Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 37-minute teaching, Ven Jampa Ignyen introduces dependent arising through Jetsunpa’s framework, distinguishing external dependent arising (inanimate objects like a cup) from internal dependent arising (conscious beings). He explores five attributes of profundity: how phenomena arise without a directing agent, how they appear continuous yet are destroyed moment by moment, and how continuity itself is imputed by conception. The teaching lingers on this paradox—a bowl exists as a continuum even though nothing from one moment reaches the next—and contrasts impermanent dependent arising with permanent phenomena like uncompounded space and nirvana. Throughout, Ignyen stresses that this understanding becomes meaningful only when brought into everyday experience through critical thinking and contemplation.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 02 DA 2001 05 09.mp3
UUID: 0cce0f32-f94f-4ca6-bbc6-b24fc84de111
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: y Dependant Arising (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001-05-09
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 37.4 minutes
Words: ~3,542
This means the dependent arising that occurs for impermanent objects, which are compounded because they need to come together to be assembled in order to condition generation of something. That first one is given a definition: The compounded dependent arising is defined as that established in reliance on its parts, which occurs from the three conditions as its cause. So all impermanent dependent arising, in other words, arises from three conditions. The all impermanent dependent arising is everything that we experience at present. All the objects of eye awareness, ear awareness, and so forth.
All of this is compounded dependent arising, and all of that is coming from three conditions. Now, before we go into the meaning of that, that again has two types. It is external or internal. So here we exist in this ocean of dependent arising. And some of it’s internal and some of it’s external, but it’s all impermanent.
And the definition of external dependent arising is that established in reliance on its parts which is not conjoined with a continuum of awareness. So that which is compounded or impermanent, it’s dependent on its parts and is not conjoined with awareness, is external dependent arising. So that’s easy enough. So this cup is external dependent arising because it’s not conjoined with awareness. It’s not connected.
It’s not pervaded by awareness. It’s connected by our awareness, not conjoined with it? It’s not really even connected to our awareness. We can be aware of it. We can pick it up.
We can touch it, but there’s no awareness component within it. It’s It’s inanimate. Yep. So it’s external. It’s an external dependent arising.
Now there are various things which are external dependent arising like the temple here, the Gompa, Adelaide and so on. All of these are external dependent arising because there’s no awareness that’s pervading those objects. Is that true or does They’re inanimate. We kick them and they don’t say ouch, in other words. They have no feelings, in another way.
It doesn’t have any feelings. It’s an external dependent arising. If it’s impermanent and doesn’t experience pain and so on, it’s an external dependent arising. So insects and so forth are not external dependence arising because they’re conjoined with awareness and so on. An example of, or the definition of internal dependent arising is these impermanent entities which are dependent on their parts, which are conjoined with awareness.
Like ourselves, we’re an internal dependent arising because we’re conjoined with awareness. Aren’t we? We are pervaded by awareness, we are subsumed by awareness. So in fact, we can divide up impermanent objects and say some are internal and some are external. Now, Again, there’s another division of dependent arising that the author gives.
And that is afflictive dependent arising and pristine dependent arising. Because we understand that everything that exists is a dependent arising. That which is impermanent also is either internal or external dependent arising. But also if we take the whole sphere of everything which exists, then that also is divided up into afflictive dependent arising and pristine or pure dependent arising. Now, at present, we haven’t really comprehended what a pristine or pure dependent arising is.
And we’re quite familiar with the other one, afflictive dependent arising. Now the definition of a pristine dependent arising, a pure dependent arising, is that which is established in reliance on its parts, which is a pristine truth or a pure truth. And an example of that is the truth of cessation or the truth of path. So the truth of cessation of suffering and the path leading to the cessation of suffering are dependent arisings, and they’re pristine. They’re pure.
Not afflictive. They don’t afflict in any way. So therefore they are pure. So then the author goes on to talk a little bit about these pristine dependent arisings. So it may be useful just to go through this a little bit before we get back to the other, the afflictive.
So those pristine dependent arisings are said to be Oh, now, before we go on with that. Okay, so there’s two. There’s afflictive dependent arisings and pristine dependent arisings. And the main subject matter that we will be dealing with is the afflictive. And the pristine are those things that lie outside of the sphere of contamination, outside of any problematic state and so forth.
Now, then we go into this section in the text by Jetsunpa where he talks about why dependent arising is profound. Why this In fact, dependent arising is very profound. It’s very deep, and it’s not something that we will easily understand. Even when we get a superficial understanding of what dependent arising is, that superficial understanding is really not understanding what dependent arising is because dependent arising is very profound. At the very depths of objects, external and internal objects.
It’s at the very, what, ultimate mode of abidance is where dependent arising, the meaning of dependent arising actually exists. So therefore it’s profound. At present, we develop a correct belief about dependent arising, but that’s not comprehension as yet. So then Jetsunpa goes on to say that compounded dependent arising are profound because they possess five attributes of being profound. So then he goes on to say that compounded dependent arisings or impermanent objects that we see around us, that we are an example of, are profound by their cause.
Firstly, they’re profound by cause, profound by definition, profound by their generation, profound by their abode, and profound by occurrence. So there are these five. And then he goes on to explain that the first is established. They’re profound by cause. In fact, these dependent arisings of which we’re an example are profound by cause because though there is no cause or discernment as agent preceding them, they arise spontaneously.
Then in fact, what it means is that though there is no self of person as we conceive that self to be, still our mind body spontaneously generates moment to moment in accordance with cause. But even though there’s no governing agent, you know, that’s controlling this process, still we arise from moment to moment. We exist from moment to moment. And that is the first profound attribute. In fact, we probably we have this impression that we are an agent who is somewhat, to some degree, directing our existence and this process that we’re at the center of.
But actually, even though there is no such agent, still this process continues. And that’s said to be profound. Now the second, it’s profound by definition or profound by characteristics. Because though impermanent objects, which are dependent arisings, are empty of a self of person, they are dependent arisings for which a self of person appears to exist. It’s quite profound that even though there is no self of person, our mind body continuum continues to function.
And on that basis, there is an appearance of a self that arises. That actually is quite profound. That That also is profound. Then the third one, profound by generation. The third is established because though they occur, because for instance, we occur unmixed or objects, external physical objects occur unmixed, they’re relying on other conditions.
They arise through the assembly of other conditions, but they’re not actually mixed with those other conditions. They do not act through prior action, the prior action of those conditions. Or in fact, they don’t act through an awareness which initiates those conditions. So in a sense, it’s saying that they’re just dependent arisings that’s not actually conditioned by some other type of awareness that’s directing the process. Okay.
Then the fourth one, the fourth is established. That is, they’re profound by their abode itself because they are destroyed in each moment, yet they appear to abide. So even though these impermanent dependent arisings around us, including ourselves, are destroyed in every moment, yet these objects appear to abide. Therefore it’s quite profound. It’s true that we ourselves are momentary.
Each moment gives rise to the next gives rise to the next. And we’re completely destroyed in each moment. There’s nothing in the first moment that actually makes it to the second moment, is there? We’re completely destroyed in each moment. We’re transient.
We’re momentary. What exists in this moment doesn’t make it to the next moment, does it? Complete. Even the intention of this moment doesn’t make it to the next moment. The physical objects of this moment don’t make it to the next moment.
We have this appearance of things as if they’re fixed to some degree. That what exists in one moment continues into the next moment. karma continues. There is like karma here meaning intention. There is a continuum of intention.
There’s a first moment of intention, the second moment of intention, the third moment of intention. It continues in a stream, but the first moment of intention is not the second moment. Because the first moment of intention is destroyed in the first moment. Because the first moment of intention, for instance, is the cause of the second moment of intention, isn’t it? True?
Or the first moment of this bowl is the cause of the second moment of the bowl. True? So the first moment is the cause of the second moment. The first moment The whole bowl. Complete lock, stock, and barrel.
Here we have a bowl that continues from one moment to the next, don’t we? So if we take the bowl of the first moment, it is the cause of the bowl of the second moment. True? Absolutely, isn’t it? Yeah.
The bowl itself is dependent arising. It depends on causes. But if we take the bowl at the first moment It is totally destroyed, isn’t it? Well, it gives rise to the bowl at the second moment. But then it’s destroyed.
Then the second moment is destroyed. Or they might connect up. They need to connect up. But the bowl at the first moment does give rise to the bowl of the second moment, doesn’t it? It’s the substantial cause of it.
Oh, atoms, gross, subtle. Here we’re talking on the gross level of the bowl itself. There is a bowl of the first moment, isn’t there? Yeah. It’s just an arbitrary.
Oh, that’s gross impermanence. Complete destruction. Destruction in every moment. Sorry? Destroy it.
Yeah. Or it can only be a continuum if it is destroyed moment by moment. Otherwise, would be fixed. A continuum only exists there because there is something continuing or in fact, there is a continuation of something which fits the definition of bowl, moment to moment. But what exists in the first moment doesn’t exist in the second.
And that doesn’t exist in the third. When it’s when we’re talking about destroyed here, we mean change. Right. It’s said to be instantaneous destruction because it changes moment to moment. There’s nothing But we can look at that and we can see that in the first moment, there are atoms and molecules there.
And they’ve all moved in the second moment. All those atoms and molecules Yeah. Same as the whole moment, that? Well, it’s what it’s saying is what existed there in the first moment doesn’t exist in the second moment because it’s all changed. It’s completely changed.
Yeah. Like physics. Like quantum physics, yeah. Yeah. Sorry?
Completely destroyed. There’s nothing in that first moment that there’s nothing there that remains the same. Nothing. But if there’s nothing that’s the same. Oh, well, that’s Well, here, this is what a continuum is.
There’s a continuum of something similar, but there’s nothing the same there in the second moment, carried over from the first moment. It’s true because everything is moved. It’s changed. From here, it appears the same. Us, it appears fixed.
Absolutely. Oh, we call it a ball. It fits the definition of ball in the second moment and the third moment. But it’s completely destroyed. Is it a clock?
Is it a clock? What’s the definition of clock? It might be. Something gets destroyed and re created. We’re pretty much the same.
There’s nothing fixed. Well, it’s just that we are impermanent, meaning that everything our basis of designation is completely destroyed moment by moment. When we say completely destroyed, it means it completely changes moment by moment. Here, destruction is imputed upon the fact of change from one moment to the next. And that’s called destruction.
In a way, we can see it as that. But everything impermanent has this quality. But still things have continuums. These physical objects have a continuum. They continue.
Or at least what we have in the first moment is destroyed. But in the second moment, we have something similar to the first moment. And in the third moment, we have something similar to the second moment. So therefore there’s a continuum of type. Sorry?
It’s imputed by conception. It doesn’t exist from its own side. It’s imputed by conception. Yep. Oh, absolutely.
We keep on imputing it to be bowl because it fits the definition of a bowl, but that basis of designation is destroyed in each moment. We also have an idea that it’s fixed. And that idea that it’s fixed stops us from realizing its impermanence. We developed it ourselves. This also comes up in Buddhism with the idea of how conception works and generic image and so on.
Sorry, Well that’s whatever we use it for. It’s destroyed in each moment. And it’s just that we apply different terms. It’s a sugar bowl or it’s a cereal bowl, I’m not sure what we call it, in the present. So depending on its use, we give it different names.
But it’s always momentary. It only exists for a moment. But it’s a continuum. There is a continuum of bowl there. And we’re just like that.
In each moment, we’re completely destroyed. Physically, we’re completely destroyed also on the level of awareness. Our awareness is always momentary. But there is a continuum of similar type often in terms of our awareness. Ah, the moment is destroyed.
Yes, the moment is destroyed, isn’t it? If the bowl is not linked with the moment, it lies outside of time. True? Therefore, it’s permanent. All permanent objects are things that exist outside of time.
But if we ask, is the bowl impermanent or not? Then it’s obvious that it is actually not permanent. Do you have an example of permanence that did not pass? Right. Something like, the probably the easiest example is space, uncompounded space.
So here, uncompounded space is said to be permanent. What is uncompounded space? It’s The definition of uncompounded space is the non affirming negation, which is the mere lack of obstruction. Or in brief, the mere lack of obstruction that exists is, in fact, permanent space. So a mere lack of obstruction exists everywhere, in fact.
Lack of obstruction, the mere lack of obstructing contact exists everywhere. That is permanent space. Like in this in front of us here, there is lack of obstruction, isn’t it? That lack of obstruction is permanent. It doesn’t change.
Yeah. Oh, there’s a bit of air molecules and so forth. Well, there is lack of obstruction there to begin with. Otherwise, even the air couldn’t exist there. There’s lack of obstruction actually in the space where this table is, otherwise the table couldn’t exist there.
This lack of obstruction exists everywhere. All it is is the mere lack of obstructing anything. That’s permanent. It doesn’t change moment to moment. It lies outside of time.
Time doesn’t affect it. How do you know it? Well, because things are unobstructed. Because it’s not changing moment to moment, because it’s the mere absence of something. It’s not, in a sense, a positive entity, it’s a negative entity, in a sense that it’s just negating obstruction.
That mere negation itself is permanent. Is that the only permanent thing? No, there’s countless permanent things. Well, there’s countless times of types of space we can do. But also, nirvana is permanent.
What else? Emptiness is permanent. Truth is permanent. Buddha is permanent. Existence is permanent.
Here in the terms of the four truths, the four truths truth which is defined in terms of the four truths is said to be permanent because the third truth is permanent, because the third truth there is nirvana. So there actually is many types of permanent object, but they’re abstract. They’re all abstract. nirvana is abstract, but it exists. So when we get to nirvana, there’s no nirvana?
No, there is nirvana. It exists. All it is, nirvana, is the lack of suffering and the seeds of suffering and the latencies of suffering. It’s the abandonment, cessation of suffering. Well, we wouldn’t even define it in terms of internal or external because it’s permanent.
It’s not an external dependent arising. It’s not an internal dependent arising. And if we have attained nirvana? No. No.
Yes. Our Buddha has attained. Not initially, when a Buddha became a Buddha, they attained parinirvana. One type of nirvana, sorry. No.
They’re always impermanent. Never could be permanent. You only want the permanent variety. The state of nirvana is permanent. When they attain that, they never lose it.
They never lose it? No. Oh, wait a minute. There are some debates about this. Liberated beings of dull faculty are said to be able to degenerate from a state of nirvana.
But the sharp faculty, those of sharp intelligence, don’t degenerate. But a Buddha never degenerates from a state of a Buddha. Yes. Especially the Tibetans many Tibetans consider the Dalai Lama to be a Buddha. Or another on the other hand, they consider him to be a bodhisattva.
A bodhisattva, as such, hasn’t attained nirvana, but they’re not far from nirvana. They comprehend what nirvana is. But nirvana is permanent. In fact, it’s not created by anything. It lies outside of time.
It’s therefore, it’s profound. nirvana is profound. It’s not that we ever create nirvana. It’s not a result of anything. Sorry?
No. It’s a state of the absence of suffering. It’s the absence of something. It’s permanent. No.
No. No. It would be just not recognizing that one is suffering. That’s all. Okay.
Although one is suffering. nirvana means nirvana is a state. It does exist. It’s a state in which all suffering has ceased because one has applied the opponents to eliminate from the root all suffering, without exception. And that state in which all suffering has finally been removed is nirvana.
No. No. It’d be impossible. Like a Buddha can’t have a headache. They may appear to have a headache.
But they’re simply giving that appearance for the benefit of others. When we reach those states, will all of these images be neutral? Which the? Oh, yes. Even before attaining enlightenment, then Tārā and Mañjuśrī and so forth can appear.
Yeah, yeah. For instance, Atisha, who went to Tibet, he said to have almost a continual vision of Tārā. Tārā would He would often ask Tārā questions and get her advice about this or that. So that’s possible. But Buddhas, in fact, already appear, it’s just that we don’t see them.
The comprehension of nirvana comes about through wisdom, absolutely. And the fact that we don’t comprehend it at present is because we haven’t generated that wisdom. But when one comprehends it to exist within one or to exist as a state within one’s mental continuum, one actually obtains it. Then one obtains nirvana. But that nirvana still is just permanent.
It doesn’t have a cause. Because in a sense, it’s what exists after suffering has been removed. It’s the absence of that suffering. It’s not like a positive object as such. It’s not like a normal, you know, something like a vase or something like that.
But that attainment is the most precious thing. It’s almost an attainment which is not an attainment. Because you’re not actually obtaining something like concrete? It’s like space. Yeah, nirvana in a sense is like space.
Emptiness is like space. Yeah. That’s not the perfection of listening. Perfection of listening? Perfection of listening, I’d say that that’s probably something like being a correct vessel when one listens, which means not being like an upside down vessel, not like being a vessel with impurities within it, not like being like a vessel with cracks in it so that what’s inside leaks away.
But really, best we can do is even if we’re cracked and leaking, we’re still kind of listening, aren’t we? Oh, that’s it. Yeah, we still listen and contemplate these issues. And that’s where the benefit really comes from. It’s not in accepting what’s said, it’s thinking through it and being critical of what’s said, being sceptical, challenging it, checking it, seeing whether it conforms to the way things exist or not.
Does it conform to our experience? This is most important. Because unless these issues become a practical issue for us, that’s there in our everyday life, then they’re not much benefit. So, really, this part of listening and contemplating really means checking these issues regularly, often. Anyway, we should stop there.
Have a break.