependent origination, you will have no doubts that God does not exist. I am not resorting to authority here, I am just stating you CAN experience and realize dependent origination... it is a truth exhibiting itself every moment and can be discovered, realized, experienced. It is not just theory. However, I am not saying 'accept me or believe me or have faith in me cos I see it'. I am saying, go see for yourself. I even provided you reasoning why it makes sense. I am speaking from experience. Just as the Buddha would say: The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away. Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine. - Majjhima Nikaya, 72 As the nature of everything is interdependent origination, there cannot be a cause, a source, and all beings, be they Ishvara, or whatsoever - arises via interdependent origination. A Brahma*, a being deluded into thinking he was God, is himself arisen due to karma and interdependent origination. There is no real creator. For example: if the ear, the hand, the action of hitting, the air, the drum, all these conditions come together... the act of 'hearing drumbeat' MUST arise - and even Brahma has no control over it! That arising must occur when the conditions come together, Brahma has no place in it - he never created it, nor can he prevent it from happening. When causes and conditions meet, he has no power to create or prevent something from manifesting... so how can he be a creator? Just in the same way, then the causes and conditions meet, hearing must occur... whether you want that sound of drumbeat to be heard or not, it WILL occur! So can you see that an agent, controller, hearer is an illusion? Both 'God' and 'Self' are as illusory as a unicorn and such a fictitious entity has no control and relation whatsoever with reality! A non-existent God or Self has no control over what happens... which does so by dependent origination. I hope you see this. You may think, ok I can't prevent the sound from being heard when the action of hitting drum and the ear is there... but can't I just physically move away from that location? Yes, but then the action would have arisen due to various causes and conditions... it is not that 'you' did the moving away.. there is no agent at all! Everything is the universe interacting manifesting as this moment of action and experience. No such thing as a 'self' or a 'God' controlling and creating or making things happen. A God, a Self, is seen to be as fictitious as a rabbit with horns, or a unicorn. Every single moment, it is directly seen how everything arises via interdependent origination with all requisite conditions - so how can the delusion of a creator or creation arise? D.O. basically throws away all notion of a God or source. The insight into D.O. is a direct insight into how things are neither created nor self-existent. Just like the insight into Anatta is a direct insight into the absence of a self. There can be no doubts about it. *John Reynolds, among western scholars I am familiar with, has written with clarity on this issue: As for the existence of God, of the Creator of heaven and earth, this is the concept central to religion as we know it in the West. Was the Buddha an atheist or an agnostic in relation to the existence of a Supreme Being or God? ... In the Suutras there is found a Buddhist account of Genesis. [This account appears in several sources both in the Mahayana and the Theravada Canons.] In reply to questions from His disciples, the Buddha explained that the humanity found on this planet earth once inhabited another planetary system. Ages ago when the sun of that world went nova and the planet was destroyed in the ensuing solar eruptions, the bulk of its inhabitants, as the result of their arduously practicing the Dharma for ten thousand years, were reborn on one of the higher planes of the Form World or Ruupedhaatu, a plane of existence known as Aabhaasvara or “clear light.” Here they enjoyed inconceivable bliss and felicity for countless aeons. Then, when their great store of past karma came onto maturity, our own solar system and planet earth began to evolve and some among their numbers were reborn on the lower planes of the Ruupadhaatu in the vicinity of the nascent earth. This plane of existence where they found themselves reborn is known as Brahmaaloka. The first of these beings to reawaken and be reborn, upon seeing the solar system evolving below him, exclaimed in his delight, “I am the Creator!” In this way, he came to believe that he was the actual creator of the universe which he saw about him, for he did not remember from whence he came and was born without any parents. But in actuality the manifestation of this universe was due to the collective karma of all in that company and his own individual manifestation, which was a case of apparitional birth, was due to his own great stock of meritorious karma coming into maturation at that time because the requisite secondary conditions were present. ( Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness, translated by John Myrdhin Reynolds, Snow Lion, Ithaca, NY, 2000, pages 97-99.) I am not resorting to authority as I have stated many times - I have given clear examples and reasoning. I am however also saying that you can go beyond reasoning, theories (just as Buddha stated above for himself) and see it for yourself. There is a difference between intellectually understanding it and experiencing and realizing it.

A God means a creator. Since everything arises via interdependent origination, a specific source/origin/creator cannot be found. For example. Hand, stick, drum, air, ears, action of hitting - all these requisite conditions for the auditory consciousness of drum hitting. Does the hearing therefore come from the air, or the hand, or the stick, or the action of hitting, or anywhere in between? No. It is a new and complete phenomenon arising in dependence of all these requisite conditions. It does not 'come from' anywhere, but it is interdependent with all these conditions. Seeing that everything arises interdependently, the notion of a source is seen to be flawed - there is NO source, god, origin of anything which arises interdependently. D.O. is the nature of all phenomena - they arises dependently, and have no independent, self-existing essence.