Dependent Arising: Parts and Mental Labeling

Now, we have covered the first level of dependent arising. That is referring to things that change from moment to moment, whether we’re talking about situations or objects or people or types of behavior, whatever, that this arises dependently on causes and conditions. The reality is that whatever arises has been influenced by an unbelievably large number of causal factors. In fact, one could say that everything is causally related to everything else in either a closer or more distant way. For example, if we drove a car or took a bus here, then the dinosaurs and the vegetation of the period when the dinosaurs lived are one of the causes for our being able to get here, because these substances decomposed and made the oil, the gasoline, that drove the car. Without those dinosaurs and the vegetation of that time, we couldn’t have our ride in an automobile or a bus. Obviously, the dinosaurs didn’t live their lives in order to be able to decompose so that we can drive our car now. These causal relationships don’t necessarily have to be conscious and intentional.

Now, of course, when we speak technically about unawareness of cause and effect, we are speaking specifically about behavioral cause and effect. In other words, what are the causes primarily for our experiences of happiness and unhappiness and of uncontrollably recurring samsara or rebirth? When we speak about dependent arising in terms of causality, then it’s specifically the discussion of the twelve links of dependent arising that explains the whole mechanism of how we experience happiness, unhappiness and recurring samsaric rebirth. Here when we speak of dependent arising in terms of causes and conditions, this explanation of the twelve links is just a subcategory within that, speaking about something specific. However, when we talk about dependent arising in terms of causality, we extend the scope of the discussion.

Just to repeat, if that’s not clear. When we speak about the dependent arising from causality, from causes and conditions, then the discussion of the twelve links is speaking about just one subcategory of this, particularly the category that’s involved with karma and the experience of the three types of suffering that are described in the first noble truth. However, when we speak about dependent arising in terms of causality, it’s a larger scope of causality.

Now, of course, we can debate this, because within the five aggregates of anyone’s experience all nonstatic phenomena can be included. Therefore, all the causal factors that are involved in the arising of each of these factors would be included within the scope of this presentation of dependent arising. Of course, this brings in a whole complicated discussion that I don’t want to get into: is absolutely everything that happens and that everyone experiences arising dependently on karma? In other words, are all causal relations included within the discussion of karma? This is far too complicated a debate, but we touched on that discussion when we raised the question of whether or not everything we experience is due to our own karma, or is everything that we experience due to the interaction of everybody’s karma? The latter was the case. My karma doesn’t cause you to drive your car and hit me. My karma doesn’t cause my child to have anorexia.

There are many karmic reasons why somebody else – from their whole history and the interaction of everything that has affected that and their karma – has caused them to drive that car and hit somebody, namely me. Then, of course, there are all the various causal factors of the people who invented cars, who built the cars, who built the roads, the dinosaurs that produced the petrol and so on that we could relate to the karma of the dinosaurs and the karma of the people who invented cars and built the cars, etc. We find that the complex of causal factors here is very, very vast.

The practical application of this is when we are faced with a situation of something happening, either to us or to one of our loved ones, that we don’t have misplaced guilt. I guess guilt is always misplaced, but that we don’t have a misplaced idea of causality. In other words, we realize the absence of what’s impossible. Here’s our concept of voidness being used in a loose sense. What is impossible is that these tragedies that happened are due to either no cause whatsoever (they’re just sort of bad luck) or due to some irrelevant cause (like some higher being punishing us). We don’t place the causality on just one factor, namely “me,” “It’s all my fault, therefore I am guilty,” and we don’t place the blame of causality on just one external thing either, like “It’s all because of the government policies. It’s all because of society.”

If we see a much, much broader perspective of dependent things arising dependently on so many causes and so many conditions, then we are a little bit more relaxed; our minds are much more open and broader in facing a difficult situation. Nevertheless, we realize that we do contribute to some of the causes; it’s not as though we don’t contribute anything to the causes, so there is a certain sense of responsibility for our behavior. Therefore, we can add a few more new causal factors into the mixture here by taking certain steps that could help the situation, but we don’t exaggerate the ability of what we do – of the causal factors that we add – to control and determine what is going to follow.

This is a very common mistake that people make. It’s the syndrome of being – to use the colloquial term – a “control freak,” that we think that somehow we should be able to control the situation, and just in terms of our own willpower and what we do, we will control what happens. That’s impossible because whatever happens is arising dependently on a million different causes and conditions, not just on “me” and what “I” do. That’s very important to understand when especially we are in a position of authority – we’re the manager of a business, or the director of some sort of enterprise, or a Dharma center, or whatever – to think that everything is our responsibility and what we do is going to totally determine the outcome of an event or our business. This is a perfect topic to apply voidness meditation to, that this is impossible, and no such thing can possibly exist. It’s like there’s a big stew pot, and many people have thrown ingredients into it, and all we can do is maybe add a few ourselves, but what’s there in the pot is contributed by so many other factors.

Now, the second level of dependent arising is that everything, both static and nonstatic, arises or exists or is established dependently on parts. This is the case whether we speak of physical parts – getting down to atoms, subatomic parts and so on – or we speak of grosser physical parts, like all the parts of our car engine. Also, we need to speak in terms of the temporal dimension. An event arises dependently on each tiny little moment. What is absent, if we use the word “voidness” here in a loose sense, is that an event arises and establishes itself all by itself, independently of its parts, each moment that makes up that event. Let’s look at some examples of this and the practical application.

We have an ongoing relationship with someone. We won’t talk about how the relationship exists – does it exist by itself independently of us? – let’s leave that discussion aside, of how people sometimes make a big self-existent thing, “our relationship,” and then they talk about “You’re not relating to ‘our relationship,’” and “How do you relate to our relationship?” This is concretizing things that it’s not appropriate to concretize. However, if we look in terms of the ongoing interaction that we have with another person that we are close with, then sometimes what happens is that we have an argument or the other person says some nasty cruel words, and then, all of a sudden, we identify that person with these cruel words that they said, and our whole relationship we identify and characterize by that one argument. “You did such a terrible thing. You said such a terrible thing. You don’t love me.” We become very, very upset, which, of course, makes us very unhappy, and we may act on the basis of that and break the relationship, for example, or say something really nasty back. 

What we need to understand here is that this relationship, this interaction with this other person, is made up of parts, of many, many, many moments, and we’ve lost sight of that here. We need to remember that we’ve had a thousand moments (just to use an arbitrary number) of interactions with each other: some have been very nice, and some have been a little bit uncomfortable. There was this one argument – okay, that was really unpleasant – but we have to see that the relationship arises and continues to arise, moment to moment, dependently on this whole thing. We don’t exaggerate one little incident and characterize the entire relationship by that.

Let me speak a little bit more technically, but not absolutely precisely with technical language. This is the Buddhist method when we explain something; we give a provisional explanation that maybe is not so accurate but it’s easier to understand, and then we go to another level of provisional explanation that maybe is also not so accurate but it’s a little bit more accurate, and this way, it becomes easier to understand. Sometimes when I’m explaining, I’m not explaining the most precise accurate description. One has to understand the methodology here.

What I want to introduce here is the whole discussion of conceptual cognition. Conceptual cognition consists of thinking with a category. Here in our example, we have the category “our relationship.” Now, in conceptual thought, what happens is that we have what’s called a “conceptual isolate” (ldog-pa). In other words, we isolate something that will represent that category of the relationship. We have an isolate that isolates it, and then we use something – an image or whatever – to represent that category. This is quite easy to understand if we use an example.

I will ask everybody in the room to think of a dog. When we think of a dog, a dog is a category, isn’t it? But each of us has our own, what we would say in our Western language, our own “idea” of what a dog looks like, that represents the category of dog. Or the category of a good meal or whatever: we each have something that we isolate to represent the category. Then, of course, we perceive various things around us through this mixture of the category and what we think represents it, and then we judge things: “This is not a good meal; this is a good meal; that’s really a terrible looking dog,” or whatever. Or the category of a “real man.” For example, “A real man goes in the water even if it’s freezing cold.” We judge ourselves and judge others by these categories and what we isolate conceptually to represent that category.

This is the problem here in our example of the relationship. We think in terms of the category “our relationship,” and now we represent it and isolate it to just this one incident – the argument – and now, all of a sudden, this represents our relationship. We look at the person and our whole interaction just in terms of that, “We have a terrible relationship,” and then we act on the basis of believing that. It would be equally misleading to isolate the really good time that we had with the person to represent the relationship also, in the sense that it might deny, and we are in denial of the difficult aspects in the relationship.

Now, here’s where I’m not being 100% precise. However, in this situation, it would be better to see that the relationship dependently arises, moment to moment, on all the different causal factors and all the different incidents and then try to interact with this person – and here’s where I’m being a little bit imprecise – nonconceptually. In other words, don’t work through the concept, this category “our relationship,” and what it should be, what represents it. Just interact.

One has to be a little bit careful here – here’s where I’m saying the imprecision comes in my description – that one needs to not just interact blindly, but what I’m speaking about here is with an understanding of dependent arising. It’s not as though we are ignoring the times when we are acting destructively, when the other person is acting destructively; we’re not ignoring that. We do take measures to try to improve the relationship, and whether that’s conceptual or nonconceptual, we won’t go into that discussion. We are aware of the basis here, of all the different moments, all the different episodes in our interaction. We realize that if we want to speak about “our relationship,” the category, it’s arising dependently on all of this. We can’t say that any one incident represents “our relationship.” Therefore, we don’t identify the relationship with just one incident that happens, whether it’s a horrible incident or a wonderful incident. 

We also don’t interact in a conceptual way in which we represent a relationship by isolating something from a fairytale of Prince and Princess Charming on white horses living happily ever after, and then we view our relationship in terms of that concept and say, “But you’re not the perfect princess,” “You’re not the perfect prince.” We expect that they should be like that, and we get very disappointed and angry when they are not like that; then, we have real suffering.

This type of analysis applies not just to relationships with others, but it also applies to our job. “Our job should be perfect.” We have a tough day at the office, and “Oh, my job is so terrible.” These types of applications are very helpful. It’s the same thing in terms of moods: “I’m an unhappy person,” or “I’m this,” or “I’m that.” We have the category of “me,” and then we’re representing it by something that we isolate that is just a narrow thing, whether it’s true or not true. I mean, this is the point, it could be either an accurate thing that we use to represent ourselves – in other words, some aspect – or something totally unreal. Nevertheless, we are not open to the whole scope of everything that happens, so this is another facet of things arising dependently on parts. Our application of this voidness type of understanding here is that it’s impossible. This is an impossible way of existing, that the whole is identical to just one part; in other words, the category is identical to one thing that represents it.

Another application of this analysis of things arising dependently on parts can also be understood with the example of a relationship with someone. Often, we have the misconception or the misunderstanding that we are the only person in this other person’s life – in other words, their whole life revolves around us – and we are totally oblivious to the fact that they have many other friends and relatives and other relationships. With great attachment, we don’t want the other person to have anything to do with anybody else, just us.

A classic example is that if we are the person at home in a partnership, let’s say a traditional one in which the woman might be at home, although nowadays it could be the man at home – whatever, it doesn’t matter. The worker comes home, and we’re totally oblivious that they’ve had a whole day interacting with other people, and we only think in terms of “Now you’re here, so now you should be totally enthusiastic to be with me,” and so on. And the other way around: the worker comes home and might be totally  oblivious that their partner had a day dealing with the children, shopping and all these other things. They might think: “Now you should have the dinner ready on the table. You should be totally there just for me.”

This is ignorance. This is impossible that somebody’s life is just restricted to us and the relationship with us. A person’s life arises dependently on all the parts, and so it’s all the different relationships with all the different people that are involved in this person’s life. Therefore, they have obligations to spend time with their parents, with their relatives, with other friends and so on, not just with us. This is a big problem that arises when we have attachment to somebody. Again, something similar to voidness, there’s no such thing as somebody having a life that is only restricted to a relationship with one person. We need to apply the same understanding to ourselves, when we have attachment to somebody, and we think just in terms of this relationship.

Let me explain that a little bit more clearly. We may have many people in our lives who like us, who even love us, but there’s this one special person, and “I want you to love me,” and “If you don’t love me, then that’s the end of everything,” and that all these other people who love us, that doesn’t really count. And if that relationship ends with this special person, then it’s like our whole life is over, and we have great difficulty acknowledging that we still have friends, and we still have our dog who loves us, and we still have relatives or whatever. Again, we have to see that a life filled with relationships with others arises dependently on parts, and not just identify it with one part, like this relationship with this special person.

That’s the discussion of the second level of dependent arising. Do you have any questions? Let’s first take a few moments to reflect on what we have been discussing.

Please keep in mind that when we talk about voidness-style meditation here, what we’re focusing on is “this is impossible.” This is impossible that we’re the only person in this other person’s life, or that this person is the only one in my life. That’s impossible. That is the style of meditation here, “no such thing.” Pop the balloon of this projection of fantasy and then accept the reality of dependent arising or the truth of dependent arising (we don’t want to make it into a solid thing).

The question is: do you have this topic on your website? 

Not yet. It will be on the website as soon as this lecture gets edited. However, these two levels of dependent arising, and the examples that I’ve been using in terms of an analysis of relationships are in my book Developing Balanced Sensitivity. I developed it in there in terms of, again, popping the balloon of our fantasies, so there is a presentation there already.

[See: Balanced Sensitivity: Validating the Appearances We Perceive]

We were talking about the relationships, and if there is a person who considers that relationship is the most important thing in life, and family is the top priority in their work and in their life, and nothing outside is important, but the other person does not consider it exactly like that. Then, should that person, the other one, try to change this relationship by changing himself or herself? Or should he explain that to the other person?

I think that everything, of course, depends on the individuals who are involved, how open-minded they are, and so on. This can be a big source of conflict in a relationship. I’m thinking of a specific example of a relationship in which one person considers friends in their life and spending time with their friends very important. The other partner says, “You spend too much time with your friends. You don’t consider me important enough. You should spend all your time with me.” Big arguments go on about that, and the person who considers other friendships important in his life is certainly not willing to give that up and stop spending time with his friends. He’s invited the partner to come with him, but the partner is not interested. The partner is willing to spend a little bit more time with the partner but not totally give up the friends. The one who’s so attached says, “Spend all the time with me,” although she might say sometimes, “Well, I’ll try to change,” and “It’s all right,” but still, the argument comes up. She feels very badly and lets the other person know that she feels badly and neglected.

Explaining to the other person, and even if the other person says, “Okay, I’ll compromise. I’ll try to change,” doesn’t mean that they will change. We have to go back to our discussion of things arising dependently on causes and conditions. Someone has a deep habit of attachment, insecurity and so on. Just somebody saying, “Well, change,” and then we say, “Oh yeah. I’ll change,” is not going to break the syndrome. It might improve it for a couple of days, but then the old patterns relapse.

If the relationship is an important one and one that we want to sustain, particularly if it happens to be with our family, like our parents insisting that we spend more time with them and with our relatives, then we certainly need to make some compromises. However, both sides need to compromise, but without the misconception that making a compromise is going to totally change each side’s feelings and tendencies.

What is a helpful method in this type of situation is to give some security by giving a guarantee of a special time. “I can’t give you all my time, but every Sunday, I’ll come to visit,” or “We’ll have breakfast together every day,” or whatever it is. We offer something, and we make it secure – as much as possible, we will do that – so that the other person feels secure in that they are getting at least something. You see, what is most difficult in this situation is the insecurity of the person feeling neglected: “I don’t know when you’re going to come.” If there is a guarantee that at least there’s some time that they can count on, that they will get, that helps in most cases. Not always, of course. A little trick that we can use is – if we’re the person that needs to give the guarantee – is that if we have a dog, we have to walk the dog every day, so if we have parents, we have to visit them every week or call them at least every week. In other words, don’t take it as a punishment or a big “I’m the martyr. I have to do this.” It’s just part of the package of having a dog, or having parents, or having children for that matter. We need to guarantee that we spend some time with the children.

A friend of mine, not Buddhist – one doesn’t have to be a Buddhist to be able to give good advice – gave very good advice. He said that if we’re in a partnership relation with somebody, whether it’s a marriage or not necessarily a marriage, one of the ways to help that relationship to succeed is every day spend at least a half-hour with our partner. Not with anybody else, just alone with our partner. That, I think, is very, very good advice.

Okay, let’s go to the last topic. We don’t have too much time, but this is traditional: one doesn’t spend too much time on the most sophisticated level, and this is dependent arising in terms of mental labeling. How do we establish the existence of anything? Is there something on the side of the object that is establishing itself? Or is it established dependently on other things?

Well, we have seen that things are established dependently on causes and conditions, if they are nonstatic, and everything arises dependently on parts. However, when we really speak about the topic of voidness as it’s used technically, and we speak in terms of the Gelug Prasangika understanding of it, we have to get more precise. One thing that we have to remember is that in the Buddhist tenet systems, there are many different presentations of what impossible ways of establishing the existence of something are. In other words, voidness is understood on many, many different levels, in terms of negating something impossible. 

In each of the Tibetan traditions, and sometimes even within one Tibetan tradition, various authors will have different interpretations and understandings of each of these Indian philosophical positions within Buddhism. Of course, all of them are useful. We can’t say that only one is correct. In other words, when we try to get rid of our belief in impossible things, we have to realize that we project and believe many, many different levels of impossible ways of existing. We have to negate – we have to get rid of – all of them. Let’s speak about the Gelug interpretation of the Indian system called Prasangika.

When we speak about mental labeling, we are talking about a conceptual phenomenon. It is talking about names and concepts. Concepts refer to categories; names or mental labels apply to a basis. We give a name to something. We name it. That’s mental labeling. Of course, the basis is made of many, many different parts and so on. We have to make a difference here between what the name refers to and a referent “thing” that could be found that is corresponding to the name.

Let’s use an example. I often use the same example because I think it illustrates this quite easily. Colors. There’s a whole spectrum of light, and we have names and concepts of different colors. We have red, we have orange, we have yellow, we have blue, we have green, we have purple. We have all these colors. These are mental labels that are labeled onto certain wavelengths, from this wavelength to that wavelength of light. The referent object (btags-chos) – in other words, what the name is referring to – is red, yellow and orange. There is such a thing as red, yellow and orange.

These are difficult words to translate, but I’m making a difference between a referent object and referent “thing” (btags-don) in quotations, a “thing” out there. There is conventionally red, yellow and orange. By mutual agreement within a society, we have the conventions of these different colors. However, a referent “thing” would be that on the side of the light, there is such a thing as red, yellow and orange. In other words, there’s the spectrum of light, and there’s a big wall making a boundary at one wavelength and at another wavelength, and that, from the side of the light, is red. Then, there’s another wall further down, and within those two walls is orange, and then the next one is yellow. In other words, that there is something on the side of the basis that’s establishing these colors. Obviously, there’s no such thing. There are no such walls on the side of the spectrum of light that establishes, from the side of the spectrum of light, the different colors. Does that mean that there are no colors? No. There are colors, red, orange and yellow. What establishes red, orange and yellow? Merely the name or concept of “red,” “orange” and “yellow.” Even the defining characteristic of red, orange and yellow is just a convention. Some people just decided that from this wavelength to that wavelength, we’re going to call this name, so that even the defining characteristic is mentally labeled.

This is not so easy to understand, obviously, but I think if we work with this example of colors, it’s a little bit easier to approach. Different societies are going to divide the light spectrum differently. Some societies may have three colors there: red, orange and yellow. Other societies might have only two colors there. The boundaries of what’s really red and what gets into the color of violet, and that could change with different societies, and not only does it change with societies but with individuals as well. In other words, remember we isolate something to represent things. If we think of red, each of us will have a different image of what represents red.

When we speak about mental labeling, mental labeling doesn’t create things. Things are created by causes and conditions. The colors are created in terms of atmosphere and the refraction of light, and light sources, and all these sorts of things. That’s why I emphasize in our translation here, we’re talking about what establishes the existence of something, not what makes it exist. What establishes, how do we prove that there is such a thing as red? Well, there’s a word for it, and it’s what the word refers to on the basis of light waves, but is there a red existing out there between two boundaries? No. Whether we mentally label it “red” or “orange” doesn’t make any difference. We don’t have to actively label something to make the true statement that what establishes red and yellow is the word or concept “red” or “yellow.” We don’t have to go around saying, “Red, red, red, red…” in order for Boris’s shirt to look red. A Buddha doesn’t have conceptual cognition. A Buddha doesn’t mentally label anything. However, a Buddha would agree that what establishes red, orange and yellow is mental labeling.

We can apply the same type of analysis and understanding to emotions. There’s this broad spectrum of emotions, and then we have the concepts within it of loyalty, jealousy, pride, attachment and so on. Is there such a thing as jealousy or pride or anger? Sure. What establishes it? Well, the words and concepts, what the words and concepts refer to. That’s the only thing that we could say. What establishes that there’s anger? Well, it’s what the word “anger” refers to, the concept that “anger” refers to. Is there something on the side of emotions, in absolutely everybody, that are sort of walls – that from this side to that side, that’s anger, and then, on the other side of that, is hatred, and so on? I mean, there are no walls there. There are no – remember, we were using the example of solid lines around things, or things encapsulated in plastic – there’s nothing like that in terms of emotions. Even the defining characteristics of anger or jealousy or hatred, that’s mentally created by a group of people, cave people or whatever, who decided that within human emotion and animal emotion as well, we’re going to categorize in some sort of way in order to communicate. Nevertheless, there are emotions, there is jealousy, there is anger. What’s impossible, when we talk about voidness, is that there is a referent “thing” out there, on the side of the basis, that is establishing love, or establishing anger, or establishing orange.

Well, on a practical level, we start to apply these things. Like “good mood,” “bad mood.” What’s a good mood? What’s a bad mood? Well, we mentally labeled something as a “bad mood.” Was there something solid there, “Oh, a bad mood,” a big heavy cloud over our head? No. We may conventionally be in a bad mood – what we have labeled “bad mood” or somebody in the dictionary has labeled this “bad mood” – but we realize that, with the understanding of voidness, it’s not that there’s this heavy black solid mood that we’re in. We combine the other levels of dependent arising, that it’s arisen from all these causes and conditions, and it changes from moment to moment, so there are all these different parts and so on. Well, maybe we don’t feel so nice, but this understanding, this deconstruction, allows us to have equanimity toward it. So what? Who cares if we have a bad mood? Whether it’s arisen from this or from that, it’s not “Oh, this heavy bad mood,” that’s there solidly. Then, we can change. In the stew pot, throw in more different causes and conditions to change what we feel like.

For instance, we feel sick. There is the convention of what it means to be sick, and so what is being sick? It’s what the word “sick” refers to. Obviously, there’s a wide basis here of labeling. So, we’re sick, then we lie down, or we go to bed, or we go to the doctor, or whatever. We don’t make a big deal out of it. This is what is so helpful with the understanding of voidness, if we speak just on a very superficial, beginning level. Then, we extend this analysis to other things, like what about “friend,” what about “partner”? What is a friend? What is a partner? Well, it’s what the word “friend” or “partner” refers to, on the basis of a convention that somehow has either been defined in the dictionary, or maybe we have our own definition of what a partner should be or what a friend should be. Do we have friends? Do we have partners? Sure. Is there something on the side of the person that should make them like that, and if they don’t have it, then there is something wrong with them, and so on? No.

In the end, what we need to do is combine our understanding of all these different levels of dependent arising. Someone has become our friend or our partner dependent on so many causes and conditions, and there are so many different parts and aspects to the relationship, and it’s merely – well, partner, the relationship, the friendship, whatever, that’s just what the word refers to. It’s established by all these things, but there’s nothing actually sitting there solid: “Oh, friend!” “Partner!” Everything is fluid; everything is flowing. We tend to want to take a still picture, a still photograph, and sort of stop it at one thing and make it, whatever exists, this still photograph. Whereas everything is a movie – if I can speak in a very broad generalization – and affected by a million different things, including our concepts of how we label things, parts, causes, conditions and so on.

Okay, that brings us to the end of our session, the end of our lecture. These are topics that require a great deal of thought and reflection, but if we wish to achieve a true stopping of our confusion, the disturbing emotions and all the karmic junk that follows from acting out these disturbing emotions, the understanding of voidness in terms of dependent arising is utterly essential. It’s important not just merely to understand these points about voidness and dependent arising. We need to be convinced that they’re correct, and not just be convinced that they’re correct, but then actually internalize them and apply them in our daily lives. If we do this with the aim of ourselves overcoming our own suffering, our own samsaric existence and so on, then it acts as a cause for reaching liberation, obviously, in connection with many other causes. If our mind that understands voidness has the force of bodhichitta behind it – we want to reach enlightenment in order to benefit everyone – the basis of great compassion and love, then that understanding acts as a cause for reaching the enlightenment of a Buddha.

Let’s end here with a dedication. We think whatever understanding, whatever positive force has come from this, may it grow greater and greater and act as a cause for not only our own enlightenment but the enlightenment of everyone for the benefit of all.