The
middle way is actually a freedom from the misconceptions of existence
and non-existence. Holding that things exist (whether they are
conditioned or unconditoned phenomena) is eternalism, holding that
things do not exist (whether they are conditioned or unconditioned) is
nihilism. Annihilationism is the belief that something existent becomes
non-existent.
The way to
avoid these various extremes is emptiness, which means (i) a lack of
inherent existence, (ii) a freedom from extremes, (iii) a lack of
arising [non-arising], (iv) dependent co-origination. All of those
definitions being synonymous.
Dependent
origination is the proper relative view which leads one to the
realization of the ultimate view; which is emptiness. Many people
misunderstand emptiness to be a negative view, but it is actually the
proper middle way view which avoids the extremes of existence,
non-existence, both and neither.
All
in all there is really no way to ELI5 with this topic, you'll just have
to ask questions. It is simple once understood, but very, very few
people actually understand dependent origination.
Here is a collection of stuff I wrote awhile ago on dependent origination for the sake of the discussion:
the
general definition of independent origination, the very idea that
things are endowed with their own-being/essence [svabhāva], or self
[ātman]. In order for something to be independently originated it would
have to be unconditioned, independent and uncaused, but this is
considered an impossibility in the eyes of Buddhism. The correct
conventional view for emptiness is that of dependent origination, and so
we see that in order to have objects, persons, places, things and so
on, they must possessed of causes and conditions. Meaning they cannot be
found apart from those causes and conditions. If the conditions are
removed, the object does not remain.
The
adepts of the past have said that since a thing only arises due to
causes, and abides due to conditions, and fails in the absence of cause
and condition, how can this thing be said to exist? 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'
is unfindable. We instead only find a designated collection of pieces,
which do not in fact create anything apart from themselves, and even
then, the parts are also arbitrary designations as well, for if there is
no inherently existent object, there can be no inherent parts,
characteristics or attributes either. Therefore the object is merely a
useful conventional designation, and its validity is measured by its
efficacy, apart from that conventional title however, there is no
underlying inherent object to be found.
Dependent
origination is pointing to a species of implied interdependency; the
fact that an allegedly conditioned 'thing' only arises via implication
from the misperception of other conditioned things, and so each 'thing'
is simultaneously a cause and an effect of each other, and everything
else. Dependent origination isn't a case in which we have truly
established things which are existing in dependence on other truly
existent things, for instance; that we have objects which are truly
constructed of parts which are in turn made of smaller parts such as
atoms etc. This is of course one way of looking at dependent
origination, but this would be considered a very coarse and
realist/essentialist view. One that subtly promotes a sense of own-being
or essence to things. So instead what dependent origination is pointing
out, is that there is no inherent object to be found apart from (or
within) the varying conventional characteristics we attribute to said
object. On the other hand there would also be no inherent objects found
in relation to (or within a relationship) with the various
characteristics attributed to said objects. For each would only be valid
when contrasted with the other, and upon discovering a lack of
inherency in regards to one, the validity of the other would be
compromised as well. Our experiences are merely interdependent
conventional constructs composed of unfounded inferences.
In
this way, the object 'itself', as an essential core 'thing' is
unfindable. We instead only find a designated collection of pieces,
which do not in fact create anything apart from themselves, and even
then, the parts are also arbitrary designations as well, for if there is
no inherently existent object, there can be no inherent parts,
characteristics or attributes either.
So
for example, if a table were truly inherently existent, meaning it
exists independently, then we would be able to find that table
independently of its varying characteristics. The table would be able to
exist independently of being observed, independent of its color or
texture, independent of its parts and pieces, independent of its
designated name, independent of its surroundings etc. In contrast, if
observation - or consciousness for example - were truly existent, we
would likewise be able to find it apart from the perception of the
table, surrounding environment, and so on. There is no essential, 'core'
nature that a table in fact 'is' or possesses, and the same goes for
consciousness and anything else.
For
sentient beings afflicted with ignorance, conceptual imputation and
conventional language are mistaken as pointing towards authentic
persons, places, things, etc. When ignorance is undone, there is freedom
to use conventional language, however it doesn't create confusion
because wisdom directly knows ignorance for what it is. In Buddhism
conventionality is allowed to be a tool implemented for communication,
so we're allowed to be John Doe or Mary Smith, trees, rocks, cars are
allowed to be designations. Conventionality is simply a useful tool
which doesn't point to anything outside of itself. The conventional
truth is relative... words, concepts, ideas, persons, places, things
etc., and is contrasted by ultimate truth, which is emptiness.
All
apparent phenomena which fall under the category of 'conditioned' -
meaning they accord with one or more of the four extremes (existence,
nonexistence, both, neither) - originate dependently. We know this is so
because there is no such thing as phenomena which doesn't arise
dependent upon causes and conditions.
"Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.
Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a non-empty thing
Does not exist."
-- Nāgārjuna
Soh Wei YuAdmin
Soh:
recently i have been reading some old posts by kyle dixon
i found that his salt analogy to be a good explanation of chariot applied to all phenomena
from
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2012/03/a-sun-that-never-sets.html[6:00 am, 17/11/2021] John Tan: Yes. Not easy to find one that has Kyle's insights and experiences. Not even among those so called "masters" and "teachers".
[6:33 am, 17/11/2021] John Tan: He seems less active in reddit nowadays (Soh: not exactly true:
https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha/comments/)
A Sun That Never Sets
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
A Sun That Never Sets
A Sun That Never Sets
2
· Reply
· Remove Preview
· 10h
Jayson MPaulAuthor
Soh Wei Yu I've read over this one many times in the past. So many gems in here!
1
· Reply
·
· 51m
Данила Игнатовски
Soh Wei Yu can you explain, please, about non-arising.
First in my practice I saw that everything is just arising and passing away. Now I see with a little bit more clarity, contemplate on impermanence and feel like phenomenons just passing away. When it arises it just automatically begin to die. Only verb, only processes and everything is going to dissolve right after its was birth.
My only suggestion about non-arising its about empty nature of everything, like holograms, thats why nothing is really arrises nor passes away. Its like imagination. Also a few weeks ago you commented somewhere in topic of awareness real or not, that "only appearances is real". My guess its like images in dream, but its lack of inherent existence/substance. Can you put it short in your simple words, thank you.
· Reply
·
· 1h · Edited
Soh Wei YuAdmin
Данила Игнатовски
Let's say you see a mirage, the mirage is simply a conglomeration of various causes and conditions aggregating and appearing as a mirage, but can a true substance or essence of a mirage be found within or apart from those conditions and appearances? No mirage can be found. Such a mirage is thus never truly arisen, never come into existence anywhere, and is a mere coalescence of appearance and emptiness.
Or a reflection of a moon on water, can it be said that something is truly born in the water? No, what is on display is simply the union of dependent arising and emptiness.
All phenomena, all appearances and displays have this same nature of being like a chariot, like weather. Whatever dependently originates in truth never really arise, is empty. And this very emptiness is also the nature of mind, of consciousness, of all displays.
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
· Reply
· 7m · Edited
Soh Wei YuAdmin
The non-arising of phenomena is subtler than the insight into the impermanence of conditioned phenomena.
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2015/01/four-levels-of-insight-into-emptiness_9.htmlThusness had a casual discussion with me regarding the various phases of seeing through intrinsic-ness in experience:
Realizing the nature (i.e. non-arising, empty nature) of clarity is not the same as realizing clarity. Anatta can lead one to experience whatever arises/appearance as presence.
Presence is part of the journey. The practitioner goes through anatta and realizes what we called presence is just appearance. Then he must start
looking at absence. There are at least 4 levels of seeing through intrinsic-ness or the realizing of absence and anatta is just the beginning.
1. The emptiness (i.e. non-existence of a) background
2. Seeing foreground appearance as empty like mist or shimmering paint in
the pond but appearance is seen as arising, abiding and ceasing.
3. Seeing absence in vivid presence... means in clear vivid non-dual
appearance, realize it is never there at all. At this phase, there must
be complete conviction without the slightest doubt from logical
analysis in understanding why it is "never there". The article where I
asked you what is second fold... non-Arisen emptiness. (link:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2013/04/daniel-post-on-anattaemptiness.html)
4. Turn insight of non-arisen in 3 into a taste, otherwise the 2 mindstreams cannot become one... that is, mind stream of dependent arising and emptiness are like what Tsongkhapa said "mutually exclusive", no way to become one unless one reaches Buddhahood. This is because we do not know the key is in recognizing the taste of absence (i.e translate the logical and inferring consciousness into a taste).
Four Levels of Insight into Emptiness
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Four Levels of Insight into Emptiness
Four Levels of Insight into Emptiness
· Reply
· Remove Preview
·
and sent him
http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/06/non-arising-due-to-dependent-origination.html