Emptiness or dependent arising: a reflection based on Seeing that Frees
This post is just a personal reflection on the relationship between emptiness and dependent arising. And it might be completely wrong. Take it with two grains of salt and, if you have any input, let me know in a comment!
In chapter 2 of Seeing that Frees, Rob writes:
The examples of the chair in the fire and the ‘Z’ do point to how the thingness of things is dependent on the mind, but perhaps do not convey the full extent and implications of this dependence. Likewise, when we hear or read that what is meant by the voidness of a thing is simply the fact of its dependence on causes and conditions, the central import of this dependence on mind may go unrecognized. While at one level it is certainly an accurate statement to say that something is empty because it depends on various elements and conditions, it is vital to open out completely just what this means. Nāgārjuna wrote:
Emptiness is just this dependent arising.
It is this dependence of all phenomena on the mind that is most significant and that needs to be understood. Teachings on voidness are offered in the service of liberation, yet it may be that an explanation of emptiness as meaning `dependence on causes and conditions’ is grasped in only a limited way, and so yields only very limited freedom, if any at all, and misses the profundity of what is being communicated.
So: is emptiness the same as dependent arising (dependence on causes and conditions)? Is it a different thing? What is being pointed to by Rob here?
As I see it, the notion “empiness” and “dependent arising” point to the same thing, which can be expressed in different ways:
- Things have no inherent existence.
- The “thingness” of things is created by the mind.
- Things “exist” dependent on causes and conditions.
- Things “arise” depending on causes and conditions.
All of these are ways to express a characteristic of things, and particularly a characteristic of the way in which things exist.
If we take empty as “lacking inherent existence”, then something which depends on causes and conditions must be empty. If it was independent from causes and conditions, it would mean that there is something in such thing which is independent from everything else and which defines it, an essence which exists on its own. If it is dependent, it means it lacks such essence or inherent existence, and is therefore empty. In this sense, saying that something “is dependently arising” implies it’s empty.
Approaching this issue from the other side: if something is empty, it means it lacks inherent existence, or essence. If its “existence” doesn’t rely on the existence of an essence, then it relies on something else. And what is this “something else”? It’s causes and conditions.
So far I’ve tried to reason that if something is empty, it arises dependently. And if it arises dependently, it’s empty.
There might be, however, a subtle difference in how we might think about the “nature of things” when we think of “emptiness” and when we think of “dependent arising”:
When I think that something is “empty” I tend to think that it lacks inherent existence, or essence, and that my mind is creating the “thingness” of such thing. It is my mind which is splitting this thing from the rest of the universe (spacially and temporally) and assigning it “thingness”.
However, when I think that something “arises dependent on causes and conditions” my mind tends to think about the material causes and conditions which gave rise to such thing: my cup of tea depends on rain water, tea leaves, labor which grew, harvested and transported the tea, etc. And in seeing dependent arising in this way, I tend to forget that not only does that thing depend on material causes, but also on my mind. I wouldn’t perceive a “cup of tea” if it weren’t for my mind, which is delineating a part of the universe and assigning it the concept “cup of tea”. My mind is creating the “thingness” of it. We could say that the mind is one of the “causes and conditions” dependent on which such thing arises.
We see that the same notion, when referred to in two different ways or from two different viewpoints, can elicit different reactions and associations, which might even go unnoticed! And these different reactions and associations can lead to different results in terms of liberation from suffering. In this case, Rob points that
It is this dependence of all phenomena on the mind that is most significant and that needs to be understood
The key points that I extract from this reflection are:
- When practicing with emptiness, we must be cautious with regard to our notion of “dependent arising”. We should be aware, when entertaining it, that the thing is dependent on mind too, and not only on material causes and conditions.
- When engaging with emptiness practices, we should remember their purpose is liberation from suffering. Maybe we should ask ourselves: is this view/technique reducing clinging, dukkha, selfing, suffering?
- Whatever notion we entertain (emptiness/dependent arising/etc.), the real juice is in seeing how it can be applied to a particular dukkha, and how it is relieved (or not).
One comment