[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.9.9

[MarshaV]

 When Jeffery Hopkins was asked, "Could you define exactly what you mean by dependent arising?"  He answered:


Jeffery Hopkins:
There are three types of dependent arising in the Prasangika-Madhyamika System (the final System):

1. One is that products, impermanent things, arise in dependence upon causes and conditions. This indicates that there is no separate creator or maker, that everything has its own particular individual set of causes and conditions. 

2. The next is that all phenomena, both the impermanent and the permanent, arise or exist in dependence on their parts. This one I find very helpful. A table exists in dependence on its parts. 

3. Then the third is that all phenomena arise or exist in dependence upon a designating consciousness. This does not mean that by designating or calling that chair an elephant, it becomes an elephant, but that nothing exists in and of itself. It must depend upon a designating consciousness even for its existence. 

It seems that many people in the West think they already understand this third, most profound meaning of dependent arising. At least I can say I have not, and that is why I say that the middle meaning is so helpful and profound for me. It seems to mean something to me that the one that is actually more profound doesn’t yet mean, though I’m sure eventually it will get through my thick mind. It the meantime, this middle one is very helpful. 

Because impermanent things depend on causes and conditions, they do not exist in and of themselves. 

Because any phenomenon exists in dependence upon its parts, it does not exist in and of itself. 

Because any phenomena exists in dependence upon a designating consciousness, it does not exist in and of itself. 

This existence ‘in and of itself’ appears to us all around. The Buddhists are not saying that phenomena appear to be permanent and appear not to depend upon causes and conditions. 

They say that phenomena appear to exist in their own right, and, if they did exist in their own right, then, they would be permanent, they would not depend upon causes and conditions. It’s quite different from saying that phenomena appear to be independent, permanent. Rather, phenomena appear to exist in and of themselves. Then you can say that if they did, then they would be permanent, etc. Therefore, since they are not permanent, etc., since they depend upon causes and conditions, they do not inherently exist. 

Almost anyone can understand that an apple depends upon a tree, the growing process, light, and soil. Even though they understand that part of it, they do not understand this as contradicting the basic appearance of the apple as if it exists in its own right. Most people say that the Madhyamikas are trying to prove phenomena are not not produced in dependence upon causes and conditions. However, it doesn’t take too much to understand that. If that were all the Madhyamikas were teaching, I don’t know as it would be worth so much interest. It is the connection they make between these rather obvious truths about phenomena and the way phenomena appear that is so interesting.

By teaching dependent arising, Buddha is challenging the way things appear to us. It takes a lot of time to be able to sift out what is appearing to us. Very hard. We can use words very easily from the mouth: “They seem to exist in and of themselves, they seem to exist solidly.” But to actually catch that sense about phenomena (its inherent existence) and then use one of these reasonings to refute that, and to experience its refutation without going too far (nihilism), without going either too little (eternalism) or too far, that is very, very difficult – but it is well worth the attempt. There’s no choice without it.