DO and Emptiness

[Malcolm]

That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness.
-- Mulamadhyamakakarikas.

As you know one sentence can be taken out of context. Which this one is. But you two are free to continue with the same short shrift nonsense ad nauseam, if it makes you feel warm and cozy.

....

Readers should not think these two have settled the issue with DO=Emptiness. This simplistic formulation based on a quote taken out of context of what it was meant to teach has led apparently both of them to negate the efficacy of karma.
deepbluehum

I was purely responding to your assertion that dependent origination does not equal emptiness. The two terms are in fact synonyms.

I nowhere stated that I negated the conventionlly observed efficacy of karma and its results, nor would I.

However, we can examine karma too if you like. Nāgārjuna states:

"Why? This action
does not arise from conditions,
and does not arise without conditions,
therefore, there is also no agent.

If there is no agent,
how can there be an result which arises from an action?
If there is no result,
where will a consumer be observed?

Just as the Teacher's emanation
is emanated through his consummate magical power,
if likewise the emanation also makes an emanation,
there is again a further emanation;

in same the way, though that agent
performs an action, it has the form an emanation.
For example, it is like another emanation created by an emanation
making a [third] emanation.

Affliction, actions, bodies,
agents, and results
are like fairy castles
mirages, and dreams.

I take Nāgārjuna's view. All phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions.

N

*in my previously rendered verses from the 4NT chapter in the other thread, through a fault of vision I misread brten (བརྟེན) as bden (བདེན) as so mistranslated "desginated through relation" as "designated through truth". My apologies. I was unable to fix it as the thread is locked.

[Kelwin]

If there is no dependently originated mind, there is no mind at all, and hence there is would be no nature of the mind of which to speak.

N

True, mind has of course dependently originated. But it's nature hasn't, has it?
And actually, the nature of mind, or Buddha-nature, doesn't ultimately really on the existence of mind I think.

Therefore, my position would be that all phenomena, and relative mind included, are both empty and dependently originated. And mind's nature is empty of any inherent existence, but has itself not dependently arisen. It actually is the ground within which dependent origination happens.

I must be one of the really slow ones, because I don't see where the above is wrong?

Hi Namdrol,
Now that the other thread is locked, is it still possible to reply to the above?
It has puzzled me all night!
All the best,
Maarten

[Malcolm]

If there is no dependently originated mind, there is no mind at all, and hence there is would be no nature of the mind of which to speak.

N

True, mind has of course dependently originated. But it's nature hasn't, has it?
And actually, the nature of mind, or Buddha-nature, doesn't ultimately really on the existence of mind I think.

Therefore, my position would be that all phenomena, and relative mind included, are both empty and dependently originated. And mind's nature is empty of any inherent existence, but has itself not dependently arisen. It actually is the ground within which dependent origination happens.

I must be one of the really slow ones, because I don't see where the above is wrong?

If there is no mind, there cannot be a nature of the mind. The one depends on the other.

N

[Kai]

People, I'm a neutral observer but I just want to inform you guys that Namdrol's view is well stated in this discussion board long ago. Those interested, can take a look into the following threads:

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=5261&start=160

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4461

viewtopic.php?f=69&t=5370&start=100

I wonder whats with the sudden surprise and aggressiveness.

Edit: to include one more link..........

[alwayson]

I just want to inform you guys that Namdrol's view is

Its not just "Namdrol's view."

It is the view of Mahayana in general that EVERYTHING is empty (dependently originated).

Except maybe Yogacara & Buddha Nature Sutras.

[Kai]

It is the view of Mahayana in general that EVERYTHING is empty (dependently originated).

Except maybe Yogacara & Buddha Nature Sutras.

Your two below exceptions made up a bigger portion of the Mahayana community than you thought.........they are not insignificant.

[alwayson]

Your two below exceptions made up a bigger portion of the Mahayana community than you thought.........they are not insignificant.

True

But most of you are Vajrayana practitioners correct?

Vajrayana's base is Madhyamaka right?

[Kai]

Your two below exceptions made up a bigger portion of the Mahayana community than you thought.........they are not insignificant.

True

But most of you are Vajrayana practitioners correct?

Vajrayana's base is Madhyamaka.

Go take a look at the "Mountain doctrine" of the Tibetan Jonang school and be prepared to get surprised. Also you might want to have a look at Dudjom Rinpoche's view on Great Yogacara Madhyamaka............

[deepbluehum]

That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness.
-- Mulamadhyamakakarikas.

As you know one sentence can be taken out of context. Which this one is. But you two are free to continue with the same short shrift nonsense ad nauseam, if it makes you feel warm and cozy.

....

Readers should not think these two have settled the issue with DO=Emptiness. This simplistic formulation based on a quote taken out of context of what it was meant to teach has led apparently both of them to negate the efficacy of karma.
deepbluehum

I was purely responding to your assertion that dependent origination does not equal emptiness. The two terms are in fact synonyms.

This is a nice label to give, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny when you take into account other quotes from the same text, which I gave in previous posts, "empty should not be asserted." "DO = emptiness" is asserting emptiness is DO. This applies to my argument that we ignorant non-buddhas who make conceptual labels, should pray to our idea of Buddha, b/c as long as we are ignorant, we generated karma.

I nowhere stated that I negated the conventionlly observed efficacy of karma and its results, nor would I.

However, we can examine karma too if you like. Nāgārjuna states:

"Why? This action
does not arise from conditions,
and does not arise without conditions,
therefore, there is also no agent.

If there is no agent,
how can there be an result which arises from an action?
If there is no result,
where will a consumer be observed?

Just as the Teacher's emanation
is emanated through his consummate magical power,
if likewise the emanation also makes an emanation,
there is again a further emanation;

in same the way, though that agent
performs an action, it has the form an emanation.
For example, it is like another emanation created by an emanation
making a [third] emanation.

Affliction, actions, bodies,
agents, and results
are like fairy castles
mirages, and dreams.

I take Nāgārjuna's view. All phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions.

N

*in my previously rendered verses from the 4NT chapter in the other thread, through a fault of vision I misread brten (བརྟེན) as bden (བདེན) as so mistranslated "desginated through relation" as "designated through truth". My apologies. I was unable to fix it as the thread is locked.

This is fine,

Now to Alwayson's main point, the Buddha is designated upon the aggregates; therefore he should pray to himself "nondually.":

"The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates."

From the same chapter 22

"If without depending on the aggregates
There were a Tathagata,
Then now he would be depending on them.
Therefore he would exist through dependence.

"Inasmuch as there is no Tathagata
Dependent upon the aggregates,
How could something that is not dependent
Come to be so?"

Last bit from 22,

"Those who develop mental fabrications with regard to
the Buddha,
Who has gone beyond all fabrications,
As a consequence of those cognitive fabrications,
Fail to see the Tathagata."

Finally, from Chapter 25
"Nirvana is uncompounded."
--Mulamadhyamakakarika

Therefore there is no Buddha dependent upon aggregates, or a compounded Buddha designated upon labels, except for our illusion. A Buddha does not grasp illusion. Sentient beings do, as you illustrated. Because, we illusory beings are swamped by our illusions, we are swamped by karma and effects. Therefore, prayers to illusory Buddhas by illusory beings generates good effects.

[Malcolm]

This is a nice label to give, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny...

Sure it does.

[deepbluehum]

This is a nice label to give, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny...

Sure it does.

In your dreams.

[Acchantika]

If there is no mind, there cannot be a nature of the mind. The one depends on the other.

N

That which originates dependently is not "self-originated", "not created by anything whatsoever" etc.

[conebeckham]

Your two below exceptions made up a bigger portion of the Mahayana community than you thought.........they are not insignificant.

True

But most of you are Vajrayana practitioners correct?

Vajrayana's base is Madhyamaka right?

Partially.

[Kai]

Your two below exceptions made up a bigger portion of the Mahayana community than you thought.........they are not insignificant.

True

But most of you are Vajrayana practitioners correct?

Vajrayana's base is Madhyamaka right?

Partially.

Actually, all Tibetan schools do call their ultimate view "Madhayamaka" as a result, there are various types of Madhyamaka.

[Paul]

If there is no mind, there cannot be a nature of the mind. The one depends on the other.

N

That which originates dependently is not "self-originated", "not created by anything whatsoever" etc.

From Samantabhadra's prayer:

The underlying basis is non-composite. It is an ineffable, self-arisen vast expanse named neither “samsara” nor “nirvana.” If just that is known, such is buddha; if not, such is a sentient one drifting through samsara. May every sentient one in the three realms know the ineffable fact, the basis.

I agree with Acchantika - this doesn't sound very dependently originated.

[Malcolm]

This is a nice label to give, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny...

Sure it does.

In your dreams.

Whatever arises dependently,
just that you hold to be emptiness
Lokātītastava

That is dependent orgination,
that you hold as emptiness...
Emptiness is not different than things,
there is also no thing without it;
therefore, you have shown dependently originated
phenomena are empty.

Acintyastava`

I could go on in many other treatises not by Nagarjuan, but these suffice to make my point.

Dependent origination = emptiness. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

N

[heart]

So rigpa is dependent originated awareness?

/magnus

[Malcolm]

If there is no mind, there cannot be a nature of the mind. The one depends on the other.

N

That which originates dependently is not "self-originated", "not created by anything whatsoever" etc.

From Samantabhadra's prayer:

The underlying basis is non-composite. It is an ineffable, self-arisen vast expanse named neither “samsara” nor “nirvana.” If just that is known, such is buddha; if not, such is a sentient one drifting through samsara. May every sentient one in the three realms know the ineffable fact, the basis.

I agree with Acchantika - this doesn't sound very dependently originated.

There are other texts in the cycle of the dgongs pa zang thal that define the basis further: The Second Vairocana aural lineage from the dgongs pa zang thal cycle claries this:

Since the basis was understood to be emptiness that has been forever cleansed, the path was not deluded by conceptual dualism. Since the result, the great wisdom expanded, the example of the great empty essence is “like space”. The example for the great luminosity of one’s vidyā is like the union of the sun and moon.

The way the Adibuddha arose: that latent basis is not established at all. When the time arrived, since that previously explained trio of vāyu, vidyā and space separated, the energy of space self-originated as kayās; the energy of vāyu self-originated as speech, and the energy of vidyā self-arose as mind. Since the body, speech and mind originated as self-originated from that basis that was not established in any way, compassionate vidyā did not engage in pride, object and mind were not separated into two. The mind that grasps external and internal did not arise, there was no clinging to the non-dual, he recognized his own face, severed mental proliferation, reversed clinging into dharmatā, instantly understood objects of knowledge, and since wisdom arise in himself, he fully awakened.

The point here is that the referred to basis is emptiness and it is not established in anyway at all.

Because the basis is emptiness, dependent origination is not contradicted.

The term dependent orgination is used differently in Dzoghen texts that in Madhyamaka. In Dzogchen texts it refers generally to post imuting ignorance state of six realms.

[Malcolm]

So rigpa is dependent originated awareness?

/magnus

Not from a Dzogchen pov.

It would be considered something relative from a Madhyamaka POV.

Different systems, different terms, different understanding. It is good to understand these differences and not conflate the terms of one system with another.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

I thought in the basis there were three wisdoms not just one.