Luke wrote:The phrase I've been parroting for a while is "emptiness is the absence of inherent existence." Although this statement may be correct, I find that the word "absence" still creates a bit of a nihilistic impression in my mind. I like Lama Gursam's statement "emptiness is interdependence" much better because it gives me a more useful viewpoint to work with.
Tilopa wrote:However, there are two teachings which sound similar but explain different things and I think this is where confusion sometimes arises.
Dependent origination - as in the 12 links - which explains the arisal and continuation of samsaric rebirths. It includes the link of ignorance, the antidote to which is the wisdom realizing emptiness/selflessness, but is not itself an explanation of emptiness.
Dependent arising as in nothing comes into existence without depending on its causes and conditions, parts and imputed label. This is a teaching on emptiness and is said to be a relatively easy way to understand what is really meant by "lack of inherent existence".
Dependent arising -- in terms of the twelve links or in terms of any dharmas whatsoever -- means that those dependent phenomena (including the 12 links) are empty of inherent existence
Luke wrote:His main point is that the Buddhist concept of emptiness is really the interdependence of all things. Do you agree with this?
TMingyur wrote:emptiness and dependent origination do not really exist but are mere thoughts which are however valid in their own contexts.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:If someone would like to explain to me how they feel emptiness is somehow not synonymous with dependent origination, I'd love to see such an explanation.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:They are beyond the four mistaken thoughts (existence, nonexistence, both, or neither) because they are dependently originated.
tobes wrote:Add in Yogacaran influenced thinkers (such as Shantarakshita), Tantric influenced thinkers (really, most Tibetans), plus the Chinese Madhyamakins and you have many variations and complications.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:... If someone would like to explain to me how they feel emptiness is somehow not synonymous with dependent origination, I'd love to see such an explanation.
Huifeng wrote:I'd still rather use the term "dependent origination" than "interdependence", not just for the fact that the former is an actual term used by the Buddha and Buddhist traditions, whereas the latter is not strictly found in all traditions. There is a difference, and it is an important one.
Yeshe D. wrote:tobes wrote:Add in Yogacaran influenced thinkers (such as Shantarakshita), Tantric influenced thinkers (really, most Tibetans), plus the Chinese Madhyamakins and you have many variations and complications.
Yes, I agree that there are different interpretations. Nevertheless, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra tells us that by seeing that all phenomena lack self-nature (niḥsvabhāva), one abandons the view of arising, duration, and dissolution (utpādasthitibhaṅga). The Mañjuśrīparivartāparaparyāyā Saptaśatikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states that the development of prajñāpāramitā is where no phenomenon arises or ceases.
In practice, a yogī in meditative equipoise attends to what is conventionally designated as the flow of the mind-stream with nonconceptual gnosis (nirvikalpajñāna) after having correctly removed all concepts (vikalpā) of apprehended (grāhya), apprehender (grāhaka), individual phenomena (dharmā), characteristics (lakṣaṇā), arising (utpāda), duration (sthiti), and dissolution (bhaṅga), as well as the remedial concepts of nonarising (anutpāda), selflessness (nairātmya), emptiness (śūnyatā), etc.
All the best,