Whatever could be implied by a ”connection” would require two objects in consecutive order – one, two. For instance, what follows the other? Is it first the hand, and the fingers second? Or is it vice versa? Or is it neither?
That is, their Dependent origination is not a sequential phenomenon – one, two. The appearance of an object, a hand, is all it is
as an object. The object in itself is void of the concept of itself: the very voidness it is void of IS
its Dependent origination. The reason for establishing its dependence as an object is for explaining its appearance as an object, in the first place
The Origination of anything is the absence of the concept of that very thing.
It is non-conceptuality, as such.
…’we should have perfect confidence that emptiness manifests as dependent arising. It is because not even one phenomenon is truly existent that phenomena are able to appear.’--Ju Mipham, A Teaching to Delight My Master
The only thing I find problematic is this choice of words. Could you explain in another manner?
There is nothing out there that is connected in any way