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. While learners on the path can study these doctrines analytically, it
is only the āryas (noble ones) – those who have had a direct glimpse of
reality – and ultimately, fully enlightened Buddhas, 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): This is rig pa (awakened gnosis)
recognizing 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.
----
Malcolm: "People have fetishized anatman to an impractical degree.
Innate self-grasping is the cause of samsara, suffering, and every thing else, but the solution to this is not an intellectual rejection of conventional truth. It’s is to reflect deeply on dependent origination and penetrate it’s true meaning. For that, the Rice Seedling Sutra is exemplary: https://read.84000.co/translation/toh210.html#UT22084-062-010-section-1
When you read and understand this, you will understand why the basis is personal, why it is not a self, and why dependent origination is natural perfection."
-----
Mr. CJThanks 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).
Soh Wei Yu"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?
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."
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,
Mr. CJSoh 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.
Soh Wei YuMr. 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.
What arises in dependence is not born;
That is proclaimed by the supreme knower of reality
Buddha).
(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
Nagarjuna's Critique of the Dharma
")
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.
Soh Wei YuPrecisely 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.
Soh Wei YuJohn 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?"
Mr. CJSoh Wei Yu A lot to respond to, I will go one at a time and pick out the main points.
"Your questioning implies non-arising refutes dependent origination. That is not the case." - I didn't say this. I believe the two are compatible, as you do. The
difference is that you are saying "non-arising" actually produces some result. For me, non-arising means non-arising, no result is produced (ultimately). No cause, no result, no dependent origination. From the afflicted view, yes of course, things are reified as being real and therefore there are also apparently real results.
"MMK refutes any kind of production other than dependent origination. It is through dependent origination that emptiness is correctly discerned. ..."
I agree, this doesn't contradict what I've said. In fact, this actually affirms my claim: "The only way to the ultimate truth (emptiness) is through the relative truth (dependent origination)". Note that he is clearly equating dependent origination with *relative* truth here, not ultimate.
"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."
I didn't equate them. I stated that I'm referring only to the 12 links, and that I accept the general principle. I clearly distinguished between the two in my response.
"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."
Yes, so this is what I stated. There is no entity that dependently originates, there are only the dependent designations (relative truth). Ultimately, nothing originates (non-arising).
I don't really see a contradiction, unless you're asserting something truly existent is actually produced, ultimately, through dependent origination.
Soh Wei YuMr. CJ dependent origination and dependent designation are not different. Dependent origination correctly understood are dependent designations. Nagarjuna affirms dependent origination and dependent designations, calling it the middle way.
Understood wrongly, they are dependent existence, a wrong view rejected by Nagarjuna and a guise of svabhava. Dependent existence is Not dependent origination, it only sounds alike to the unlearned.
If you reject dependent origination, it becomes a nihilist view and you also fail to see the causal efficacies of karma and so on. See John Tan’s comment above and my article on emptiness and causal efficacy.
Such views are also criticized by Longchenpa:
Mr. CJSoh 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.
Soh Wei YuLongchenpa, in Finding Rest in the Nature of Mind, powerfully refutes this:
“Those who scorn the law of karmic cause and fruit / Are students of the nihilist view outside the Dharma. / They rely on the thought that all is void; / They fall in the
extreme of nothingness...
”The law of karmic cause and fruit, / Compassion and the gathering of merit - / All this is but provisional teaching fit for children: / Enlightenment will not be gained thereby. / Great yogis should remain without intentional action. / They should meditate upon reality that is like space. / Such is the definitive instruction.” / The view of those who speak like this / Of all views is the most nihilist...
How strange is this! / They want a fruit but have annulled its cause...
Throw far away such faulty paths as these! / The true, authentic path asserts / The arising in dependence of both cause and fruit, / The natural union of skillful means and wisdom. / Through the causality of nonexistent but appearing acts, / Through meditation on the nonexistent but appearing path, / The fruit is gained, appearing and yet nonexistent; / And for the sake of nonexistent but appearing beings, / Enlightened acts, appearing and yet nonexistent, manifest. / Such is pure causality’s profound interdependence...
Thus all the causal processes / Whereby samsara is contrived should be abandoned, / And all acts that are the cause of liberation / Should be earnestly performed.”
Mr. CJSoh Wei Yu Yes, but he also says in the Choying Dzod that there is no karma, no enlightenment, no sentient beings, etc. So we just have to understand the meaning behind the words. He's referring to conventionality here. Conventionally, we shouldn't
reject karma, DO, cause and result and I agree.
Also in Finding Rest in Illusion, the final book of this trilogy where he describes the ultimate view, he describes all phenomena as being like dreams, illusions, etc (8 similies of illusion). In other words, they're not truly existent. Karma, causes and results are illusory appearances and are not truly established.
Soh Wei YuYou miss the point of John Tan and Longchenpa (along with Nagarjuna, etc). Both clearly explained how conventional phenomena have causal efficacy precisely because they are empty and illusory, like water moons, not rabbit horns.
Failing to see this, one becomes a nihilist.
Soh Wei YuConventional does not mean “without consequences and unimportant”.
Soh Wei YuHence as Longchenpa stated, “Throw far away such faulty paths as these! / The true, authentic path asserts / The arising in dependence of both cause and fruit, / The natural union of skillful means and wisdom. / Through the causality of nonexistent but
appearing acts, / Through meditation on the nonexistent but appearing path, / The fruit is gained, appearing and yet nonexistent; / And for the sake of nonexistent but appearing beings, / Enlightened acts, appearing and yet nonexistent, manifest. / Such is pure causality’s profound interdependence...
Thus all the causal processes / Whereby samsara is contrived should be abandoned, / And all acts that are the cause of liberation / Should be earnestly performed.”
Mr. CJSoh Wei Yu They have causal efficacy *conventionally*. Longchenpa never says otherwise. How could conventional phenomena produce ultimately real results, if they themselves are not real?
Soh Wei YuMr. CJ nobody said anything about truly existent phenomena.
They are causally efficacious because they are unreal and illusory.
Dependent origination is not somehow “unimportant” just because they are “empty and conventional”.
“A lot of talk on here lately about how lame relative reality is vs how awesome ultimate reality is.
Apparently an omniscient master is supposed to see how both the relative and the ultimate exist at the same time in a Union of Appearance and Emptiness.
It's because everything is dependently arisen that it can be seen as empty.
Not even the smallest speck exists by its own power.
Je Tsongkhapa said, "Since objects do not exist through their own nature, they are established as existing through the force of convention."
He was the biggest proponent of keeping vows and virtuous actions through all stages of sutra and tantra.
He also leveraged the relative by practicing millions of prostrations and offering mandalas.
He also practiced generation and completion stages of tantra while keeping his conduct spotless.
He held conduct in the highest regard in all of his texts on tantra such as his masterwork, A Lamp to Illuminate the Five Stages.” - Jason Parker, 2019
Mr. CJSoh Wei Yu "Conventional does not mean “without consequences and unimportant”." Sure, but I never said "without consequences and unimportant". Where did I say that?
I just said they are conventional, which you seem to now agree with.
Mr. CJSoh Wei Yu I never denied causal efficacy on a conventional level or said that dependent origination is unimportant. I denied them on an ultimate level, because nothing is produced, and therefore nothing is causally efficaceous, on an ultimate level.
Soh Wei YuIt's good that we're aligned on the conventional importance and causal efficacy of dependent origination. Your distinction between the conventional and ultimate levels is indeed central to Madhyamaka.
When you say, 'nothing is produced, and therefore
nothing is causally efficacious, on an ultimate level,' this resonates with Nāgārjuna's refutation of inherently existing production (svabhava-production). From an ultimate standpoint, no inherently existent entity is produced, nor does it inherently act as a cause or experience an effect.
The crucial Madhyamaka insight, as Ācārya Malcolm Smith articulates, is that "there is no such thing as an ultimate that exists separate from a relative entity." The ultimate truth of emptiness (sunyata) isn't a different place or a denial of the relative world; rather, it is the very nature of the relative world when analyzed correctly. Malcolm notes, "When one analyzes something, whatever is left over is 'ultimate,' because this is the limit of one's analysis... For a Madhyamaka, water is a relative truth, and it is also empty of all extremes... hence, emptiness is ultimate truth for Madhyamaka."
So, the ultimate is precisely the emptiness of inherent existence of conventionally appearing phenomena. This is why the Heart Sūtra famously states, "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; emptiness is not other than form, form is not other than emptiness." The "form" (relative phenomena, including production and causality) is not annihilated by its ultimate nature (emptiness); its ultimate nature is its emptiness.
Nāgārjuna's genius lies in showing that it is precisely because phenomena are empty of inherent existence (their ultimate nature) that they can dependently arise and function causally (their conventional reality). If they possessed an intrinsic, unchanging nature, they would be static.
As he states in MMK 24:18-19:
'Whatever is dependently co-arisen,
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation,
Is itself the middle way.
There is no thing whatsoever that is not dependently arisen;
therefore there is no thing whatsoever that is not empty.'
And in his Vigrahavyāvartanī (Verse 71, adapted):
'Where emptiness applies... the causal efficacy of convention applies;
where emptiness does not apply... convention has no power.'
Therefore, from an MMK perspective:
Conventionally: Dependent origination functions; causes appear to produce effects, and these have consequences. This is relative truth – how things appear prior to deep analysis.
Ultimately: This entire conventional process, when analyzed, is found to be empty of any inherent existence (svabhava). This emptiness is its ultimate truth. The 'no production' on an ultimate level signifies the absence of inherent, findable, independent production.
The ultimate truth does not negate the conventional functioning of dependent origination; it clarifies its true, empty nature. As Malcolm Smith further clarifies, "All entities bear two natures, one relative, the other ultimate. Why? Because all phenomena are empty." The two truths are not "independent domains."
So, if your statement 'nothing is produced ultimately' means that 'no inherently existent thing is produced ultimately,' then this aligns perfectly with Madhyamaka. The production that appears conventionally is understood ultimately as being empty of such an inherent nature. The key is the inseparability: conventional dependent arising is ultimately empty, and that very emptiness is the nature that allows conventional dependent arising to appear and function. To perceive them as separate, or for the ultimate to negate the conventional function, would miss Nāgārjuna's Middle Way.
This also aligns with Malcolm's point that for us, "the ultimate depends on the relative, since it is only through analysis of relative truths that one arrives at ultimate truth." We start with conventional appearances and, through analysis, discern their empty nature.
Soh Wei YuJohn Tan wrote in the past: "Sentient beings in ignorance tend to seek truly existent entities to attribute causal efficacy to them. In their confusion, they wrongly conclude that since conceptual constructs do not exist inherently, they lack causal efficacy and significance. This view is inverted and in fact contradicts our daily experiences of how things function. The mind that grasps at substantiality fails to comprehend how phenomena, being empty of inherent existence, can still function and possess causal efficacy. This failure arises because the "framework of essentiality" obstructs the "logic" that only phenomena empty of inherent existence can arise dependently and thus have causal efficacy."
Malcolm:
Thorough knowledge of relative truth is ultimate truth; for this reason the two truths are mutually confirming and not in contradiction at all.
….
The ultimate truth is that neither you, the child, nor the candy exist inherently. As QQ pointed out, whatever is dependently originated, that is empty and dependently designated. The two truths are inseparable.
…
Queequeg said:
I'm not sure cause and effect as you have in mind applies to the view explained through ichinen sanzen. "Since suffering and its causes do not exist..." I don't think its any sort of conventional view. As I understand, its the view taught in, for instance, the Heart Sutra:
There is no suffering, no cause of suffering,
no end to suffering, no path to follow.
Malcolm replied:
Which actually means:
There is suffering, a cause of suffering,
an end to suffering, a path to follow.
Why? "Matter is empty, emptiness is matter; apart from matter there is no emptiness; apart from emptiness there is no matter, the same for sensation. perception, formation, and consciousness."
The Heart Sūtra is merely saying there is no inherent suffering, cause, end, or path, and that the two truths, samsara and nirvana, etc., are inseparable.
…
John Tan:
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.
Posts
