Right? I don’t know about this post (and comments) discussing this quote from the western point of view only, ignoring the fact that this is the whole basis of- and arguably explored much richly in- the entire western philosophy
I guess you mean "the entire eastern philosophy" in your last sentence.
I absolutely agree that there is a lot of parallels with Buddhist descriptions of "co-dependent arising", but there are also important differences. Buddhism is focused on suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. It is a practical path, and everything that is not related to this path is out of its scope.
But I would disagree that eastern philosophy explores this "much richly". The article cites Kant and Husserl in the second paragraph. And the whole idea of seeing "things as they really are" was imported to Buddhist thought by western thinkers[1]. This idea is present in currents of the 3 Abrahamic traditions, in great part through the influence of neo-platonism from the 3rd century onward.
This kind of concept is present in mysticism in all 3 Abrahamic traditions, though in a different language.
As a Buddhist practitioner turned mystically inclined Christian, I would argue that there are lots of facets to look at this, from a wide array of traditions, and all have their place and value. One of the hardest things to do is not to immediately dismiss them by analogy with waht we already think we know, e.g. "oh yeah that's just good ol' teaching of the emptiness of all phenomena, I know that!", without rejecting what one learned until now either. What is beyond word can be described in countless ways, and each of them can help shed a new light and reveal holes in ones current understanding of "reality", if you let it do its work.
[1] you could argue that it is part of some Mahayana traditions, but the way they describe it is so foreign that if you do not engage with it for years, theoretically and practically, you will understand it through a "romantic" lense.
In the case of the Pali canon, the Buddha always re-orients the questions whenever asked about the nature of the universe or of reality, to teach the "noble truths" of suffering, its origin, its cessation and the path to its cessation. I am not aware of any text in the Pali canon where the Buddha would be teaching in order to see "things as they are". It is just not the point of his teaching.
A central concept in Buddhism is actually "emptiness", or the absence of inherent existence of all phenomena. It is sometimes used in Mahayana teachings as "the way things really are", but as I said, this is subtle and confusing, because "the way things really are" is that they do not have independent existence. I would not venture interpreting those strands of teaching too much, as I am not famliar enough with them.
I heard those arguments from various sources, mostly from Thanissaro Bikkhu and Rob Burbea. They are both westerners, formed in the Theravada tradition and scholars of the Pali canon (able to read it in the original language), which I think actually makes them particularly well suited to identify points that might be misinterpreted from a western reader.
> "emptiness", or the absence of inherent existence of all phenomena
Phenomena is empty of a permanent self but not empty of existence. The phenomena exists, but that phenomena is not possessed of a permanent unchanging nature.
The Bahiya Sutta has:
> "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen."
It's a short article. Maybe the author didn't think they needed to write about the complete, global history of the idea, as opposed to just introducing it using examples they were most familiar with.
