Dependent origination is void

[norman]

The dependence of things as being appearances is not their dependent origination, it is simply their appearance.

That is, dependent origination, is Void, it's not an object of perception. There is nothing out there that is connected in any way; their appearance is based on them being dependent on each other – we can't have fingers if we don't have a hand, and vice versa. But that's all they are as objects.

The reason for establishing the dependence of things, is for explaining their appearance, which is all they are as objects. If we take away their appearance, there is nothing left in its place, and since everything is defined in relation with everything else, everything must go with it.

But their dependent origination is NOT their dependence, since it's not a phenomena, it is their VOIDNESS as being the phenomenal entities that we assume them to be.

Their voidness is not due to the fact that they are dependent, since their dependence is all that they have ever been as appearance (which is how we know them).

We look at a chair and say: ”that's a chair”, and why? Because it is of so an so height, and that you can sit on it, and it has four legs, and so on. This ”dependence” of different attributes is not what makes it void, it's what makes it an object at all, as an appearance – because that is all we know of it (its legs, its height, etc).

Since dependent origination is not a phenomenon we cannot give it a definition, either (without making it an object, of course).

[zerwe]

I agree.

…’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

Shaun

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Is dependent cessation (i.e. dependent origination in its cessation mode) given much prominence in Mahayana doctrine?

Maitri,
Retro.

[ground]

Greetings,

Is dependent cessation (i.e. dependent origination in its cessation mode) given much prominence in Mahayana doctrine?

Maitri,
Retro.

It is difficult to talk about "the Mahayana" because of its diversity.

As far is my understanding is concerned - and in terms of "Mahayana" I rely on the method-teachings of Lama Tsongkhapa - dependent cessation is very important in the context of getting rid of gross afflictive obscurations (attachment, anger, pride, indifference etc) which then enables renunciation to arise which is a prerequsitie for the development of authentic bodhicitta which is a prerequisite for practice becoming authentic Mahayana practice.

Kind regards

[Sherab]

Yes, with reference to conventional truth.

[Jnana]

Is dependent cessation (i.e. dependent origination in its cessation mode) given much prominence in Mahayana doctrine?

The full understanding of dependent arising in it's forward sequence is the realization of the reverse sequence. Nāgārjuna's auto-commentary on his Pratītyasamutpādahṝdayakārika:

[T]he wheel of becoming is produced by the propensity for erroneous imagination.... The opposite of the re-emergence of the aggregates should (also) be understood. One who understands entities to be impermanent, full of suffering, empty and insubstantial will not be deluded in regard to entities. Free from delusion, attachment will not originate; free from attachment, aversion will not originate; free from aversion, actions will not be performed; free from actions, clinging to entities will not originate; free from clinging to entities, becoming will not be engendered; free from becoming, rebirth will not occur; and free from rebirth suffering of the body and mind will not originate. Thus the erroneous views, the alternatives of permanence and annihilation etc., are dispelled.

All the best,

Geoff

[retrofuturist]

Brilliant.

Thanks Geoff.

Maitri,
Retro.

[muni]

Stansas. http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... ising.html

Stansas given by the Dalai Lama in Nothingham: http://www.tibetanclassics.org/pdfs/InP ... endent.pdf

Explanation of stansas.
http://www.snowlionpub.com/html/product_9541.html

"the illusory arising of (inter) dependent events and the emptiness that is devoid of all assumptions
are not contradicting but in essence one." Shechen Gyaltsap.

World transendent: Homage to Manjushri. http://www.tibetanclassics.org/pdfs/Wor ... entHym.pdf

[norman]

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.

I agree.

…’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

Shaun

[Rael]

Isn't all just an exercise in helping us to see the true nature of all things....

If you have a wrong view of the true nature of all things ...well clinging attachment and so forth are the norm for you ...forever..

[zerwe]

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.

I agree.

…’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

Shaun

Clear.
Shaun