Welcome to Awakening to Reality

John Tan wrote:  

Intuiting the middle path of buddhism via Prajna.

It is not easy to grasp the "Middle Way" of Buddhism, for it is not a conceptual midpoint between two opposing views. Rather, it must be intuitively realized through the wisdom of emptiness (śūnyatā).

For instance, when we observe how seamlessly experience unfolds with changing conditions — as if mind and matter dance in perfect coordination without any separation — the habitual tendency is to assume that such intimacy must arise from a shared substance, a unifying essence. This is the reflex of reification.

However, through the penetrating insight of prajñā, we come to see that this seamlessness does not arise from a common underlying essence, but from the emptiness of inherent boundaries. What appears as continuity is not the result of an indivisible oneness, but the absence of any independently existing edges to begin with.

In this light, the heart intuits the Middle Way — not as a static center or a compromise between views — but as a dynamic openness that does not rest on any essential foundation. It is through recognizing the non-arising of borders that the Middle is felt, directly, without grasping.

Take the simple example of “left” and “right” in my previous.  Conventionally, they seem to refer to distinct positions, spatial opposites — as if there is some boundary, some inherent line that divides them. Yet upon analysis, we find no such boundary that can be located, no intrinsic dividing line, no essential base that gives either side its identity. Still, their functionality remains entirely intact. We turn left or right, navigate streets, orient ourselves in space — all without ever requiring any inherently existing division between left and right.

Not only are meaning and function preserved, but causal efficacy — the ability to respond, coordinate, and act — unfolds effortlessly. There is no need for a substance in between, no carrier of a signal, no bridging essence. And yet, everything flows in harmony.

This is the profound taste of the Middle Way: causal coherence without inherent causes, relational meaning without intrinsic reference points, seamless connection without binding substance. It is the insight that emptiness does not collapse function, but liberates it from the burden of having to be something in order to work.

In this, we recognize: the world is not stitched together by substance, but dances in the openness of dependency and designation, free from all foundations. The seamlessness is not evidence of an underlying unity — it is the mark of non-arising boundaries.

This is the magic of emptiness — that which dissolves the need for foundations, yet does not destroy function. Through this wisdom, we come to see that the seamlessness of experience does not imply substance, but reflects the emptiness of boundaries. The intimacy between phenomena is not the product of merging into oneness, but of never having been divided to begin with.

As this insight matures, the entire field of experience becomes pervaded by a profound openness — without boundary, without base, without center or edge. One senses an intimacy throughout, not by collapsing distinctions, but by seeing through their reified edges. Appearances remain diverse, but the felt sense of separation dissolves. What remains is vibrant clarity everywhere, alive in its responsiveness, yet free from the need to anchor in anything fixed.

This is the Middle Way — not between two poles, but beyond them, precisely because it is neither-nor, and yet fully present. It is the path of directness, openness, and luminous functioning, liberated from extremes not by suppression, but by wisdom’s gentle cut through illusion.

The Error of Substantial Unity

A common mistake arises when the seamlessness of experience is misinterpreted as evidence of a singular substance behind appearances. The intimacy between mind and matter, or between self and world, is often mistaken as proof of an underlying oneness — a foundational unity that binds all things together.

But this view is precisely what the Middle Way dismantles. It is not that things merge into a unified ground; rather, the seamlessness is possible because no fixed boundary exists between them. The apparent continuity of experience is not due to a shared substance, but to the complete absence of self-existing borders. The mind’s compulsion to find something “underlying” is a reflex born from ignorance, not insight.

To abide in the Middle is to be free from the need to ground experience in either multiplicity or unity. This openness does not collapse distinctions but allows them to function fluidly without the need for inherent separation or identity.

Dependent Arising as the Language of Emptiness

Dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda) expresses this middle way with precision. It reveals how all phenomena arise in mutual dependence, without any need for inherent existence. Things do not exist independently, but neither do they arise from nothing. They function because of their relations, not because of a core essence.

Take again the example of left and right. Their existence depends entirely on mutual designation. Remove one, and the other vanishes. And yet, we turn left and right every day without confusion. Their function is real, but not rooted in anything independently real.

Likewise, the sound of a bell arises not from the bell alone, nor from the ear, nor from air vibrations alone. It arises from a complex interplay of conditions. But when heard, the sound is vivid, clear, real in experience — and yet, try to find where the sound “truly” resides, and it eludes grasp. This unfindability is not a defect; it is the very mark of emptiness.

When understood properly, dependent arising is not a mechanical process of cause and effect but a luminous, participatory, and intimate unfolding of appearance, where function and clarity emerge without requiring a base. This is the elegance of the Middle Way: reality functions, radiates, and responds without the burden of being anything in itself.

Also See: Emptiness as Dependent Arising and Causal Efficacy: Distinguishing Water-Moon from Rabbit-Horn


Someone wrote that sentient beings perceive dependent origination while Buddhas perceive spontaneous presence. I felt that this way of putting is misleading. Hence I wrote in response:

The Intertwined Path: Dependent Origination and Emptiness in Buddhadharma – A Unified Perspective

In the profound teachings of Buddhadharma, "Dependent Origination" (pratītya-samutpāda) and "emptiness" (śūnyatā) are not separate concepts but rather two facets of a single, indivisible awakened insight. This understanding forms the bedrock of the Buddhist path to liberation. However, for ordinary sentient beings (puthujjanas), caught in the web of ignorance, this reality remains obscured. They tend to perceive a world of inherently produced things, constantly coming into existence and ceasing. When I speak of “inherently existing things being produced or destroyed,” I am not invoking any abstract philosophical doctrine about objects possessing intrinsic existence that magically appears or vanishes. Rather, I mean our everyday, concrete sense that people, places, and possessions—our spouse, children, friends, and so on—are solid, independently real entities subject to aging, death, arrival, and departure. This is not some rarefied theory; it’s the ordinary, afflicted way sentient beings naturally perceive selves and others, without needing any official philosophy or religion to endorse it.

While learners on the path can study these doctrines ("Dependent Origination" (pratītya-samutpāda) and "emptiness" (śūnyatā)) analytically, it is only the āryas (awakened noble ones) who directly realize that all appearances are an empty, primordially pure display (Tibetan: ka dag / lhun grub). 

1. The Primacy of Dependent Origination: The Apex of Buddhist Teaching

The centrality of Dependent Origination to the Buddha's message cannot be overstated; indeed, contemporary scholar-practitioners like Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith affirm that there is no teaching in Buddhism higher than Dependent Origination. It is the key that unlocks the door to understanding the nature of reality and, consequently, to liberation from suffering.

• The great Indian philosopher Nāgārjuna, in his seminal work, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), begins by bowing in homage to the Buddha, "the supreme teacher (the complete Buddha) who taught that which is dependently arisen—neither ceasing nor arising, neither annihilated nor eternal, neither coming nor going, neither one nor many, peaceful and free from (conceptual) elaborations." (Sources: Lotsawa House, tushita.info)
• The Tibetan master Je Tsongkhapa echoes this sentiment in his eulogy, "In Praise of Dependent Origination," asserting that anyone of intelligence must recognize dependent arising as "the heart of [the Buddha’s] doctrine" and "the weapon that severs every root of suffering." (Sources: FPMT, Study Buddhism, Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive)

The reasoning is clear: ignorance (avidyā) is the fundamental root of all torment and cyclic existence (saṃsāra). Only the profound understanding of Dependent Origination can cut this root. Teaching any other doctrine first would miss the critical target. As Tsongkhapa elucidates, "Understanding to kill this root … is none other than dependent arising." (Source: FPMT)

Therefore, Tsongkhapa compellingly argues that it would be nonsensical to claim that one grasps Dependent Origination after attaining enlightenment. The very definition of Buddhahood is the non-dual, non-conceptual cognition of how things dependently arise and are thereby empty of inherent existence. This realization is what liberates. Claiming enlightenment first and then understanding Dependent Origination would be akin to "claiming to be cured first and then taking the medicine." Liberation presupposes this vision; it doesn’t follow it. (Sources: Study Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia)

2. The Perception of Ordinary Beings (Puthujjanas)

The Buddha himself highlighted the profundity of Dependent Origination. When his attendant, Venerable Ānanda, once remarked that Dependent Origination seemed "perfectly clear" to him, the Buddha gently corrected him: "Say not so, Ānanda, say not so! Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It is through not understanding, not penetrating this law that this generation has become like a tangled skein, a matted ball of thread." (Source: DN 15, Access to Insight)

The esteemed modern Thai monk Buddhadasa Bhikkhu notes that because of this inherent depth, "the majority of people cannot understand the law of Dependent Origination." (Source: Dhamma Talks)

So, what do unawakened beings perceive if not Dependent Origination?

• They do not perceive the subtle, interlocking twelve links of Dependent Origination (ignorance → formations → consciousness … → ageing-and-death) as a seamless, empty process, either analytically through study or directly through insight.
• Instead, they simply infer and operate under the delusion that "real things" or truly existent causes and results are being independently produced and destroyed. In daily life, they might notice a superficial causality, for instance, that painful actions tend to lead to unpleasant feelings later, but they do not apprehend the deep, underlying mechanism of how ignorance perpetuates suffering.

John Tan offers a crucial clarification regarding this distinction: "Dependent Origination does not arise out of ignorance. 'Things' arise out of ignorance and are therefore non-arisen—Dependent Origination is non-origination. Therefore, Dependent Origination is an enlightened view. Sentient beings do not see Dependent Origination; they see truly existent things being produced and destroyed (essential causality). So, Dependent Origination is taught because sentient beings in confusion (ignorance) mistake reified conventions as 'things' being produced and destroyed."

This perspective underscores why the teaching of Dependent Origination is so vital: it directly counters the fundamental misperception rooted in ignorance.

3. The Journey of Understanding: Learners, Āryas, and Buddhas – Analysis and Direct Recognition

The path to fully realizing Dependent Origination and emptiness is progressive:

• Learners: Individuals who are studying and reflecting on the Dharma (prior to the first direct insight of a first bhūmi) may grasp Dependent Origination conceptually. This intellectual understanding, central to approaches like Madhyamaka which utilizes rigorous analysis, is valuable and necessary but remains inferential and can still operate with subtle forms of reification.
• Āryas (Noble Ones): From the stage of a first bhūmi upwards, individuals have a direct, non-conceptual realization of dependent arising. They see it not as a theory but as the very mode of how all phenomena appear. This direct seeing is simultaneously the seeing of emptiness (śūnyatā); they no longer reify causes or results. This is captured in the profound sutta maxim: "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising (or sees the Buddha)." (Sources: MN 28, Dhamma Talks) The Dzogchen path emphasizes this direct recognition.
• Buddhas: An enlightened Buddha rests continuously in this non-conceptual realization. As Nāgārjuna famously states in MMK 24:18: "Whatever is dependently arisen is explained as emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, is the middle way."

Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith highlights that while the philosophical view of Dzogchen and Prasaṅga Madhyamaka is essentially the same (with emptiness being uniform in both, and the Madhyamaka view itself being Dependent Origination), their methods differ: Madhyamaka often reaches this view through intellectual analysis, whereas Dzogchen emphasizes direct, non-analytical recognition.

4. The Enlightened Vision: How a Buddha Perceives Reality – The Unity of Emptiness, Appearance, and Natural Perfection as Your Own Nature

Crucially, for a Buddha, it is not Dependent Origination that vanishes. Rather, what ceases is the ingrained wrong idea of inherent production and arising—the very notions of origination, cessation, permanence, annihilation, coming, going, unity, and diversity that Nāgārjuna's eight negations show are inapplicable to ultimate truth when phenomena are correctly understood through Dependent Origination. This cessation also means seeing through the illusion of production from itself, from an other, from both, or causelessly, which the Madhyamaka analysis of Dependent Origination refutes. From a Buddha's enlightened perspective, the very same stream of appearances, the world of causes and effects, continues to be perceived. However, it is cognized as a non-originating, primordially pure display. As John Tan's insight clarifies, Dependent Origination itself is "non-origination," an enlightened view that transcends the ordinary perception of production and destruction.

In the language of Dzogchen (the Great Perfection school of Tibetan Buddhism), one’s nature is understood as the basis (gzhi). It is vital to understand that this basis (gzhi) is not a substantial, pre-existing source, entity, or background from which phenomena emerge. To conceptualize the basis (gzhi) as a "thing" that gives rise to other things is a subtle form of reification. Instead, the basis (gzhi) is the inseparability of emptiness and luminous clarity/unobstructed appearance – a self-display (rang snang) that is unproduced and uncaused. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith underscores that this basis must be empty and illusory; if it were truly real or ultimate, no processes like delusion or Samantabhadra's awakening could occur within it.

This very basis (gzhi) is, in fact, your own true nature. This nature has three inseparable aspects: (1) Ka Dag (Primordial Purity): the empty essence, timeless and unconditioned, "empty of inherent existence from the very beginning." (2) Lhun Grub (Natural Perfection / Spontaneous Presence): the nature or spontaneous presence aspect, the radiant, unceasing, non-conceptual, self-luminous clarity. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith explains lhun grub as "natural formation," an unafflicted causality, or "Dependent Origination free of afflictive patterning," meaning "not made by anyone, everything happens naturally." This "natural formation can be understood to underlie Dependent Origination." (3) Thugs Rje (All-Pervading Compassion / Unceasing Compassionate Energy): the dynamic, responsive, and communicative energy of this empty, luminous nature.

The direct, non-conceptual knowing of this reality is what is termed rig pa (Sanskrit: vidyā). Rig pa is not the basis itself; rather, rig pa is the awakened gnosis that is the knowledge or recognition of one's basis, which is ka dag, lhun grub, and thugs rje. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith clarifies that rig pa is one's knowledge of the basis, never deluded, and not participating in afflicted Dependent Origination but rather initiating unafflicted Dependent Origination (vidyā leading to nirvāṇa). He also points out that rig pa is not separate from the constituents of the universe (earth, water, fire, air, space, consciousness) but is their pure aspect—the radiance of the five wisdoms—contrasted with their impure manifestation as elements arising from consciousness. This "one coin, two sides" is entirely empty.

The Non-Duality of Spontaneous Presence (Lhun Grub) and Dependent Arising (Pratītya-samutpāda): Spontaneous presence (lhun grub) and Dependent Arising (pratītya-samutpāda) are two ways of "tasting" the same indivisible reality of your nature:

• Spontaneous Presence (Lhun Grub): The direct, unelaborated taste of reality as luminous, dynamic presence. As John Tan sometimes puts it, "Whatever appears, though a mere reflection, is entire and spontaneously perfect," where the mind rests on nothing.
• Dependent Arising (Pratītya-samutpāda): The conventional articulation of that same spontaneous display. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith notes that contextual uses of "Dependent Origination" in Dzogchen (e.g., for the origin of ma rig pa) don't imply a philosophical disagreement with Nāgārjuna's equation of emptiness and Dependent Origination.

The insight that "Dependent Origination is natural perfection (lhun grub)," associated with teachings discussed by Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith, is profound. This means understanding that all causes and conditions in Dependent Origination are empty (ka dag), their interplay an unmade, naturally occurring (lhun grub), compassionately responsive (thugs rje) display.

This enlightened vision is Nāgārjuna's Middle Way. The deconstruction of "physicality" into "mere empty sensations," as discussed by John Tan, is part of this. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith emphasizes that realizing Dependent Origination as non-arising ("Whatever arises in dependence, in reality, that does not arise," from Prajñāpāramitā) is the state of Great Perfection, aligning with Nāgārjuna's homage.

The great Dzogchen master Longchenpa captures this: "When you realise how perfect everything is, you will tilt your head back and laugh at the sky."

5. The Enduring Indispensability of Dependent Origination and Avoiding Extremes

Dependent Origination remains indispensable. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith points out that Dzogchen teachings describe the Four Noble Truths in terms of Dependent Origination and that Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) refutes all forms of inherent production (from self, other, both, or causeless) but not Dependent Origination itself. Rather, the MMK is a defense of the proper understanding of Dependent Origination, through which emptiness is correctly discerned. He stresses that the only way to ultimate truth (emptiness) is through relative truth (Dependent Origination); thus, a flawed understanding of conventional, dependent reality bars the path to realizing the ultimate.

A Buddha teaches Dependent Origination because, as John Tan elucidated, ordinary beings mistake reified conventions for truly existing things. John Tan further clarifies the common misunderstanding that "ultimately empty" means Dependent Origination (as conventional) is ultimately non-existent. He explains that "empty ultimately but conventionally valid" means that nominal constructs like Dependent Origination are valid modes of arising and explanation, unlike invalid constructs such as "rabbit horns." Even "mere appearances free from all elaborations" manifest validly, not haphazardly, and this valid mode of arising is Dependent Origination. There's a right understanding of "arising" conventionally, and that is Dependent Origination. When we see that notions of inherent existence or independence from causes and conditions are untenable for anything to arise, we then correctly see Dependent Arising.

This dismantling of ignorance via Dependent Origination avoids nihilism. Madhyamaka accepts conventional validity. Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith cites Sakya Pandita: "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme," reinforcing the Middle Way.

6. Crucial Clarifications: Avoiding Common Misunderstandings

• Misconception 1: "Ordinary sentient beings perceive Dependent Origination."
• Correction: No. As John Tan stated, "Sentient beings do not see Dependent Origination; they see truly existent things being produced and destroyed (essential causality)."
• Misconception 2: "Dependent Origination ceases for Buddhas."
• Correction: What ceases is the misperception, the wrong idea of inherent production and arising. The luminous display, seen via rig pa as the empty (ka dag), spontaneously perfect (lhun grub), and compassionate (thugs rje) play of one's nature, remains. Dependent Origination, as an enlightened view of non-origination, is precisely what is realized.

Conclusion and Verbatim Facebook Post:

Dependent Origination is not a mere preliminary but is awakened insight into emptiness. In Dzogchen, rig pa (awakened gnosis) recognizes the basis (gzhi)—your nature with its empty essence (ka dag), spontaneous perfection (lhun grub), and compassionate energy (thugs rje)—revealing Dependent Origination as the natural, dynamic perfection of reality.

Here is a consolidated reply you can paste on Facebook:

Chris, there’s a subtle slip in equating ordinary perception with Dependent Origination. Its true understanding reveals a profound depth, unifying Madhyamaka and Dzogchen perspectives.

• Dependent Origination (pratītya-samutpāda) = Awakened Insight: Nāgārjuna and Tsongkhapa state that seeing Dependent Origination is seeing the Dharma. It's the highest teaching, as affirmed by Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith. John Tan clarifies it's an enlightened view of non-origination, not arising from ignorance.
• Unawakened Don't See It: They see truly existent things being produced/destroyed, mistaking reified conventions for reality. Dependent Origination is taught to counter this.
• Awakened Realization (Āryas/Buddhas): For them, the false idea of inherent production/arising (refuted by Nāgārjuna's eight negations and analysis of causality) ceases. They see Dependent Origination as a non-originating, pure display.
• Dzogchen & Madhyamaka Alignment: Philosophically, their view of emptiness via Dependent Origination is the same (differing in method: direct recognition/gnosis vs. analysis). Dependent Origination is indispensable for realizing emptiness.
• Your True Nature (Dzogchen): rig pa (awakened gnosis) is the recognition/knowledge of the basis (gzhi) – your nature: empty essence (ka dag), natural perfection/spontaneous presence (lhun grub), and compassionate energy (thugs rje).
• Conventionally Valid, Ultimately Empty: Dependent Origination is a valid conventional explanation of how things appear (not random or like "rabbit horns"), as John Tan explains. This avoids nihilism while upholding ultimate emptiness.
• Dependent Origination as Natural Perfection: Teachings discussed by Dzogchen teacher Ācārya Malcolm Smith equate Dependent Origination with lhun grub (natural, unmade perfection). Understanding Dependent Origination as non-arising is the state of Great Perfection.

This is why Dependent Origination is an enlightened view, revealing reality as a timelessly pure, spontaneously perfect, compassionate display—our fundamental nature.

Mr. CJ

Thanks for the clarification. It was a long read, but pretty good. I agree with most of this.

What I meant by "dependent origination ceases for a Buddha" was that as John Tan himself stated, "dependent origination is non-origination". So that means ultimately there is no origination, nor dependence. But this is a subtle linguistic issue. I think we are pretty much on the same page.

On a relative level, yes, things originate dependently. But not ultimately. What is there to originate or cease, and in dependence on what? (btw, I’m referring to the afflicted form of dependent origination here).

• 1h
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. CJ

"dependent origination ceases for a Buddha" is not the same as "dependent origination is non-origination". The afflicted chain of dependent origination does cease for a Buddha, but that is also talking about something different than the realization of "dependent origination is non-origination". Also as John Tan said, "the [12 links of] dependent arising is more on the Theravada view. For Mahayana, the focus is on the expansion of the general principle of dependent arising rather than the specific 12-links." which is taught in MMK (goes beyond just discussing DO in terms of 12 links).

There is nothing truly existent that 'things depend on'. Empty conventional phenomena depend on empty conventional phenomena, so yes they are relative and not ultimately existent.

"

Does dependent arising require some “thing” to depend on?

Greg Goode:

Steve, Madhyamika interprets the "thingness" gestalt as a type conception, a way of reacting or conceptualizing words or concepts or sensations, as if there were existence involved. Maybe some words seem to invite this kind of reifying conceptualization more than others - we usually feel that more physical-sounding, more concrete words entail a more independent kind of existence. But Madhyamika would refute this kind of existence across the board.

Does "dependent arising" require there is (A) something dependent that arises, and (B) something that A is dependent on? Even though Madhyamika itself refutes this?

Not according to Madhyamika itself. When A is said to be dependent, the meaning is that is is not INdependent. It is not self-sufficient, it has no essence or true nature.

What does "dependent" mean? Dependence is usually broken down into three types. Phenomenon A relies on pieces and parts, on conditions, and on conceptual designation.

But none of these things (pieces + parts, conditions, conceptual designation) is an inherent, self-standing thing. Each of these things itself dependent.

This kind of dependency is not linear, tracing back to an original first cause or universal stopping point. It's more like a web of dependencies. It's not arborial, it's rhizomatic."

• 1h
• Like
• Reply

Soh Wei Yu

"11. The knowledge that appearances arise unfailingly in dependence,

And the knowledge that they are empty and beyond all assertions—

As long as these two appear to you as separate,

There can be no realization of the Buddha’s wisdom.

12. Yet when they arise at once, not each in turn but both together,

Then through merely seeing unfailing dependent origination

Certainty is born, and all modes of misapprehension fall apart—

That is when discernment of the view has reached perfection.

13. When you know that appearances dispel the extreme of existence,

While the extreme of nothingness is eliminated by emptiness,[3]

And you also come to know how emptiness arises as cause and effect,

Then you will be immune to any view entailing clinging to extremes." - Tsongkhapa https://www.lotsawahouse.org/.../three-principal-aspects”

LOTSAWAHOUSE.ORG

Three Principal Aspects of the Path

Three Principal Aspects of the Path

• 1h
• Like
• Reply
• Remove Preview

Online status indicator

Active

Mr. CJ

Soh Wei Yu Hmm, I still don’t see the logical difference between what I wrote (“dependent origination ceases for a Buddha”) and John Tan’s statement that “dependent origination is non-origination”. For the record, I understand what he actually meant by this, that causes and effects are not truly existent, and so nothing truly originates in DO. But what I wrote is a logical consequence of that.

If it’s non-origination, would you agree that nothing truly originates? (I’m talking only about the ultimate perspective here).

Following from that, would you agree that if nothing originates, there is no actual “dependent origination” (nothing originates, and because of that, there can also be no dependence)?

I mean it is pretty clear if you read anything by Longchenpa for example, that in the ultimate view nothing is truly existent. So there isn’t anything that could have originated, dependently or otherwise.

12 link dependent origination occurs for sentient beings, as the Buddha stated. If we accept DO for Buddhas, then we have to accept ignorance exists for Buddhas (first link) which is totally contradictory. Again I’m only talking about the 12 links. I accept the Mahayana general principle of DO still applies.

• 58m
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Mr. CJ Your questioning implies non-arising refutes dependent origination. That is not the case. Non-arising affirms dependent origination (via dependent designations and conditionality) but refutes truly existent entities that arise by the four ways (from itself, other, both, neither [causelessness]). This is also why as Greg said, dependent origination does not require 'things' which MMK refuted.

And as quoted earlier, malcolm (Acarya Malcolm Smith):

"MMK refutes any kind of production other than dependent origination. It is through dependent origination that emptiness is correctly discerned. Without the view of dependent origination, emptiness cannot be correctly perceived, let alone realized. The MMK rejects production from self, other, both, and causeless production, but not dependent origination. The MMK also praises the teaching of dependent origination as the pacifier of proliferation in the mangalam. The last chapter of MMK is on dependent origination. The MMK nowhere rejects dependent origination, it is in fact a defense of the proper way to understand it. The only way to the ultimate truth (emptiness) is through the relative truth (dependent origination), so if one’s understanding of relative truth is flawed, as is the case with all traditions outside of Buddhadharma, and even many within it, there is no possibility that ultimate truth can be understood and realized."

Nothing originates must be understood from dependent origination, it is not nihilistic nothingness:

“Pursuant to the middle view, Tson-kha-pa cites Nagarjuna's Yuk-tisastika and Candrakirti's Yuktisastika-vrtti.

Nagarjuna:

What arises in dependence is not born;

That is proclaimed by the supreme knower of reality  Buddha).

Candrakirti:

(The realist opponent says): If (as you say) whatever thing arises in dependence is not even born, then why does (the Madhyamika) say it is not born? But if you (Madhyamika) have a reason for saying (this thing) is not born, then you should not say it "arises in dependence." Therefore, because of mutual inconsistency, (what you have said) is not valid.)

(The Madhyamika replies with compassionate interjection:)

Alas! Because you are without ears or heart you have thrown a challenge that is severe on us! When we say that anything arising in dependence, in the manner of a reflected image, does not arise by reason of self-existence - at that time where is the possibility of disputing (us)!” - excerpt from Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real: Buddhist Meditation and the Middle View

This is why Nagarjuna corrected the persons who asked how could four noble truths be valid if everything is empty, because he mistakenly took emptiness as non-existence. (Scroll down https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../how-experiential... to "

Nagarjuna's Critique of the Dharma

")

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

How Experiential Realization Helps in Liberation

How Experiential Realization Helps in Liberation

• 10m
• Like
• Reply
• Remove Preview
• Edited

Soh Wei Yu

" If we accept DO for Buddhas, then we have to accept ignorance exists for Buddhas (first link) which is totally contradictory. "

As said earlier, DO is not just the 12 links. The general principle of Dependent Origination is not to be equated with the 12 links, which is merely the afflicted *mode* of dependent origination, not the principle itself.

• 9m
• Like
• Reply

Soh Wei Yu

Precisely because nothing is truly existent, dependent origination is possible, and because of dependent origination no true existence applies.. or as Candrakirti is quoted above, "anything arising in dependence, in the manner of a reflected image, does not arise by reason of self-existence", and that's key to MMK throughout. If one sees dependency as requiring true existence, that is precisely the erroneous understanding refuted by Nagarjuna and Candrakirti.

You said: "nothing originates, and because of that, there can also be no dependence"

Not true, because what dependently originates are dependently designated empty phenomena, not the interaction between truly established or findable core entities that never truly originated.

• 9m
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Posted earlier today https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../emptiness-as...

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Emptiness as Dependent Arising and Causal Efficacy: Distinguishing Water-Moon from Rabbit-Horn

Emptiness as Dependent Arising and Causal Efficacy: Distinguishing Water-Moon from Rabbit-Horn

• 21m
• Like
• Reply
• Remove Preview

Soh Wei Yu

John Tan just had a chat with me and commented, "First, you must understand why saying, 'If it’s non-origination, would you agree that nothing truly originates? (I’m talking only about the ultimate perspective here). Following from that, would you agree that if nothing originates, there is no actual “dependent origination” (nothing originates, and because of that, there can also be no dependence)?' is a substantialist view. Why?

A substantialist mindset thinks that unreality has no consequences.

However, in the worldview of a non-substantialist, nothing is substantial, and that is why there is pain, suffering, and all these consequences.

So, you have to understand why the conventional is so important: because sentient beings mistakenly believe you need true existence to have causal efficacy.

They think that because there is no true existence ultimately, therefore, there are no consequences.

Understand? If you cannot feel this deep in your heart, you are still harboring substantialist view.

If conceptual elaborations have no consequences then how can freedom from all elaborations liberate? You won't need to be free from conceptual elaborations at all, right?"

• 2m
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Online status indicator

Active

Mr. CJ

Soh Wei Yu I think I understand what John is saying here. I don't believe I have a substantialist view, but I'm open to any and all "criticism" or advice . I guess by consequences, he means results of causes?

In my view, nothing is substantial. If things are ultimately non-arisen as I said, then how can anything be substantial? There are consequences, *relatively*. But if consequences are asserted to be ultimately truly existent, then surely that would be incompatible with emptiness (the idea that nothing is inherently existent)? As I'm sure we all agree, emptiness is the ultimate reality. Hopefully that clarifies what I meant to say.

• 7h
• Like
• Reply

Chris Jones

Soh Wei Yu That was my point this whole time though. I never denied conventional causality in the first place. Which is why I was confused when you started sending me paragraphs on how conventional causality is valid, and accusing me of having a substantialist view.

They’re not different domains, but they also need to be distinguished properly. If someone fails to realize the ultimate, then there’s no realization, no liberation from samsara.

Any ordinary person knows that causes have effects. This isn’t really something profound or a liberating insight. The liberating insight is emptiness and dependent origination, which is why these things are emphasized in dharma texts and not ordinary causality.

Anyway, glad we agree.

• 1d
• Like
• Reply

Online status indicator

Active

Online status indicator

Active

Mr. CJ

Soh Wei Yu "Did you get to see this response:

It's good that we're aligned on the conventional importance and causal efficacy of dependent origination ..."

No, didn't see this one. But I see it now  I think I got most of your responses though so it's ok. FWIW I think these are good posts, you are probably right that I need to remind myself more of the fact that the two truths are inseparable. I don't know where but you said something earlier about not having to negate something truly non-existent (like rabbit horns). There is no entity there to negate, and so we only negate that which is conventionally valid. That was an interesting point. When we negate something, there is always the basis for imputation as well which shouldn't be denied.

• 1d
• Like
• Reply

Online status indicator

Active

Mr. CJ
Soh Wei Yu Also, some dharma texts actually flip your analogy and state that phenomena *are* in fact totally nonexistent, like rabbit horns. For example the Dharmadhātustava:

"Just as the horns on rabbits' heads, do not exist except in the imagination, phenomena are all precisely like that, merely imagined, having no existence."

Also from krodha:

"Things that are free of the four extremes do not exist. They are free from the second extreme of “nonexistence” in the tetralemma because having never arisen in the first place, they never existed, and never having existed, they cannot cease to exist and become nonexistents in that regard. That said, they never existed in the first place either, again like the son of a barren woman or horns on a rabbit, for that reason things that are free of the four extremes do not exist."

What do you think about this?

• 1d
• Like
• Reply

Soh Wei Yu

Online status indicator

Active

Mr. CJ Yes I am aware of these passages and Krodha's posts on this matter. I do not have issues with them.

-----

Hey everyone\!  Ever come across Buddhist philosophy that sounds a bit intense, maybe even nihilistic? It's a common point of discussion, especially when we encounter profound teachings on emptiness\! Someone (let's call him Chris) shared a couple of fascinating quotes that are perfect for diving into this, particularly within Madhyamaka (Middle Way) thought.

Let's break them down and see why they aren't actually saying "nothing matters," but something much more liberating\!

**First, where do Chris's quotes come from?**

 **Quote 1:** "Just as the horns on rabbits’ heads do not exist except in the imagination … phenomena are all precisely like that, merely imagined, having no existence.”

\* **Source:** This is from the great master Nāgārjuna, in his work *Dharmadhātustava* (In Praise of the Dharmadhātu), verse 30.

\* (Reliable English versions can be found from translators like Jim Scott or Karl Brunnhölzl – often discussed on platforms like dharmawheel.net or siteofenlightenment.org).

\* **What the text is doing:** This verse kicks off a section using strong similes (like rabbit horns) to dismantle the idea of *intrinsic existence* (svabhāva) – the mistaken belief that things exist independently, from their own side. Crucially, verse 35 immediately pivots to say that precisely *because* everything is empty of this imagined inherent existence, the luminous Dharmadhātu (the essence of reality) can shine\! 

 **Quote 2:** “Things that are free of the four extremes do not exist … like the son of a barren woman or horns on a rabbit.”

\* **Source:** This is a more contemporary paraphrase by Kyle Dixon (known as "krodha" online, e.g., on Dharmawheel/Reddit).

\* **What the text is doing:** Dixon is summarizing the classical *catuṣkoṭi* (four extremes or four-cornered logic). This explores whether things: (1) Exist, (2) Don't exist, (3) Both, or (4) Neither. The point is that reality, when deeply analyzed, cannot be neatly boxed into any of these concepts.

 **Context: Why these texts can sound "nihilistic" (but aren't\!)**

This is the core of it\! It's all about understanding what's being negated.

* **Nāgārjuna’s Rhetorical Strategy:**

When Nāgārjuna uses images like "rabbit horns," he's aiming to pulverize our deep-seated belief in *svabhāva* – that fixed, independent way we imagine things to exist. He’s NOT denying everyday appearances or that things function. In fact, he often clarifies that these very same phenomena, when seen free of our conceptual overlays, are manifestations of the ultimate nature.

* **"Non-existence" in Madhyamaka & The Two Truths:** This is crucial\! Madhyamaka philosophy beautifully distinguishes between two truths:

 **Relative Truth (Conventional Truth):** Phenomena appear, they function, karma works, and we interact with the world. Apples fall from trees, kindness has effects. This is the world of our everyday experience.

 **Ultimate Truth:** When we search for the ultimate, findable *essence* of these phenomena, nothing stands up to analysis. From this perspective, they are said to "never arise" (*anutpāda*) in an *intrinsic, independent* way.

So, when texts say phenomena are "totally nonexistent," they are primarily targeting that mistaken idea of **inherent existence** (the belief that things exist independently, from their own side, with a solid, findable essence). More broadly, some interpretations emphasize that this negation targets *any* form of **true establishment** – any notion that phenomena are ultimately real or findable in themselves, even our conventional experiences. The ultimate aim is to free the mind from all forms of clinging to things as being more fixed or independently real than they are.

Critically, this doesn't erase their conventional, everyday utility or appearance\! Great thinkers like Tsongkhapa (from the Gelug school) and Gorampa (from the Sakya school, often highlighting a perspective shared by other non-Gelug traditions) equally warned that conflating these two levels (i.e., taking ultimate non-existence to mean conventional non-existence) slides directly into nihilism. So, appearances are still appearances, and they function\!

* (More on this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two\_truths\_doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine), and resources from centers like [https://kadampa-center.org/](https://kadampa-center.org/))

* **Four-Extremes Language (Catuṣkoṭi):**

Statements like Dixon's paraphrase echo Nāgārjuna (e.g., MMK Chapter 15). Saying something "does not exist" after showing it doesn't fit any of the four extremes doesn't mean a blank void. It means that reality itself is indescribable by these limited conceptual fabrications. It transcends them.

* (See [https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Four\_extremes](https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Four_extremes))

-----

DHARMAWHEEL.NET

Dharma Wheel - Buddhism Discussion Forum

Dharma Wheel - Buddhism Discussion Forum

• 6m
• Like
• Reply
• Remove Preview

Soh Wei Yu

 **A Concise Reply You Can Post (to Chris or anyone raising similar points):**

"Hi Chris — really appreciate your careful reading and bringing up these important quotes\!

* That powerful "rabbit-horns" line (Nāgārjuna’s *Dharmadhātustava*, v. 30) aims to dismantle our fixed idea of *intrinsic existence* (things existing independently). It's not erasing conventional appearances. In fact, Nāgārjuna quickly shows that once this fixation drops, the luminous *dharmadhātu* shines. So, it's a skillful tool, not nihilism.

* The Kyle Dixon quote summarizes the classic *catuṣkoṭi* (four extremes). If something is free from existing, not existing, both, or neither, none of those conceptual labels stick. "Not existing" here means it never existed in that solid, independent way we imagined, not that it conventionally disappears.

So, we end up in full agreement:

 **Conventionally:** Causes bring effects; ethics and karma matter.

 **Ultimately:** This same process is empty of inherent essence; "arising" is dependently designated.

Holding both without mixing them up is key to Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way. "

-----

 **A Deeper Dive: Nuances in Understanding Emptiness** 

The points above offer a general map. But Madhyamaka philosophy is incredibly deep, with centuries of rich discussion\! For instance, as some of you might know or be curious about, different schools and masters (like the Nyingma scholar Mipham Rinpoche, or figures from Sakya traditions) explore the "object of negation" (*dgag bya*) with profound subtlety.

They might emphasize that Nāgārjuna's powerful analysis doesn't just stop at refuting a specifically defined "inherent existence." Instead, it thoroughly deconstructs *any* trace of "true establishment" (*bden grub*) for *all* phenomena. This means that when examined from the ultimate viewpoint, nothing – not even our everyday conventional experiences – can be found to possess an ultimate, intrinsic, or truly established nature.

Sounds radical, right? But here’s the key: this ultimate unfindability **does not mean** that conventional things don't appear or function. Far from it\! Masters like Mipham stress that it's precisely *because* phenomena lack any such fixed, true establishment that they can dynamically arise, change, and interact dependently. Think of it like a dream – vivid and affecting while it lasts, but without ultimate substance.

So, while the precise language and the breadth of what's being ultimately negated can be articulated differently, the core remains consistent across authentic Madhyamaka traditions:

* To dismantle all forms of clinging to phenomena as truly or inherently real.

* To fully uphold conventional reality, dependent arising, and the efficacy of karma.

* To lead to liberation by realizing the profound union of appearance and emptiness.

These subtle distinctions really show the depth and sophistication of Buddhist thought\! It's a lifelong journey of learning and contemplation.

-----

 **Want to explore even more? Here are some fantastic resources (many are free\!):**

* **Jim Scott (tr.), *In Praise of the Dharmadhātu* PDF:** Search "In Praise of the Dharmadhātu Jim Scott PDF" (e.g., on abuddhistlibrary.com).

* **Karl Brunnhölzl, *In Praise of Dharmadhātu* (intro & tr.):** Tsadra Foundation's RYWiki: [https://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/In\_Praise\_of\_Dharmadh%C4%81tu](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/In_Praise_of_Dharmadh%25C4%2581tu)

* **Nāgārjuna's *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way):** Lotsawa House is great for root texts: [https://www.lotsawahouse.org/.../fundamental-verses...](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.lotsawahouse.org/indian-masters/nagarjuna/fundamental-verses-middle-way) (Jay Garfield's commentary is also excellent).

* **"Clarifying the Middle Way" handout, Kadampa Center:** Search on [https://kadampa-center.org/](https://kadampa-center.org/)

* **Rigpa Wiki, "Four Extremes":** [https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Four\_extremes](https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Four_extremes)

*(Exploring these texts further can reveal the subtle distinctions discussed in the "Deeper Dive" section\!)*

Hope this sparks some interesting reflections and discussions\! What are your thoughts? 

\#Madhyamaka \#Buddhism \#Nagarjuna \#Emptiness \#TwoTruths \#Philosophy \#BuddhistPhilosophy \#Mipham \#SpiritualDiscussion

ABUDDHISTLIBRARY.COM

A Buddhist Library

A Buddhist Library

• 6m
• Like
• Reply
• Remove Preview

Soh Wei Yu

On an unrelated note, here's a new writing by John Tan:

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../intuiting-middle...

Intuiting the middle path of buddhism via Prajna.

It is not easy to grasp the "Middle Way" of Buddhism, for it is not a conceptual midpoint between two opposing views. Rather, it must be intuitively realized through the wisdom of emptiness (śūnyatā).

For instance, when we observe how seamlessly experience unfolds with changing conditions — as if mind and matter dance in perfect coordination without any separation — the habitual tendency is to assume that such intimacy must arise from a shared substance, a unifying essence. This is the reflex of reification.

However, through the penetrating insight of prajñā, we come to see that this seamlessness does not arise from a common underlying essence, but from the emptiness of inherent boundaries. What appears as continuity is not the result of an indivisible oneness, but the absence of any independently existing edges to begin with.

In this light, the heart intuits the Middle Way — not as a static center or a compromise between views — but as a dynamic openness that does not rest on any essential foundation. It is through recognizing the non-arising of borders that the Middle is felt, directly, without grasping.

Take the simple example of “left” and “right” in my previous. Conventionally, they seem to refer to distinct positions, spatial opposites — as if there is some boundary, some inherent line that divides them. Yet upon analysis, we find no such boundary that can be located, no intrinsic dividing line, no essential base that gives either side its identity. Still, their functionality remains entirely intact. We turn left or right, navigate streets, orient ourselves in space — all without ever requiring any inherently existing division between left and right.

Not only are meaning and function preserved, but causal efficacy — the ability to respond, coordinate, and act — unfolds effortlessly. There is no need for a substance in between, no carrier of a signal, no bridging essence. And yet, everything flows in harmony.

This is the profound taste of the Middle Way: causal coherence without inherent causes, relational meaning without intrinsic reference points, seamless connection without binding substance. It is the insight that emptiness does not collapse function, but liberates it from the burden of having to be something in order to work.

In this, we recognize: the world is not stitched together by substance, but dances in the openness of dependency and designation, free from all foundations. The seamlessness is not evidence of an underlying unity — it is the mark of non-arising boundaries.

This is the magic of emptiness — that which dissolves the need for foundations, yet does not destroy function. Through this wisdom, we come to see that the seamlessness of experience does not imply substance, but reflects the emptiness of boundaries. The intimacy between phenomena is not the product of merging into oneness, but of never having been divided to begin with.

As this insight matures, the entire field of experience becomes pervaded by a profound openness — without boundary, without base, without center or edge. One senses an intimacy throughout, not by collapsing distinctions, but by seeing through their reified edges. Appearances remain diverse, but the felt sense of separation dissolves. What remains is vibrant clarity everywhere, alive in its responsiveness, yet free from the need to anchor in anything fixed.

This is the Middle Way — not between two poles, but beyond them, precisely because it is neither-nor, and yet fully present. It is the path of directness, openness, and luminous functioning, liberated from extremes not by suppression, but by wisdom’s gentle cut through illusion.

The Error of Substantial Unity

A common mistake arises when the seamlessness of experience is misinterpreted as evidence of a singular substance behind appearances. The intimacy between mind and matter, or between self and world, is often mistaken as proof of an underlying oneness — a foundational unity that binds all things together.

But this view is precisely what the Middle Way dismantles. It is not that things merge into a unified ground; rather, the seamlessness is possible because no fixed boundary exists between them. The apparent continuity of experience is not due to a shared substance, but to the complete absence of self-existing borders. The mind’s compulsion to find something “underlying” is a reflex born from ignorance, not insight.

To abide in the Middle is to be free from the need to ground experience in either multiplicity or unity. This openness does not collapse distinctions but allows them to function fluidly without the need for inherent separation or identity.

Dependent Arising as the Language of Emptiness

Dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda) expresses this middle way with precision. It reveals how all phenomena arise in mutual dependence, without any need for inherent existence. Things do not exist independently, but neither do they arise from nothing. They function because of their relations, not because of a core essence.

Take again the example of left and right. Their existence depends entirely on mutual designation. Remove one, and the other vanishes. And yet, we turn left and right every day without confusion. Their function is real, but not rooted in anything independently real.

Likewise, the sound of a bell arises not from the bell alone, nor from the ear, nor from air vibrations alone. It arises from a complex interplay of conditions. But when heard, the sound is vivid, clear, real in experience — and yet, try to find where the sound “truly” resides, and it eludes grasp. This unfindability is not a defect; it is the very mark of emptiness.

When understood properly, dependent arising is not a mechanical process of cause and effect but a luminous, participatory, and intimate unfolding of appearance, where function and clarity emerge without requiring a base. This is the elegance of the Middle Way: reality functions, radiates, and responds without the burden of being anything in itself.

AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM

Intuiting the Middle Path of Buddhism via Prajna

Intuiting the Middle Path of Buddhism via Prajna

• 3m
• Like
• Reply
• Remove Preview