But you still did not explain what is the emptiness. For that you have to explain the tetralemma.

Yes dependent existence is quite clearly refuted by Nagarjuna.

John tan said before:

This comment by Malcolm is really good.

Session Start: Wednesday, August 09, 2006

(11:32 PM) AEN: namdrol:

While it is true that many non-Buddhist paths a reunciate and so on, the unique feature of the Buddha's path is understanding that phenomena are dependently originated. Dependent origination is critical in developing a correct view.

Is the mere knowledge that phenomena dependently originated sufficient? No.

It is possible to hold a view of dependent origination which is nevertheless realist or substantialist in nature-- a perfect example of this would the way Thich Nhat Hahn's "interbeing" is generally understood. Here, it is never questioned that the mutually depedendent phenomena exist in dependence because they all exist together. In general, this is also the naive understanding of dependent origination.

(11:32 PM) AEN: Even so, this view of dependent orgination already marks the beginning of turning from a wrong or incorrect view, to a right or correct view.

How do we move from a substantialist interpretation of dependent origination to a non-substantialist understanding?

We need to first be open to having our existential assumptions undermined. Any clinging to existence and non-existence must be eradicated before we can properly appreciate the meaning of DO. Some people think this simply means clinging to inherent or ultimate existence. But this is not so. Whatever arises in dependence also must be devoid of mere existence as well.

To understand this fully we must understand the perfection of wisdom sutras in their entirety and the thinking of Nagarjuna and his followers.

(11:32 PM) AEN:

When we have truly understood that phenomena are devoid existence and non-existence because they are dependently originated; we can understand that phenomena do not arise, since existence and dependence are mutually exclusive. Any existence that can be pointed to is merely putative and nominal, and does not bear any reasoned investigation.

Since phenomena are dependently originated, and the consquence of dependent origination is that there are no existing existents, we can understand that existents are non-arising by nature. As Buddhapalita states "We do not claim non-existence, we merely remove claims for existing existents."

Whatever does not arise by nature is free from existence and non-existence, and that is the meaning of "freedom from proliferation." In this way, dependent origination = emptiness, and this is the correct view that Buddhas elucidate. There is no other correct view than this.

N

Existence [bhāva] and dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda] are mutually exclusive. For something to actually "exist" it must do so independently of causes and conditions, but as luminaries such as Nāgārjuna point out, that is impossible.

Many people conflate dependent existence [parabhāva], which is something existing with assistance from another, with dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda]. The two are radically different principles. Regarding Nāgārjuna's classification of "existence" [bhāva], he asserts rather damningly:

“Whoever has a view of inherent existence [svabhāva], dependent existence [parabhāva], existence [bhāva] and non-existence [abhāva] do not see the truth of the Buddha's teaching.”

Yet Nāgārjuna was one of the most major proponents of clarifying the inner workings of dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda], and states that there can be no existence established independently of inherent existence or dependent existence in the following inquiry:

“Where is there an existent not included in inherent existence and dependent existence? If inherent existence and dependent existence are established, existence will be established.”

This means that dependent existence [parabhāva] is actually a guise for inherent existence [svabhāva], and therefore is in direct contradiction to dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda]. Further, since we cannot extract any form of existence [bhāva] as separate from dependent existence [parabhāva] or inherent existence [svabhāva], existence in any form is contradictory to dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda].

Buddhapālita comments on Nāgārjuna's damning assertion above:

“Someone like that, who [has a] view of inherent existence, dependent existence, existence or non-existence does not see the truth in the profound and supreme teaching of the Buddha. Because we, in the correct way, see the nonexistence of the inherent existence of things which appear because of the sun of dependent origination arose, because of that, because we see the truth, liberation can be accepted only for us.”

Nāgārjuna is stating that all views of existence contradict dependent origination.

In order for something to exist, it must be independently originated, and conversely, for something to be independently originated it would have to be unconditioned, independent and uncaused, but as mentioned above, this is considered an impossibility in the eyes of the buddhadharma. The correct conventional view for emptiness is dependent origination, and so we see that in order to have objects, persons, places, things and so on, they must be possessed of causes and conditions. Meaning they cannot be found apart from those causes and conditions. If the conditions are removed, the object cannot remain.

Regarding this, Nāgārjuna states the following:

“That which comes into being from a cause, and does not endure without conditions, it disappears as well when conditions are absent - how can this be understood to exist?”

Going on to say:

“Since it comes to and end when ignorance ceases; why does it not become clear then that it was conjured by ignorance?”

And so here we get to the actual meaning, and the heart of dependent origination, which is nonarising [anutpāda]. For an object to inherently exist it must exist outright, independent of causes and conditions, independent of attributes, characteristics and constituent parts. However, we cannot find an inherent object independent of these factors, and the implications of this fact is that we likewise cannot find an inherent object within those factors either.

The object itself, as the core entity which possesses characteristics, is ultimately unfindable. We instead only find a designated collection of pieces, which do not in fact create any discrete object. In the absence of an object the pieces are likewise rendered as incapable of being "pieces" or "parts" and therefore they are also nothing more than arbitrary designations that amount to nothing more than inferences.

This means that all entities, selves, and so on are merely useful conventional designations, their provisional validity is only measured by their efficacy, and apart from that conventional imputation, there is no underlying object that can be ascertained or found.

Dependent origination is the apparent origination of entities that seem to manifest in dependence on causes and conditions. But as Nāgārjuna states above, those causes and conditions are actually the ignorance which afflicts the mindstream, and the conditions of grasping, mine-making and I-making which are the drivers of karmic activity that serve to reify the delusion of a self, or a self in objects, and so on.

This is why many adepts are explicitly clear that dependent origination is synonymous with a lack of origination [anutpāda], because phenomena that originate in dependence on ignorance as a cause, never actually originate at all, for example, Candrakīrti states:

“The perfectly awakened buddhas proclaimed, "What is dependently originated is non-arisen.”

Or Mañjuśrī:

“Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise.”

Nāgārjuna once again:

“What originates dependently is non-arisen!”

Thus dependent origination is incapable of producing existence of any sort, because dependent origination is incapable of producing entities. Entities and existence only appear because of the ignorance which afflicts your mind. When that ignorance is removed, all perceptions of existence are removed, all perceptions of selves are removed and all perceptions of origination are removed.