Praise of Dependent Origination

[Will]

By Je Tsongkhapa: http://www.tibetanclassics.org/pdfs/InP ... endent.pdf

[muni]

Here for all of us; Chinese, Vietnamese, Tibetan.
http://www.dalailamabay2007.com/index.p ... &Itemid=35

Thupten Jinpa explains clearly in English each stansa: http://www.snowlionpub.com/html/product_9541.html

[White Lotus]

thanks Will and Muni, am i right in summarising this...

everything depends on something else for its existence. its a network of life. nothing has its own independent existence. all things lack an independent identity, or self. all is depedent and interdependent.

love White Lotus.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

everything depends on something else for its existence.

Spot on!

Importantly, this also applies to those things we mistakenly assume to be I, me, mine or self (atman).

Analyzing the link of dependent origination helps us unpick false perceptions of self.

The teaching of Dependent Origination is cool.

Metta,
Retro.

[Will]

:namaste: thanks Will and Muni, am i right in summarising this...

everything depends on something else for its existence. its a network of life. nothing has its own independent existence. all things lack an independent identity, or self. all is depedent and interdependent.

love White Lotus.

Right you are Lotus. It even goes deeper than objects like people, trees or stars. Even our thoughts, words & deeds are empty of solid or inherent existence.

[White Lotus]

thanks.
does anyone actually think that although everything is dependent there is real existence in form?

i believe that one cannot fall into the extreme of emptiness, since ultimately there is no form. i think it would be misguided to say that those things which are dependent still are real. they may be real in a personal sense, but not truly any more than flowers in the sky, mirages in the destert and the reflection of the moon in a pond.

ie, dependent objects appear to be real, but truly they are not even appearances, nor are they arisings.

please correct me if i am wrong. just because emptiness may be seen on one level, does not mean that dependent objects still do not have some form of reality, albeit a personal one.

as for self, if one has a relative self, it can be perceived in relation to the 5 skhandas, but ultimately there are no skhandas, nor is there any perceiving... so how could there be a self? the relative self is impermanenent, it is also impure. a buddhist would seek to move in his experience from atman to sunyatman, and then ultimately to tathagatman. but why seek when there is already nothing to be found. 'this is it', just as you are. not a thing to seek, not a thing to be found... only emptiness (to see). no need to even see emptiness, no need to even see your original nature. this is it.

as the patriarch said (parphrase), let it be known that everyone is liberated.

seeing your own nature and the emptiness of all things is normal for everyone. they just dont see what they have always seen.

best wishes, White Lotus.

[justsit]

"Relative truth may be conceptual, but there is no way to realize nonconceptual absolute truth without it."

-Tweet today from Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche

[muni]

"Relative truth may be conceptual, but there is no way to realize nonconceptual absolute truth without it."

-Tweet today from Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche

Yes! The importance to actually put this great teaching in our daily life bit by bit.

It is like Khyentse Norbu explained with a large smile: "If I want to become an alcoholic, I need transmission. So when I feel need to become such alcoholic I must direct me to a bar. There I can find one who can introduce me. But if that one is giving me a whole bottle, I can be completely sick and lost and will not have learned to drink through this transmission. But when he gives me the first taste, then a bit more, than a glass, slowly I will become an alcoholic."

(so maybe this example is also a good one to be careful with all that)

The teaching of Dependent Origination must not be pushed away! All is interdependent! As what Retro and Will say about dependency of self, thoughts and really everything; is talking for itself.

[White Lotus]

if we took away relative experience would there be tathata? and my it would be boring. i still suspect that inspite of relative experience there is no reality.

Venerable Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, even the relative is not seen. we talk of seeing and hearing, but actually we dont see, nor do we hear. how could that which is not a self see or hear.

Noble Muni, you once said in a post, "there is no arising". Yup, there is no arising, but we all like to go to the cinema if theres a good film showing. the enjoyment does not make the film real, but it is still seems to be experienced... where actually there is no experience.

i suspect that dependent origination just points to the fact that really there is since the beginning "not a single thing" anywhere. and yet... cut and you bleed, laugh and feel happy, drink tea and relax.

i have heard of the mind only school, but actually there is no mind... in anyone or anything. everything is without mind. if we talk of no mind we are talking of something where actually there is not even no mind, in anyone or anything at all.

the show must go on, dependent origination is merely the dancing of lights from the projector one sees in the movie theatre. insubstantial.

i am wondering "What creates dependent origination, where does it come from, what is its purpose, is it the buddha?" actually, is it not without purpose since fundamentally dependence does not exist? there is not a speck of dust anywhere, not a single hair enters into emptiness.

best wishes, White Lotus.

[muni]

if we took away relative experience would there be tathata? and my it would be boring. i still suspect that inspite of relative experience there is no reality.

Venerable Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, even the relative is not seen. we talk of seeing and hearing, but actually we dont see, nor do we hear. how could that which is not a self see or hear.

Noble Muni, you once said in a post, "there is no arising". Yup, there is no arising, but we all like to go to the cinema if theres a good film showing. the enjoyment does not make the film real, but it is still seems to be experienced... where actually there is no experience.

i suspect that dependent origination just points to the fact that really there is since the beginning "not a single thing" anywhere. and yet... cut and you bleed, laugh and feel happy, drink tea and relax.

i have heard of the mind only school, but actually there is no mind... in anyone or anything. everything is without mind. if we talk of no mind we are talking of something where actually there is not even no mind, in anyone or anything at all.

the show must go on, dependent origination is merely the dancing of lights from the projector one sees in the movie theatre. insubstantial.

i am wondering "What creates dependent origination, where does it come from, what is its purpose, is it the buddha?" actually, is it not without purpose since fundamentally dependence does not exist? there is not a speck of dust anywhere, not a single hair enters into emptiness.

best wishes, White Lotus.

there is a text about the approaches of the Two Truths in Vajrayana Kagyu.

Beyond mental fabrications, constructions is no arisen (increasing-decreasing).
"Nothing enters" emptiness: emptiness is the very nature of phenomena.

[White Lotus]

Noble Muni,
the "two" truths are: mental fabrications versus the only reality... emptiness??? how could there be two truths? emptiness is form. thisness is empty. this is one truth.

is our experience a fabrication?... it is empty. yes, but is it right to speak of a cup of tea as false? (fabricated). it does not exist, but that does not make it false.

could we use a more accurate description of suchness, than fabrication? we know that the cup of tea does not exist, that it is dreamlike, nonetheless we still need it to live our daily life, to live the dream.

with respect, White Lotus.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

if we took away relative experience would there be tathata? and my it would be boring.

Boring? Sounds good to me.

Metta,
Retro.

[justsit]

We know that the cup of tea does not exist, nonetheless we still need it to live our daily life, to live the dream.

...which is Rinpoche's point, except that we don't "know" the cup of tea doesn't exist. Rather, the cup of tea has no inherent existence. It does exist on the level of relative truth. It does not exist from its own side.

That is not the same as saying "it does not exist," which is the extreme view of nihilism.

[muni]

:namaste: thanks Will and Muni, am i right in summarising this...

everything depends on something else for its existence. its a network of life. nothing has its own independent existence. all things lack an independent identity, or self. all is depedent and interdependent.

love White Lotus.

Interdependent.

[White Lotus]

Noble Just sitting,

we don't "know" the cup of tea doesn't exist. Rather, the cup of tea has no inherent existence. It does exist on the level of relative truth. It does not exist from its own side.

actually it can be said that inspite of its dependence a cup of tea exists if you think it does, it just has no independence. the colour of your mind determines the colour of the tea, the colour of the tea determines the colour of your mind.

if we think we dont know that the cup of tea doesnt exit, then we dont know. if we know it does then it does. if we think there is no cup then there isnt, if we think there is then there is. if we think there neither is nor isnt a cup of tea, then this is so, or if we think the cup of tea is just a cup of tea. that saves some headache. Mind being one flavour has all flavours.

best wishes, White Lotus.

Mind maketh the world,
the world maketh mind.
theres a killer whale in the tea cup.