Posts
Our Taiwanese friend 顏宏安 (Yán Hóng’ān) wrote:
I wanted to share something interesting with both of you. I've found that recently, I'll occasionally have a sudden realization in my dreams that emptiness and dependent arising are not contradictory. At other times, I'll perceive within a dream that the dreamscape itself lacks inherent existence. After having these kinds of dreams, I tend to wake up quite quickly.
Upon waking, I'll sit up in bed and start to reflect on what it was that I just understood in the dream. The interesting part is that it's not as if I'm meeting some great master who teaches me things. Rather, my dreams are helping me deepen my understanding of emptiness in a unique way. It's almost as if I'm practicing in my dreams.
Thank you both, again, for always helping me on my spiritual path. Don't worry that I'll become attached to these dream experiences and neglect my practice. I am deeply aware that I am still a beginner, and so I will practice even more diligently.
I was previously contemplating what kinds of questions about emptiness a practitioner could ponder to further dismantle the grasping at inherent existence. This led me to write an article titled, “Ten Questions on Emptiness.” Several of the questions in it were ones John Tan had already mentioned.
PDF:
John Tan said:
“So fast got dreams of clarity. Not bad. 👍
Ask him what is the difference between lack of boundaries and oneness?”
He replied:
I believe the crucial point is this: the reason things can each perform their different functions is not because they are all independently existent, but precisely because they are not independently existent. Conditions and results are inseparable, yet a condition remains a condition, and a result remains a result. It is precisely because conditions and results are both different and inseparable that they are able to manifest.
When I sit on a train looking at the scenery outside the window, I notice that the scenery is constantly changing. At this moment, my mind habitually assumes that behind this seamless experience, there exist space or substratum. The mind thinks: “If all these phenomena exist independently, how could such a seamless experience be possible? I know, behind these phenomena, there must be some kind of underlying substratum (Brahman), and these phenomena are fundamentally illusory; they are all just different expressions of Brahman.”
This seems to dismantle the view that “things exist independently,” but in reality, we have only shifted the object of clinging from the things to Brahman. What we now cling to is an entity called “Brahman.” In this view, the distinctions between phenomena are illusory; the only thing that is real is Brahman.
What the mind fails to understand is this: things do not need to be independently existent to retain their differences and uniqueness. On the contrary, it is precisely because the computer, the mobile phone, the fan, and the chair are not inherently existent that they can perform their respective functions and possess their distinct qualities. The reason there is a seamless experience is because there are no essences whatsoever.
The lack of boundaries does not mean there are no differences between things. Water, fire, a blanket, a computer—these things are indeed different, and their functions are certainly distinct. The lack of boundaries simply means that no phenomenon can be separated from other phenomena. If a phenomenon could be separated from others, it could not have characteristics or properties; the phenomenon would lose its uniqueness, and it could not even appear.
I suspect John Tan may have noticed my frequent use of “Interdependence” / “Interdependent” in that article. It's true that these words could potentially deepen a practitioner's clinging to substance; this is indeed a problem. I now have a better understanding of why John Tan chose the word ‘relationality’.
I also worry that some might reify Indra's Net as being inherently existent. In that case, Indra's Net would become another Brahman. Even if some people can understand that all dharmas are in fact interdependent, they might still treat all dharmas as entities existing upon Indra's Net. Therefore, we must emphasize that no condition or result exists independently—not in the past, present, or future, and not at any point in space. This is because, from the very beginning, these phenomena were never separate. This non-separation is not because they all share a common ground or essence, but because they are utterly without essence. Indra's Net, too, is empty, lacking inherent existence.
The final conclusion is this: Phenomena, while being unique and functional, are also inseparable. If the differences between phenomena were entirely illusory, we could not establish a valid conventional truth. If there were no distinctions between phenomena, or if phenomena were merely Brahman, then phenomena could not manifest. When we understand that phenomena are entirely without self-nature (svabhāva), we realize that what we call “things” are nothing other than relationality itself. To prevent ‘relationality’ from being reified as something inherently existent, it must be emphasized that relationality itself is also devoid of self-nature (niḥsvabhāva).
...
I have to thank John Tan. The question he raised helped me deepen my understanding of emptiness.
A phenomenon that is truly independently existent would necessarily be empty, undefinable; it could not be the kind of phenomenon we normally experience. Conversely, a phenomenon that is not independently existent is actually this vivid appearance that we normally see. We tend to assume that a thing’s uniqueness stems from its independence. Yet in reality, if something were truly isolated from all else, we would have no means of perceiving or conceptualizing it at all. This fundamentally undermines our attachment to “independent existence.”
The crucial point is that the kind of independently existent phenomenon the mind grasps at is, in reality, empty, undefinable—this implies that we cannot build a bridge between two independently existent things; there can be no relationship between two independently existent things. We can only build a bridge between two non-independently existent things, and this, in effect, means there is no bridge, because two things that are not independently existent have never been separate from the very beginning.
It is not I who breathe, but all things that breathe.
It is not I who sing, but all things that sing.
It is not I who eat, but the universe that eats.
As I walk, the whole universe walks.
Far from plunging my world into darkness, Emptiness has only set my heart's lighthouse aflame. Emptiness has allowed me to see a beautiful world of seamless intimacy. It is not I who writes these words, but the entire universe.”
John Tan replied:
Conversely, a phenomenon that is not independently existent is actually this vivid appearance that we normally see. We tend to assume that a thing’s uniqueness stems from its independence. Yet in reality, if something were truly isolated from all else, we would have no means of perceiving or conceptualizing it at all. This fundamentally undermines our attachment to "independent existence"
===> 👍
The crucial point is that the kind of independently existent phenomenon the mind grasps at is, in reality, empty, undefinable—This implies that we cannot build a bridge between two independently existent things; there can be no relationship between two independently existent things;
===> Very good 👍
We can only build a bridge between two non-independently existent things,
===> Not "two non-independently existent things"
But from here one must understand "conventionally designated as separated or non-separated"
and this, in effect, means there is no bridge, because two things that are not independently existent have never been separate from the very beginning.
===> 👍 Good but must go further from "never separated" to also "never non-separated", neither nor both. Then genuine taste of supreme purity free from all elaborations and spontaneity can arise.
It is important to know the right view of dependent phenomena are free from the 8 extremes of production and cessation, coming and going, permanence and impermanence, one and many.
When in elaborations with full embracement of dependent arising we will feel this immensity of total exertion yet we feel effortless and free ==>
It is not I who breathe, but all things that breathe.
It is not I who sing, but all things that sing.
It is not I who eat, but the universe that eats.
As I walk, the whole universe walks.
Far from plunging my world into darkness, Emptiness has only set my heart's lighthouse aflame. Emptiness has allowed me to see a beautiful world of seamless intimacy. It is not I who writes these words, but the entire universe.
He must be able to discern clearly the difference between “wholeness” and “capacity to participate in togetherness”. One is due to empty nature therefore freely participates in dependence. Free of structures therefore assimilate all structures. The other has the scent of a fixed and definite structure (still essence view).
Empty in nature, consciousness never stands apart; there is no moment outside relation. Where conditions arise, it is precisely that event—sound in hearing, color in seeing, thought in thinking; where none, nothing is found to point to. Participation without a participant; dynamism without a whole.
Soh added:
I sent him a comment:
Regarding your PDF:
“When we consider how these interdependent phenomena appear, it's easy to mistakenly think one thing exists prior to another, allowing the latter to depend on the former. But I've already stated that "no inherently existent cause or effect can exist," so nothing exists prior to anything else. Similarly, concepts don't exist prior to things. When we deeply understand this, we know that the moment anything appears, it's already defined by Indra's Net. These things arise simultaneously, without sequence. Therefore, even in reasoning, we know causes are interdependent with other things from the beginning. The conclusion: cause and effect are mutually dependent and arise simultaneously, not "inherently existent causes producing effects without inherent existence." Also, if someone imagines "cause and effect arising simultaneously" from the perspective of "cause and effect as inherently existent entities," they'll only imagine multiple conditions and results, as independently existing things, appearing together at a certain moment. To avoid this misunderstanding, one must think from the perspective of "both cause and effect lacking inherent existence.”
— my comments (not John’s):
No inherent cause and effect is correct but Nāgārjuna also refutes inherent simultaneity, identity or difference.
For example, in
Nāgārjuna said:
[13] The father is not the son and the son is not the father. These two are mutually not non-existent and the two of them cannot arise simultaneously. It is likewise with the twelve dependent limbs.
ChatGPT comments:
In [13] Nāgārjuna packs two key points into the father–son example and then says “likewise” for the twelve links:
Relational designation (no intrinsic nature).
“Father” is only a father in dependence on a child; “son” is only a son in dependence on a parent. Neither status exists by itself. Many translations gloss “mutually not non-existent” as “neither exists except in correlation with the other.”
Komito’s commentary makes the same point explicitly: no one is ever called “father” before there is a child—the terms are mutually entailing designations.
Mutual dependence ≠ simultaneity.
Even though “father” and “son” are mutually dependent as designations, they do not arise simultaneously (first there must be a birth, then “father/son” obtain). Nāgārjuna uses this to prevent a slide from dependence to identity or to a “all-at-once” causation picture.
“Likewise with the twelve dependent limbs.”
Take the twelve nidānas (ignorance → formations → consciousness … → birth → aging-death):
None of the links has self-standing power; each is only what it is in dependence on others (just like “father/son”).
Their dependence does not mean they are one simultaneous, intrinsically fused event. Nāgārjuna rejects both a strict “one-moment” and a reified “many-moments” account as ultimately true (earlier vv. [8]–[12]), while still allowing conventional sequencing for pedagogical purposes.
More broadly, in Madhyamaka analysis, cause and effect are neither identical nor wholly other; ultimately one cannot fix them as strictly simultaneous or strictly successive with intrinsic natures—hence “emptiness” of svabhāva.
Bottom line: Verse 13 uses a homely pair to show how things can be mutually dependent yet non-simultaneous, undermining both identity and independence. Applied to the twelve links, it means the nidānas work conventionally as a chain of dependent conditions, but none exists or operates from its own side.
If you’d like, I can map each link to the father–son pattern (what it depends on, what it is not identical to, and why it can’t be simultaneous with the rest).
