Dependent co-arising and the victim triangle Dharma talk
I gave a Dharma talk entitled ‘Dependent co-arising and the victim triangle’. I tailored the talk for my friends who inhabit self-transformation, authentic relating, intentional communities. These friends would likely have an understanding or at least have heard of the victim triangle. They are not likely to know about paṭicca samuppāda, dependent co-arising.
I prepared the talk by first going over my notes on the literature critique I wrote entitled ‘Review of ‘Dependent Co-Arising: The Distinctiveness of Buddhist Ethics’’ for ABS 904 Buddhist Ethics. I reflected on how I can best describe paṭicca samuppāda to my intended 21st-century audience, which aspects of it I would highlight, and what lived experiences I can share to make it relatable.
Prior to my Buddhist studies, I really got into the study of complexity through, among other things, the Warm Data training I did with Nora Bateson (Warm Data Lab 2021), Cynefin and other cognitive tools created by Dave Snowden (Cognitive Edge – The Cynefin Company 2021), and the Santa Fe Institute (Santa Fe Institute 2021). Add this to my research on how Joana Macy links paṭicca samuppāda with general systems theory. Together these led me to describe paṭicca samuppāda as interdependence and reciprocal causality.
On reciprocal causality, I chose to relate the story of my Catholic upbringing. This came with the belief in an eternal unchanging soul and living in a linear teleological time. There was an act of creation by an all-powerful god followed by a fall from paradise followed by the historical time we are living in right now heading towards an apocalyptic end time in the second coming of Christ. I contrasted this to the non-self of paṭicca samuppāda. Not an eternal soul but rather a fleeting illusion of a ‘self’ arising from the moment-to-moment aggregates of perceptions and psycho-linguistic frameworks interacting with matter. Instead of a linear teleology, a web of causes and conditions in paṭicca samuppāda.
I told the story of how I was raised by my paternal grandparents in the Philippines because my Vietnamese mother left me with them. She left me and got stuck in Vietnam during the war until she escaped as a refugee and resettled in Australia.
For many years I was playing the role of a victim in Dr Stephen Karpman’s drama triangle. My mother was a persecutor. Past friends and girlfriends were rescuers. When my resentment became rabid, I became the persecutor. My mother became the victim.
I told them how I now have a great relationship with my mother. It’s more in the coach, creator, challenger triangle. Perhaps we’re out of any drama triangle altogether.
I explained this experience is congruent with my understanding of paṭicca samuppāda. There was no essence of a victim in me or my mother. This was clearly shown in how I stepped in and out of different roles at various times. The roles arose in the interactions. They were reciprocally caused by the behaviour of people choosing to play the roles with each other. To escape the triangle, one can simply choose to walk away from playing the role. Suffering in the victim triangle is not inherent, it co-arises from causes and conditions in the interactions.
I shared that with my growing understanding of paṭicca samuppāda I now live less of a linear life of goals. I now live more towards moment-to-moment intentional awareness. I care less about end goals. Instead of fixing the person I now look to the conditions surrounding the interactions. As an example, instead of trying to fix my mother, I moved away to live my own life. I found this change in conditions helped us relate to each other much better.
At the end of the talk, I invited the audience to pause and reflect on where in their lives are they playing the role of victim, persecutor or rescuer. What conditions can they look at to help alleviate the situation?
I did not write out a script or outline for my talk. I simply had talking points ready in my head. I felt this contributed to the authenticity in my talk felt by the audience. A few people in the audience typed in the chat how they found the talk to be interesting, how they felt my authenticity and how I gesture and use my body when I talk.
The downside of this extemporaneous approach was that there were a couple of key points I would have liked to have talked about but they did not arise in the extemporaneous Dharma talk. Perhaps a middle path I could follow in my next Dharma talk would be to at least write out a provisional sequence and outline of key points but then proceed to deliver the talk extemporaneously. I could then glance at the outline sometime during the talk to see if there are points I should include before I conclude. I could also rehearse the talk over and over until the delivery becomes second nature.
References
Cognitive Edge – The Cynefin Company 2021, When meaning loses its meaning - a conversation with Nora Bateson & Dave Snowden, online video, viewed 3 December 2021,
Damian, O 2021, Review of ‘Dependent Co-Arising: The Distinctiveness of Buddhist Ethics’, literature critique for ASB 904 Buddhist Ethics subject, Graduate Certificate in Humanistic Buddhism, Nan Tien Institute, Wollongong.
Future Talent Learning 2020, ‘Nutshell: How to escape the drama triangle’, Changeboard, 6 October, viewed 3 December 2021, https://www.changeboard.com/article-details/17186/nutshell-how-to-escape-the-drama-triangle/
Macy, J. 1978, ‘Interdependence: mutual causality in early Buddhist teachings and general systems theory’, PhD dissertation, Syracuse University.
Macy, J. 1979, ‘Dependent Co-arising: The Distinctiveness of Buddhist Ethics’, The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Macy, J. 1991, Mutual causality in Buddhism and general systems theory: the Dharma of natural systems, State University of New York Press.
Santa Fe Institute 2021, website, viewed 3 December 2021, https://www.santafe.edu/
Warm Data Lab 2021, What is a Warm Data Lab?, viewed 3 December 2021, https://warmdatalab.net/warm-data-lab