This is following on from another discussion, here
Concerning Heidegger's interpretation of Dasein and his ontology for being, which is founded upon his notion of "Being-in-the-world", Whoever
raised the similarities this has with the Buddhist doctrine of "dependent origination".
Since I am more familiar with Heidegger, I'll try to give a definition of Being-in-the-world. It is a mode of "being" where this "being", as a verb, is more precisely defined as being-present-at-hand with the res
("things") of the world. For Heidegger, being was not just "being-alongside a thing of the world" as held by previous philosophers. (very simply) He says that this misses the temporality of the situation, the being *present* at hand, which is required to complete the function of being.
Now I always drew an analogy between this and classical stoicism, for which the three (metaphysical) tenets are often said to be; monism, materialism and mutation.
Monism is analogous to an entity being a singular entity.
Materialism is the universal interconnectedness of all entities.
Mutation is change, it is the temporality by which entities can change their interrelations.
But of course Heidegger himself saw parallels with Zen Buddhism, and visited Japan at least once to meet with Buddhist philosophers as far as I recall. I hate to be presumptuous, but perhaps Whoever could give a summary of dependent origination? (I could.. but this would just be copy and paste from the net!)
I would like to explore the similarities between these two relative ontologies and see if we can gain something by a comparison. :cool: