Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 32-minute session, Ven Jampa Gendun unpacks Tsongkhapa’s pointed instruction to work at realizing dependent arising rather than emptiness directly — the two, he explains, are two sides of the same coin. He moves through three levels: things arising through causes and conditions (traced through all the labor behind a simple plate of rice, a disarming illustration of how little self-sufficiency we actually have), things existing only in reliance on their opposites (a ring finger is neither long nor short in any absolute sense), and most profoundly, objects coming into existence through conceptual designation — as when two identical rooms become a kitchen and living quarters only by being labeled so. He then outlines three criteria that keep this labeling process from being arbitrary, and closes with a short exchange on how language and metaphor shape what we can even perceive. Suited to practitioners with some grounding in Madhyamaka philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 HMA 1997 10 15.mp3
UUID: 6d7bb76c-3503-4c87-a6b8-f9dbf14663c3
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: The Heart and Mind of Awakening 1996-1997 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1997-10-15
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 32.2 minutes
Words: ~3,916
To the the self of persons, to yourself, and apply it to all phenomena. May I borrow may I may borrow that prayer book, please? But in his text, Tsongkhapa, I believe, says if you do not have the wisdom realizing the way things are, even though you have developed a thought definitely to leave cyclic existence, you know, let’s say develop the will to awaken and the altruistic intention, the awakened heart, the root of cyclic existence cannot be cut. The root of cyclic existence is ignorance. Therefore, work at the means of realizing dependent arising.
So Tsongkhapa doesn’t say work at the means of realizing emptiness. He says work at the means of realizing dependent arising. So what does he mean by dependent arising? Dependent arising is the other side of the coin of emptiness. Things are dependent arising because they are empty, and phenomena are empty because they are dependent arising.
So they they establish one another. They our understanding of one will assist our understanding of the other. Just as in the case of gaining an understanding of selflessness, there are different levels that we work through. Likewise, there are the same types of levels with regard to dependent arising. There’s different you know, the the the different ways of interpreting the word dependent arising.
In Sanskrit, it’s pratītyasamutpāda. And one way one way of interpreting it is that it it means arising through meeting, arising through meeting. And this has the notion that, you know, all phenomena, all things all things arise through meeting. And what do we mean by that? That is that they arise dependent upon causes and conditions.
This is the meaning that the great exposition school, the sūtra school, the mind only school make use of in their interpretation of the word dependent arising. Now the only the importance of this is that we normally don’t aren’t mindful of that fact, on that things arise dependent upon causes and conditions. On the contrary, we grasp to things existing independent of cause and conditions. Independent existence, which is the exact opposite of dependent existence or or dependent arising. So the the, you know you know, very practically, you know, it’s perhaps getting a bit heady here.
You know, what what is what would have if you begin to have a sense of that and keep that in mind, you know, what kind of what kind of kind of differences differences would that make? You know, we have a sense that the clothes that we wear or the food that we eat, somehow it’s just there or, you know, that I’ve earned the money to to pay to buy these clothes or this eat this food, and we become very we have almost a smugness, a sense of I can take care of myself, I’m completely self sufficient. But with a sense of dependent arising in this applied in this level, look at look at what it takes to produce, you know, I had some lunch today, I had rice and dal rice, just rice. What how many people, all of what it took to to bring that rice to to my plate this afternoon. You know, the the chain of events that it went through, you know, the people plowing the field and planting and sowing the seeds and the water and the rain and the soil and and harvesting the grain and then the milling and and then the distribution system and and the store keepers and all the sales people, and then having go I went in my car to go to the supermarket and the people who made my car for me to get to the supermarket.
And that every single existence is inextricably bound up with a myriad of causes and conditions which stretch out in the present and into the history, into the past. But we have the sense that I can take care of myself, can’t we? But we can’t. We’re not independent of this web of causes and conditions. Our very existence is intimately bound up with the existence of others and what they’re doing for us and and all of the and this planet, the earth.
It’s it’s when we begin to draw this big black line around ourselves that problems begin to arise, that the demarcation between self and others becomes absolute, and we begin to exploit and use others for our welfare, and we begin to have a sense that we can conquer nature, we can destroy our planet, and still we’re we’re going to be okay. You know, this so this at this very level, this appreciation of dependent arising in terms of that everything that I have and make use of is is reliant upon a myriad web of causes and conditions stretching out in a sort of unimaginable extent, both in the present and also in terms of past. What what what has come into existence, the all of the knowledge and and traditions and and technology. That has come and has brought about what is now is not self existent. It it has this history and conditions which brought it about.
So we won’t keeping that in mind, we we see ourselves as a part of the planet, inextricably bound up, that that the that the self and the and environment are a unit, interdependent for their existence, and we and others are not isolated entities from one another, that we our very existence is intimately dependent upon others in one way or another. So I think it it automatically, even at at this level, it begins to to expand our scope, our sense of of connectedness with others and our planet, this notion of dependent arising. Then there’s another level of dependent which we’ve which we’ve discussed in terms of the autonomy middle way school. And here, the the word dependent arising is interpreted as meaning existing in reliance, you know, existing in reliance. So, you know, like like, you know, if you were if you were out in the say, a country road and you saw a very a light just over the over the next hill, very just a pinpoint of light, and then light became a little bit bigger and bigger, and you begin to hear this noise.
And you think, ah, there’s a car. Yeah? So the the notion here is that once you when you think in dependence upon those characteristics of headlights and motor noise, Those characteristics you think car. So characteristics or those parts of a car then become, oh, those are the headlights, those are the lights of a car, that noise is the motor of a car. So so the the in dependence upon those characteristics, come to label think car, and those characteristics become part of a car.
So the whole and the parts are interdependent on one another. When we identify the parts, they become part of we identify in terms of the whole. And those that whole the parts become part of that whole. So also the term existing in reliance, in reliance, has the notion that we only know beauty in dependence upon ugliness, that they aren’t entities of themselves. They they don’t exist.
They they only relatively exist, not absolutely. You know, I’ve used this example probably quite a few times. You know, your ring finger, is it long or short? Well, that that it doesn’t doesn’t make much sense in a way to talk about it and to say that. Is it absolutely long or short?
It’s neither. In comparison to my little finger, it’s long. Compared to my middle my middle finger, it’s short. It is relatively long or short. So, you know, obviously, this has this begins to have some kind of practical revel relevance in how we relate with others.
You know, this is my friend in in relationship relative to my enemy. This is beautiful relative to ugliness, not absolutely beautiful. There’s no such thing as absolute beauty. It’s only beautiful in regard to ugliness. If there was no ugliness in the world, there’d be no beauty.
If I had no friends, I would have no enemies. They only exist relative to these to some standard which I’m making these judgments, these comparisons, comparatively so, not absolutely so. So we we if this is felt and and one is mindful of this, then one quits grasping to this friend as if they existed from their own side, exuding some kind of repulsiveness by their very nature. One begins to understand that I only think of this person in this way relative to someone who treats me a lot better. This is one doesn’t grasp that beauty as existing inherently from that side, as being absolute, as being the the the reality of that object from it without me thinking of it in that way, without depending upon culture, without depending upon propaganda advertising.
When we understand that it’s only beautiful dependent upon what we know what in terms of what is ugly, what is what is what is not beautiful. So the idea of existing in reliance, that beauty comes into existence upon ugliness, friends come into existence upon enemies, short comes into existence dependent upon long. Without short, there’s no long. Without long, there’s no short. So I think we we quit we aren’t captivated.
We aren’t swept away by these notions. Beauty still exists, but we we realize it only relatively exists and not absolutely. And therefore, we aren’t carried away with attachment. We aren’t carried away with aversion. Then there’s the the most profound interpretation of dependent arising that, you know, all of what we’ve been talking about in terms of that objects are arising dependent upon terms and conceptuality.
Now I like you know, just to give you a sense of what, you know, what this a feeling for this. You know, an easy you know, an example would be and if you’ve to India, maybe, you know, you’re building a house. Okay? Not even a house. It’s I don’t know.
When when I think of this, I always think back in India, you know, you know, really a simple a two room shack. You know? This is gonna be this is out in the bush somewhere. Know? Okay?
And and it’s gonna be it’s a very simple two room cabin. And and it’s you’re you’re it’s going to using a variety of materials. You know, you’re using wood, cement, stones, nails, glass. So you you and you put a lot of effort into its building, you know, put into the building of the foundation, the walls, the roof. So so so now we have having put all this work into it, used all these materials, now we’ve got two identical rooms, No different.
You know, you very simple minded design, you know, just the same exact window situations, doors, etcetera. And you say, okay. You know, okay. Now I’ve got two rooms here. I wanna make one one room the kitchen.
I wanna make one one room my my living quarters where I sleep and and sit around. But which one which which room should I make? So you look around, you say, that that that window, that has a nicer view than that room. I’m gonna make this room the room that I live in and this room the kitchen. There there was so then the thing about it is there was nothing whatsoever from the side of the object which made which which forced you to think this is the kitchen and this is the living room, for example.
Yeah? So okay. So we simply designate it that way for one reason or another. And in dependence upon being thought of in that way, then one room becomes the kitchen, one room becomes the the living room. So so we have a situation that in dependence upon causes, the building materials, all the work that we put into it, and conditions.
A nice view over here, for example, in dependence upon its parts, walls and the foundation and the ceiling. This is the wall and the ceiling and the roof are the basis of designation, in dependence upon those. And then upon the perceptual process, that is to say the the concept kitchen, concept living quarters, and thinking about those rooms in these ways, then the the actual kitchen and living room come into existence. Okay? in dependence upon causes and conditions, in dependence upon parts, in dependence upon the conceptual process.
Everything in the universe comes about comes into existence in the exact same way. No difference. If we took away any of those steps, the object would not exist. If we if we did if we if we built these two rooms and didn’t go on to think about them as being kitchen and living quarters, kitchen and living quarters would not exist. Two rooms would, but not kitchen and living quarters.
If we didn’t have all the building materials, that is to say the causes and conditions, the building would not exist. If we didn’t have the parts, which are the basis of designating, the foundation, the walls, the roof, There would be nothing to designate, kitchen and living quarters. There would be no building. Everything, all things, products, people, tables, houses, cars, It is exactly the same way, comes into existence in just that way. You know, the idea if we think about this in a way like this, things aren’t quite as solid.
You know you know, I meant when they back in the before your time, back in the Not now. Yeah. When I I I went out to I remember I went out to California and to Francisco, when was that? In the early seventies. And it was like just you know, it was just it was just the tail end of the the flower power era.
You know, Janis Joplin and the and the grateful Dead and those kinds of people. I mean, and for a while there, they you know, LSD was legal, and they used to talk about happenings. Let’s have a happening. You know, they used to you know, they they’d all dress up and they’d get all kinds of costumes and get a bucket of Kool Aid, some acid and anyway, they paint and all kinds of, you know, materials and they’d have this happening and something would something would come out of this. And I’ve always kind of associated that that that everything is happening.
It’s like a blip, you know, all these, you know, all these, like, coming all these causes and conditions coming together and and and with, you know, the materials, the things, and my thinking about it, and all of a sudden a glass happens. It’s like a glass is like a happening. This table is a happening. I’m a happening. We’re all happenings.
It’s like a constellation of these causes and conditions and and these parts and my thinking of it and such. And out of nothing as it were, out of emptiness, objects come into existence. But they don’t have that in thinking about objects in that way, they’re not quite as solid, you know, and real. And, you know, they don’t quite they’re they’re they’re more workable. A little there’s there’s less to grasp hold grasp hold to and hold on to, less to have aversion for and attachment to.
And you’re thinking of things in this way, you know, the the world becomes more, like, fluid and pliable. It’s not it’s it’s not quite as solid and and fixed. It’s more dynamic, more process than thing, which is probably closer to its reality, maybe. But everything in the world comes into existence in in the same manner. Phenomena are are nothing more nor less than what we designate them to be, what we label them to be.
Okay? This is extremely, I think, difficult to wrap our minds around. It’s exactly opposite of what we have habit ways of thinking if we thought it about at all, which we have unconsciously are habituated to conceiving of the world. But, you know, having said that, phenomena are nothing more or less than what we designate or label them to be. But we can’t simply label something anything we may wish it to be, and that makes it so.
So this this is important notion. You know, the labeling process is not arbitrary. We cannot properly call an ordinary person a Buddha, or we can’t call a dog a cat, and that makes it so. So when we when we apply a label or designate an object, there are three conditions which have to be satisfied in order for that object to validly exist. Okay.
First, the object must be renowned in the world for what it is. Now this means that it must that simply means it must be known by convention, by that name that we that we are giving it. For example, you know, that which has that which has four legs and goes a long tail and goes meow meow. That is popularly known as a cat. If we call it a dog, then we are mislabeling it.
It’s it’s not renowned in the world for being a dog. It’s renowned in the world for being a cat. It’s a convention, a convention that we’ve we’ve been plugged into. We we are born into a world of meaning and we we learn those meanings, and this is the way that we get by in the world. This gives us a sense of of conventional truth, a conventional reality that we are co creators of this world in which we exist, and that we are participating into bringing this world as it as we come to know it into existence.
It exists by way of mere convention, but it’s not arbitrary. It’s not a hallucination. There are certain rules of world making which have to be followed. Then the second is that the the the the the cognition of the object is not contradicted by a valid cognition. That is, you know, like, if you were if you were with a friend and you’re walking down in the bush or let’s say you’re walking in a field and you say, oh, there’s a person over there.
And your friend says, no. No. No. No. That’s not a person.
That’s a scarecrow. It’s, oh, oh, yeah. You’re right. So just because you thought that was a person and it appeared to be a person and you grasped at it to be a person, does not make it a person. It would be contradicted by a valid cognition.
As you approached it, you would say, ah, yeah, I I was mistaken, wasn’t I? A mistaken consciousness cannot cause existence. It must be a valid cognition. So in order for something to exist, it cannot be contradicted by a valid cognition, cognition, understanding the conventional. And then thirdly, it cannot be contradicted by a valid cognition, understanding the absolute or understanding the ultimate.
Let us say, you know, that the ultimate is that things do not inherently exist. Just because you you think this glass inherently exists, you conceive of an inherently existing glass doesn’t mean that the inherently existing glass exists. Valid cognition which is apprehending the ultimate would contradict that, that the glass does not inherently exist. So that’s a little bit of a difficult one. But Pardon?
Yeah. So it’s it’s similar to the second. The second one is that what we cognize is not contradicted by a conventional valid cognizer. That is to say, a valid cognition which is which understands the conventional truth, a conventional truth. Just like the conventional truth would be like understanding that that scarecrow is not a scarecrow.
It’s really a it’s that’s not a person. That’s a scarecrow. Okay? So if I saw it as as a person, this person next to me would have a and said, no. That’s not a person.
That’s a scarecrow. There they my my cognition of that object was mistaken. Theirs is valid. How do we know that? If we moved up closer, we we would come to understand I was mistaken, he was right.
He’s always right. Yeah. It’s boring. So that’s the second, the conventional conventional nature of the object. It’s not contradicted by a valid con cognition understanding the conventional nature of the object.
The third one is it’s not contradicted by a valid cognition understanding the ultimate nature of the object. The ultimate nature of this glass is that it is empty of true existence. If I I have a conception of it to of a truly existing glass, That truly existing glass would that conception would be contradicted by a valid cognition which understands the ultimate nature of the glass to be empty of true existence. So it’s sort of it’s a yes. So whatever comes into existence must must are this imputing or labeling process necessarily has to follow certain criteria or rules for in order for something to validly exist.
Maybe we’ll stop there. Do you a quick question? I think that I think what you’re pointing out, demonstrates that things are not truly existent, that they don’t exist from their own side. That yeah. We so they are seen through the filters of, for example, metaphors that we understand things through.
Yeah. Yeah. That’s quite yeah. That’s true. Oh, yeah.
Yeah. That’s quite true. That’s right. Actually, there’s a I I was thinking just earlier there was a classical example of I don’t know if this is Gregory Bateson, he once said that when, you know, when Darwin, when he was sailing around the world gathering material during his research, that he went to a particular native island and his ship docked not docked, ship came into this harbor. They had never seen, the natives had never seen a ship come from that direction into the harbor.
They had never seen a ship like they couldn’t see a he said they couldn’t see a ship. They had no conception for The the notion that our beliefs inform our perception, and without a without a conception of something, it is our our our conceptions which allow ourselves to see the object. And and conceptions use words and language. So, you know, you change your words and your language, you change you change your world. You you change what yeah.
So what what we come to know, our world is very intimately related, interconnected with our our language, with our beliefs, with our metaphors that we use to understand So we stopped here. Thank you for your questions. So dedicate the merit.. In the land encircled by snow mountains, you are the source of all happiness and well-being. Powerful Chenrezig, Tenzin Gyatso, please remain until the end of cyclic existence.
May I quickly become an awakened spiritual master and lead each and every living being to that awakened realm through these skillful actions. May the supreme jewel of the awakened heart that has not arisen arise and grow, and may that which has arisen never diminish but increase more and more. Thank you. So if you’d like to get a cup of tea. It’s one o’clock already.
Yep. Okay. Uh-huh. How you doing?