Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Ven Jampa Ignyen teaches dependent arising through an extended inquiry into everyday objects—a room, a painting, a car, a clock, a chariot—showing how each illustrates the principle that everything exists only in dependence on its parts. In this 45-minute session, he begins with Jetsunpa’s classical definition and demonstrates why everything that exists is pervasive as dependent arising. Through sustained dialogue with students, he explores three types of dependent arising: causal dependence (smoke from fire), dependence on basis of imputation (the person on mind and body), and dependence on parts (the car analogy). He shows how understanding this penetrates the ignorance underlying anger and attachment. Pitched at practitioners already engaged with Lamrim study, the teaching balances rigorous philosophical analysis with concrete, testable examples.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 01 DA 2001 05 09.mp3
UUID: f9cea726-66b4-4fbc-a513-9e06e4fb1d77
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: y Dependant Arising (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001-05-09
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.8 minutes
Words: ~4,371
Initially, the prayer that we just recited is the prayer for refuge and bodhicitta. So thinking about that prayer is useful for generating positive motivation, especially in the thought of bodhicitta, which is the thought to enlighten oneself for all beings. So it’s good to reflect that other beings around us, on whom we are dependent, are very kind to us. Because we depend on them and because our happiness depends on other beings, other beings are really very kind. So in thinking of how other beings are kind to us, then we should develop the motivation to benefit others.
And this motivation to benefit others is also the motivation to help others overcome their problems and so forth. In putting aside any negative thoughts towards other beings, we should put effort into establishing a positive motivation towards them, a motivation to benefit others, that they be happy and free from suffering. And in developing a strong positive motivation in this way, we reflect that we are dependent on other beings, that all our happiness depends on other beings, although that’s not easy for us to comprehend. This is stated in various texts, that every moment of our happiness depends on others. So, in thinking upon that, just how our happiness does depend on other beings, then we should spend a few minutes just developing positive motivation.
So this course is continuing with the intermediate scope practices that are taught in the Lamrim. And central to the practices of the intermediate scope beings is the practice of dependent arising. Just to So this course, this weekend, we’re going to investigate dependent arising. And in the subject of dependent arising, specifically the twelve links of dependent arising. And as a basis for the twelve links, a source for teaching the twelve links, we’re going to use a text by Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen, who’s the author of the debate manuals for the Seraje monastery.
Jetsunpa, as he’s also called, was a great scholar who lived about four hundred years ago. And he composed a wide range of texts on the five basic topics that are taught in the great Gelugpa monasteries, such as Sera. And this particular text comes in the section on perfection of wisdom, which is taught again in a text by Maitreya called Abhisamaya Alamkara. And this text a commentary. This text itself is called the general meaning of dependent arising.
And it’s a commentary on what is taught in Sūtra. What has been taught in Sūtra on many occasions by the Buddha. So it’s dealing with dependent arising itself. In the beginning of the text, actually the text is quite complicated because it has lots of debates in it. And these debates really center on the meaning of what dependent arising is and how it should be interpreted.
Of course, there’s many different ways that one can interpret dependent arising. So we try and stick to the central meaning of dependent arising. Also, I’ve got some sheets here that can be photocopied, is just some sections out of the text that may be useful for people. So initially, Jetsunpa explains the general principles of dependent arising. Firstly, talks about the definition of what dependent arising is, because we continuously hear, or from time to time we hear of things being dependent arising or things are dependent.
And we probably have quite a clear idea of what this means. But we need to focus more on this meaning because it’s central to our development, the development of our wisdom. And this is because dependent arising, in understanding dependent arising, ultimately we must understand emptiness. In other words, in order to understand dependent arising, we need to understand the ultimate mode of abidance of anything. Firstly, Jetsunpa gives the definition of dependent arising.
So the definition is that established in reliance on its parts. It’s quite a simple definition. So anything which is established in dependence on its parts is a dependent arising or it’s a dependent occurrence because it comes about or it exists because it depends on its parts. So everything in the universe is a dependent arising. And as Jetsunpa says, if it’s an established base, meaning if it exists, it is pervasive, it is a dependent arising.
Because if it’s an established base, it is pervasive, it occurs through relation and dependence. And that’s also because another scholar, Nāgārjuna, has stated in his text called The Root of Wisdom, because there are no dharmas which occur without dependence, therefore there are no dharmas which are not empty. So there are no here dharma means anything which exists. So everything which exists, in other words, is dependent. Nothing occurs without depending on something other than itself.
We ourselves depend on others, others depend on us. Everything that we see depends on something other than itself. So therefore everything which exists is a dependent arising. The room that we’re in is dependent. This room here is dependent on many things.
The room itself depends on the walls, on the floor, on the windows, on the doors, on the roof, on the fittings. By all of these things existing, the room exists. The room itself is not the walls, it’s not the roof or the ceiling, it’s not the floor, it’s not the window, it’s not the doors, but the room depends on all of these things. So therefore the room, this temple here, is a dependent arising. Similarly, we take anything else, like these tankas, these pictures on the wall are dependent because the outer cloth depends on there being an inner painting.
Inner painting itself depends on the colors that are applied to the surface. Those pains themselves depend on the components that they’re made up of and so on. Everything there is a dependent arising. We can’t find the object itself, in fact, is a dependent arising and we can’t find anything within it that’s not a dependent arising. And as we go around, we look at anything, we can see that the object itself depends on those components that make up that thing.
It also depends on someone having made it, like a person. Most of the things in this room are made by human beings. So, temple itself is constructed by a team of humans. The paintings are painted by human beings. The light fitting, the fan and so forth, they are all made by human beings.
So in fact, most of the things in this room are dependent on human beings. Not everything is dependent on human beings. For instance, the timber, which makes up the archway here, that timber grows from seeds, of course. So, the substantial cause of that timber is not a human being, but a human being has come along and fashioned it into that shape. So therefore it is dependent.
Anything we look at is a dependent arising. Anything we hear, the sound that we hear is a dependent arising because the sound is generated by certain conditions, mouth, tongue, teeth, moving these in accordance with breathing out with an intention to speak and so on. So the sound itself is a dependent arising, whether it has meaning or has no meaning. Sound is a dependent arising. Similarly smells are a dependent arising.
Texture, the feeling of the floor, any texture that objects possess, that’s also a dependent arising. The heat, the hotness or coldness of things, the taste of things is a dependent arising. In fact, our entire experience of the world is a dependent arising. Everything in it is a dependent arising. Our experience of it is a dependent arising.
So, as we go through the various phenomena, various objects in the universe, we can see they’re all dependent arisings. And because of that, Nāgārjuna has said, because there are no dharmas which occur without dependence, without depending on something other than themselves, they are dependent arisings. That means that objects don’t depend on themselves. We have this appearance of things that they’re depending on themselves. It appears as if they exist in their own right, dependent on themselves.
But this appearance is false. It doesn’t reflect how things actually exist because objects are dependent on things other than themselves. Because they depend on things other than themselves, therefore they are empty. They are empty. Now if we classify dependent arising, Jetsunpa gives two types.
Dependent arising relying on nature or relying on the nature of the object itself. And dependent arising, reliant on convention or dependent arising, reliant on being posited by convention. So there are these two types. They are quite straightforward. The first one, dependent arising reliant on the nature of the object, is for example smoke, because smoke occurs in dependence on fire.
Smoke, by its very nature, is dependent on fire to be produced. In fact, is the cause of smoke, so that there is a causal dependence between those two things. If there’s smoke, there’s fire, in fact. It’s true, isn’t it? If there’s smoke, there must be fire.
Is it true? That’s what they’re saying. Is it pervasive or not pervasive? Now, if there’s smoke, there must be fire. Is that true?
What’s an example where it’s not true? Oh, that’s more steam, isn’t it? A little bit. Well As far as it truly extends. Yeah.
If there’s smoke there, doesn’t it indicate that there must be something burning in order to produce it? Otherwise it would be steam, wouldn’t it? So if there’s smoke, there must be fire. Even if it’s just smoldering and producing a smoke, then there is some there’s got to be heat there, hasn’t it, to produce that smoke? Fire.
Whether it’s blazing up or Is that true? What if you take smoke, you put it in a can and you took it to the middle of the ocean and you released it? Yeah, you could say there would have been fire originally to produce it. What about if there’s fire, there must be smoke? That’s not pervasive, is it?
Does fire depend on smoke? No. But fire is a dependent arising, isn’t it? So what’s it depending on fire? Fuel.
Air. The third one, ignition. Those three come up in school. So smoke is dependent on fire. Also, another example given here, sprouts occurring in dependence on seeds.
So our sprouts, if a sprout exists, it must have been caused by a seed. True? Sorry? It needs It needs to be watered, but if there is a sprout, it must have come from a seed. So in fact, a sprout is dependent on a seed.
So they’re dependent arising. So they’re dependent arising which rely on the very nature of the object. Something like a sprout, by its nature, depends on a seed. It’s in fact causally related to the seed. Smoke is causally related to the fire.
Here also, for there to be a causal relationship, Without fire, smoke can never be caused. Therefore, fire itself is the cause of smoke. True? This is an interesting issue because, for instance, it said that smoking is the cause of cancer. Is smoking the cause of cancer?
It’s a factor, isn’t it? But it doesn’t have to be caused by smoking, does it? No. Whereas fire always has to be caused by smoke. So?
Other way. Oh, sorry. Smoke. Sorry. Smoke always has to be caused by fire.
It’s true, isn’t it? Right. So there’s when a causal relationship is established, if the result only can occur when a particular cause is present, then they exist in a causal relationship. If that result occurs in the presence of other conditions, then the causal relationship is not established. Now, there’s a second type of reliance or dependence also asserted.
Dependent arising reliant on convention. So this is, for example, that short is reliant on long, distant is reliant on near, and so forth. So there are many types of dependence that occur due to the convention of the terms used. Also there can be said to be three types of dependence, dependent arising. That is, dependent arising of objects reliant on causes, so causal dependent arising.
Then the dependent arising of dependence on a basis of imputation. And also the dependent arising of dependence on its parts. So there’s really three levels here. Dependent arising of dependence on a cause is like smoke dependence on fire. Dependent arising on, of dependence on an basis of imputation is like our existence as a person being imputed on a dependent basis, on the basis of imputation of our mind and body.
Right. The dependent arising of the dependence on a basis of imputation is like our existence as a person. Because we’re dependent on our mind body continuum, aren’t we? If our mind body weren’t around, we wouldn’t be around, would we? We’re dependent on our mind body.
True? Is our mind body existing at the same time as I? We can look at it from that point of view. Is I dependent causally on our mind body? Or in fact, do they exist at the same time?
If they exist at the same time and a causal relationship doesn’t exist, does the I of this moment exist in dependence on the mind body of this moment? So therefore they’re not causally related. True? It seems to me that the I does depend causally on the mind body. We could say that the I depends on the mind body of the previous moment.
The end. Right. But what about the mind body of this moment and the eye of this moment? Are they related? Right.
They are related, aren’t they? The mind body of this moment is related to the eye of this moment. But the sorry? That’s right. Right.
But it is causally related to the mind body of the previous moment, right? But it’s not related to the mind body of the moment that it exists, is it? Oh, those two can’t be. The coexisting fire and smoke are not causally related, but the smoke is related to the fire of the previous moment. Similarly, the eye is related to the mind body continuum of the previous moment, but is it also related to the mind body of the current moment?
It says that it is and that this is actually an instance of dependence the dependent arising dependent on its basis of imputation because the basis of imputation of I or the person is just the mind body. Our mind body as it continues along, of course, our body is obvious. Then our feelings, awareness, and so forth that exist in the present moment, they make up the basis of designation of I, don’t they? They coexist, don’t they? Oh, it’s like, say, this bowl, right?
So we call it a bowl. I think there many parts. Maybe we’ll find something with few more parts to Like this vase, right? The vase and the basis of designation of the vase coexist, don’t they? What’s the basis of designation of the vase?
The basis of imputation of the vase. It’s the sides, the bottom, the top, the inside, the outside, right? Do they coexist? They coexist, don’t they? If you took away the bottom, there wouldn’t be a vase.
It wouldn’t be a receptacle. Right. But the bottom is not the vase, is it? The sides are not the vase. The top’s not the vase.
But a vase exists there. We impute vase. We do. We impute vase there on its basis of designation, basis of imputation. So it’s similar to that.
In fact, everything is like that. Everything has this sort of dependence. We’re dependent on our basis of imputation. The room we’re in is dependent. The floor is dependent in that way, it’s dependent on its basis of imputation.
Right. We can say that the I or the person is dependent causally on the previous moment of mind body. There’s a causal relationship there. But the mind body of this moment is not causally related to the person of this moment. Right.
Yeah. Well, it’s Well, what it comes down to is that we’re an expression of causality, aren’t we? But those things that give rise causally to the person, for instance, like the mind body of the previous moment, we can say they’re a cause. They’re a condition for the arrival of a person. But we can also say that even in the present moment, we have a basis upon which we impute eye.
Those two things exist at the same time. They coexist, exist in the same moment, but they’re still related. In fact, they’re substantially the same thing, aren’t they? There’s no substance of person other than the substance of the mind body. True?
And they, a sense, those two substances are not different substances. They coexist, but they’re dependent. Oh, no. It’s just the I in the present moment only exists in the present moment. But it’s dependent on previous moments of the person.
It’s also dependent on previous moments of the mind body. But it doesn’t coexist with those moments. They’re finished. They’re gone. They’re past.
Yeah. Right. We do exist in the present moment because this starts to impinge on the whole debate of free will and determinism. And although we’re pretty much determined by the past, it’s said that in the present moment we do have free will. We do have intention in the present moment.
And our intention we can newly generate, we can change it. We do have some freedom in terms of our intention. If we don’t have any freedom in terms of our intention to act, then there’s nothing we can do. So To analyzing the chariot. Yes, very much.
So the chariot, in fact, is given as an example of a dependent arising because a chariot depends on its parts. So also the new Corolla, our modern version, its dependence on its parts. So it’s a dependent arising because that Corolla, that word Corolla, is imputed upon that particular set of parts, that particular set of objects, the wheels, the four or five wheels, the engine, the body, the seats. So there’s a Corolla there. We go outside and someone says, where’s the corolla?
We look around, oh, there it is. That’s the corolla. But if we took that corolla and we pulled it apart and laid out all its parts, would there still be a corolla there? But where has the corolla gone would be the question. Sorry?
Is there a corolla there? Or the parts of a Corolla? You have a collection of parts, but not Corolla. Corolla’s gone. But is a Corolla there?
If we got the parts of a Corolla there, We’d be pretty upset if that was our car. We saw them strewn all over the street. It’s probably not that easy to take us apart. Not like Well, the car does exist, doesn’t it? No.
Well, if we take the car before we take it apart, it exists, doesn’t it? Yeah. But it exists in dependence on its parts, doesn’t it? We’re the same. We exist in dependence on our parts.
And so we exist. But if we examine the parts, our basis of designation and so on, it’s hard to find the person. But it doesn’t mean to say the person doesn’t exist. The person exists only in dependence on its parts. There’s no person separate than the parts themselves.
True. You could take away a hand or a leg, and there’d still be a person there. That’s right. We have this process of imputing the names for things on things. And it’s interesting to examine just up to what extent we would still impute something as something.
Like if we’ve got a a clock. If we get a clock, we impute it as clock. Up to what point? If it’s not working, is it still a clock? Or does it sorry?
Right. What is the definition of a clock? Something that tell if the clock is something which tells the time, when it stops running, is it still a clock? Is a broken clock a clock? Yeah.
What’s the definition of a clock then? I mean, they’re told the time. Uh-huh. If that is the definition, does it fulfill the definition of a clock when it’s not working? It’s still stopped and the time is still showing a time.
It’s still is it actually showing a time or is it just stopped? Is it? Okay. So this depends on what the definition of clock is. It’s a bit of a self serving definition, that one.
That’s a safe definition. Then, yes, this is important. Because the fact of functioning is very central to our imputing things to be what they are. And in fact, if that is the central criteria, then if something stops functioning, then maybe it’s not literally that thing anymore. Well, that depends on the term.
If you’re imputing spiritual being there, it depends what you mean by spiritual. If you mean someone that’s practicing hard all the time, then as long as they’re practicing, they’re a spiritual being. When they stop practicing, they’re not. Then that depends on how you define spiritual. No.
It’s a little bit like saying everyone has Buddha nature, which is fine. Everyone does. Whether that would make them a spiritual being just because they have the potential to be a Buddha needs to be investigated. But anyway, this term spiritual has lots of connotations. We could be a New Age being, and that would depend on the definition of New Age.
Then this takes just understanding these things on a superficial level is the beginning, but we need to contemplate this at some length to really gain some insight into the meaning itself. It’s a bit like understanding a joke. You know, can have the words of a joke for a long time and not understand it, then suddenly we understand it and we start laughing. It’s a little bit like that. Although we discuss and we contemplate what the meaning of dependent arising is, and we come to a certain understanding of it, not an actual comprehension, but we’re able to put the words together and we can gain some sense of the meaning from the words, we need to contemplate them for a long time before the penny drops.
This might take many, many years. Quick way? Oh, well, fact, there’s many, many ways of explaining. For instance, dependence arising. We can explain it in terms of causality, dependence on a basis of imputation, on parts.
So in fact, those are the three main types of dependent arising. And then we can go into the meaning of those three and think of many examples, contemplate this at great length. And in fact, the more reasons we can bring to bear that something is a dependent arising, the more chance we have of understanding it to be a dependent arising. I find one way that’s very useful always, and that is to remember how my mind was before. And to think that everything I’ve ever concluded about the world or objects or people, then I have because I can shift that thinking, therefore, that is the dependent arising for me.
It be the most useful way of thinking about being a person. That’s right. We are a dependent arising, and all our experience is a dependent arising. It’s a dependent arising because it’s arising from causes, past causes. So anything that comes from a cause is a dependent arising.
And also it depends on its basis of imputation. All of those thoughts and experiences depend on their basis of imputation and depend on their parts. So anything we see, can for instance, anything which is impermanent is derived from causes. Anything which is either impermanent or permanent is dependent on its basis of designation and dependent on its parts. So this we can contemplate.
Why are we contemplating this? What’s the purpose? To realize emptiness here, it’s really to uncover the way things actually exist. Because it’s said that in understanding how things actually exist, it’s of benefit to us. It’s of benefit to us in the present moment, a practical benefit in unraveling the tangle of emotions that we experience moment by moment, and so on.
That’s right. If we can understand dependent arising in terms of ourselves and other beings, it does help to forgive other beings when we realize that their dependent arising, their states of mind are dependent arisings. As it’s said in Bodhicaryāvatāra, those enemies that may even take up weapons against us and hit us with clubs and so forth, those beings are motivated by afflicted states, by ignorance and hatred and anger. In fact, they’ve been being controlled by those causes. And they being controlled by those causes, they may take up a weapon and hit us with it.
But just as we don’t get angry with the club, if they beat us, we more get angry at the person. Similarly, we should not get angry at the person. We should get angry at the ignorance and hatred in their mental continuum, which is controlling them, just like they’re controlling the club, and so on. So if we It could also be equanimity, but eventually that will serve as a foundation for our experience of bliss. Because once the causes for feeling unhappiness, pain, and so on are removed, then they don’t once the causes are gone, the results also don’t arise.
Right. So here we have three types of dependent arising. Dependent arising, which is dependence on cause, dependent arising, which is dependence on the basis of imputation, and dependent arising, which is dependence on parts. So as we go around, anything we look at or experience, hear, and so forth, will reflect these states, will reflect dependent arising, will illustrate dependent arising to us. But also we can say that there’s two types of dependent arising, and here Jetsunpa then goes on to say that there’s compounded dependent arising and uncompounded dependent arising.
So compound