The Genius of Dependent Arising Is That It Is Self-Exhausting
The Genius of Dependent Arising Is That It Is Self-Exhausting
A source-preserving dialogue from 19–20 July 2026
Maitrīpa frontispiece. This research-informed, AI-generated devotional illustration synthesizes motifs found in later Himalayan portrayals of Indian mahāsiddhas and teachers. It is not a historical likeness, and no decorative inscription or ornamental detail should be treated as textual or historical evidence.
19 July 2026
Yán Hóng’ān sent:
[Image omitted.]
I have discovered that Maitrīpa also places a great deal of emphasis on dependent arising. He maintains that awareness, the Buddha’s activities to benefit beings, meditational deities, and great bliss all arise dependently. The crucial point is that he does not view dependent arising and conventional truth as secondary truths. Furthermore, he seems to hold that there is a pure conventional truth exclusive to noble beings (āryas). I have compiled ten paragraphs on dependent arising. I think the seventh paragraph is very interesting.
Provenance note: Soh has clarified that the introductory paragraph and the complete ten-part selection below were copied from Yán Hóng’ān and forwarded to John Tan. The first-person wording (“I have discovered…” and “I have compiled…”) is retained because it is part of the forwarded text.
- 1
That which has arisen dependently
Has not arisen in terms of its own-being.
How can that which has not arisen in terms of an own-being,
Truly be called ‘arisen’? (PTMV 14 = YṢ 19)Awareness, too, has arisen in dependence. Therefore [even] awareness itself is not grounded [in anything], but rather reflects the level of non-arising. (p. 100)
- 2
From the seed of non-abiding
Comes a non-abiding fruit:
The supreme reality of the protectors—
The way fabricated comes from fabricated. (APP 8)Thus we do not tell those whose conduct is non-attachment
That meditation does not exist;
For in terms of dependent arising
It constantly arises in accord with its natural flow. (APP 9)Whatever arises in dependence,
Is the mind, multiplicity, [and] non-duality.
[Accordingly] there is a division into empti[ness], mind, and multiplicity,
[That is to say,] the dharma-, saṃbhoga-, and nirmāṇakāya. (APP 10; pp. 170–171) - 3
Given that they are thus only conditions,
Phenomena lack an own-being. (YNP 5ab)A yogin who abides in this [view]
Does not fall out of supreme bliss. (YNP 5cd)Even though there is nothing to abandon or adopt at all,
The conventional unfolds.
Once dependent arising is understood,
[One realizes that the conventional], like an illusion, lacks an own-being. (YNP 6)Lacking an own-being, it has not [truly] arisen,
And due to conditions (i.e., dependent arising), there is no termination [of it either].
Thus, there is neither existence nor non-existence,
But their indivisible union (yuganaddha) nonetheless manifests. (YNP 7; p. 176) - 4
Were it not for the handsome suitor of appearances
Which are but dependent arising,
The [beloved] mistress of emptiness
Would be considered no better than dead. (PP 1)Emptiness is a most lovely mistress
With an incomparable figure.
If they ever parted,
The handsome lover would be forlorn. (PP 2)Therefore, trembling with anxiety,
The man and woman are seated in front of the guru,
And through their natural pleasure
[The guru] has generated the love belonging to co-emergence. (PP 3; p. 207) - 5
Sahajavajra’s meditation, including deep insight meditation, must be performed with a non-analytical bodhicitta right from the beginning. Maitrīpa’s Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka is thus characterized by a non-conceptual realization of inconceivable emptiness and luminosity, accompanied by the Madhyamaka view of non-abiding. Based on the Tattvadaśaka, Amanasikārādhāra, and Tattvaratnāvalī, it could be shown that non-abiding means to refrain from both the wrong superimposition of an independent existence and the wrong denial of dependently arisen appearances. (p. 316)
- 6
It is settled that phenomena do not possess
[Any such property as] not arising in dependence.
Since [all of them] have arisen in dependence by their nature,
Is it not likewise so for that which has arisen from [the syllables] hūṃ and maṃ? (MSP 3)From the awakening towards emptiness, a seed [syllable] arises.
From it, an image [of a deity and so forth].
And for [such] an image there are projection and dissolution [phases].
Therefore, everything arises in dependence. (MSP 4; p. 181) - 7
From the extreme limit of reality,
The manifold world arises in dependence;
It is empty of real things, unborn,
Distinct from independent being and a name only. (TP 11)bhūtakoṭer ato viśvaṃ pratītyaiva prajāyate |
vastuśūnyam ajātaṃ tat kevalaṃ nāmamātrakam || (TP 11)yang dag mtha’ las sna tshogs ‘di |
rten cing ‘brel las ‘byung bar ‘gyur |
de ni ma skyes rdzas kyis stong |
ma ‘dres ming tsam pa nyid do | (TP 11) - 8
These two truths are pure:
Emptiness and the apparent truth of the yogin;
Their nonduality must be established,
Once what is worthless is abandoned. (MSP 9) - 9
Clarity that is free from the four extremes
Has the defining characteristic of being false.
It is nonduality in the sense that everything is like an illusion.
This is an acceptable tenet. (MṢ 3)An awareness empty of entities,
Spotless and without aspects,
This is the middle path right for them.
After meditation it is the pure relative (saṃvṛti). (MṢ 4)Whether mind has clarity or not,
In reality neither is apprehended,
Since by nature it is entirely unarisen.
The superior ones take this to be the [right] middle path. (MṢ 5)Clarity that is free from the four extremes
Has the nature of deities.
It has the nature of nondual bliss
And is mere dependent origination. (MṢ 6) - 10
Alternative translation of MṢ 3–6 (as supplied).
That luminosity completely liberated from the four extremes has the characteristic of falsity; for example, it is illusion-like non-duality and is a tenet that possesses valid cognition.
That knowing which sees a situation empty of things,
Without appearances and without the covers of obscuration,
Is in terms of a Madhyamikas’ path,
The post-attainment fictional of the pure ones.
Whether there is luminosity or not,
That there is no referencing in it,
That all superficies are of unborn nature,
Is what others maintain to be the Madhyamaka.
Luminosity completely liberated from the four extremes
And having the personage of the deity
Is a thing of non-dual supreme bliss,
A mere interdependent origination personage.
Source-check note: The citation labels PTMV 14 = YṢ 19, APP 8–10, YNP 5–7, PP 1–3, MSP 3–4 and 9, TP 11, and MṢ 3–6 were checked against Klaus-Dieter Mathes’s published edition. The p. 100 sentence beginning “Awareness, too…” and item 5 are Mathes’s explanatory prose rather than quoted root verses. Item 10 is identified as an alternative translation of MṢ 3–6. Apart from high-confidence encoding, spelling, punctuation, citation-label, source-role, and verified stanza-lineation repairs, the supplied compilation’s wording has been preserved.
Very good and well expressed.
20 July 2026
I actually like this Maitrīpa presentation very much.
Embedded Messenger exchange with Yán Hóng’ān, supplied by Soh. Times are shown only where visible in the screenshots:
Where did you get this citation from?
Besides this book, two other books also explain the perspectives of Maitrīpa.
Maitrīpa is indeed very unique. His explanation of the Shentong view differs from the Jonang tradition’s.
👍
Thrangu Rinpoche’s explanations of Shentong were also non-substantialist. Very different from the Dolpopa book I glanced through years ago, which sounded like Advaita to me.
Yán Hóng’ān sent:
[Forwarded Messenger screenshot; transcribed in the next two turns.]
It seems that most masters consider the Jonang school’s view to be incorrect. The Eighth Karmapa also criticized the Jonang perspective. I remember that he seemed to propose a more complex view. He said that, from the perspective of adventitious defilements, buddha-nature is not empty, but from the perspective of buddha-nature itself, buddha-nature is empty.
I’ve always been curious about the true meaning of this quote. It seems to validate John Tan’s perspective in a different way:
From the extreme limit of reality,
The manifold world arises in dependence;
It is empty of real things, unborn,
Distinct from independent being and a name only. (TP 11)
bhūtakoṭer ato viśvaṃ pratītyaiva prajāyate |
vastuśūnyam ajātaṃ tat kevalaṃ nāmamātrakam || (TP 11)
yang dag mtha’ las sna tshogs ‘di |
rten cing ‘brel las ‘byung bar ‘gyur |
de ni ma skyes rdzas kyis stong |
ma ‘dres ming tsam pa nyid do | (TP 11)
Yes.
That is a deeper understanding than just a lack of inherentness or own-being.
There is a conversation in which I corrected ChatGPT regarding that. It attempted to correct me, saying that it may sound like “no arising,” as it is merely designation.
Presence is not just about non-conceptual presence free from all elaborations. This would create a substrate view and hierarchy.
This is my correction of ChatGPT, which has a similar import to the above:
“I would agree with you if you had not commented on my remark. This means you do not understand what conventional arising is about. Your distinction between inherent arising and dependent arising, and your inability to see it as conventionality, means you see ‘dependent arising’ as a form of realism—as if some true something has ‘arisen’ by means of conditions—rather than as conventionally designated empty, vivid appearances.”
The genius of dependent arising is that it is self-exhausting. It begins by dismantling intrinsic existence through dependence. It then dismantles dependence itself as an ontological principle by revealing it to be merely dependently designated. Having removed every possibility of metaphysical grounding, it leaves conventional functioning entirely untouched. This is why dependent arising is neither a doctrine about how reality is constructed nor a hidden causal engine operating beneath appearances. It is the self-dismantling Middle Way that eliminates every ontological refuge while preserving the full efficacy of conventional life.
.png)
