WSW 56: Discussion of Dependent Arising and Illusion

What are these other factors? We started our discussion last week and we saw that in Buddhism, dependent arising can be discussed on many different levels. We can discuss it in terms of what’s known as the twelve links of dependent arising. This is speaking about a chain of steps, or links in a chain, that start with ignorance or unawareness of voidness or the reality of how things exist, and it produces our whole samsaric existence and all the suffering that we experience. There are twelve parts to it and it’s rather complex and no need to go into it here, but just very much in brief: because of being unaware of how things exist, then we act in all sorts of ignorant, confused ways. Acting under the influence of this confusion is a karmic action and it creates some sort of aftermath – aftermath that’s left over from it, potentials and so on. These are carried along with the consciousness from lifetime to lifetime and, from them, we develop a body and mind and all these things that are going to be the basis for the ripening of this karmic aftermath. They are ripened by further unawareness of ignorance, further disturbing emotions and the whole thing just perpetuates itself, it goes on and on. 

“Ripening” means to ripen like a seed ripens into a flower. These karmic aftermaths are described like seeds. Although they’re not physical, they make an impression on your mind and build up a certain tendency, a certain habit and so on. Based on that tendency, we repeat certain types of actions, and we experience things with either unhappiness or with the type of happiness that doesn’t last – and so there’s no satisfaction from it, there’s no certainty about it. Like when we eat, we get a certain happiness from it; but if that were truly happiness, then the more we ate at a meal, the happier we would become. But eventually we become so full that it’s painful to eat more, so that happiness changes into unhappiness. Also, once we’ve eaten, that happiness won’t last because we get hungry again. So, that happiness from eating is not something which is dependable; it’s going to change. This is called the suffering of change. 

What causes that aftermath to ripen is further clinging, grasping and so on – basically it comes from our feelings. In other words, we have a feeling of happiness, and we cling to it, which means that we make it into a solid thing: there’s a solid “me,” and “I don’t want to lose that happiness.” Or if we have unhappiness, we make it into a solid thing, a solid “me.” We cling to it: “I want to get rid of that unhappiness.” Or with a neutral feeling, we cling to the idea that it would last – like being in deep sleep, you just want to stay out of it. That clinging to what we experience, all the time – happy, unhappy and so on –causes more of this karmic aftermath to ripen. It just goes on and on and on and the clinging is based on this grasping for solid existence.

We have the twelve links of dependent arising and that’s an example of dependent arising on the basis of cause and effect. The twelve links is just a sub-category of that in terms of how our suffering arises dependently on ignorance, on unawareness of reality. We think of depending arising on cause and effect. First of all, we meditate on voidness: we understand there’s no such thing as something that arises – let’s say, a problem in our life – independently of anything. It’s not just there: it jumped out of a box and there’s the problem. Sometimes we naively think like that: “Where did this come from?” We have no idea; we didn’t see it coming, we have no idea what caused it – there’s the problem. But this is impossible, so that we eliminate that impossible way of existing. 

How do problems exist? What establishes their existence is their dependence on causes and conditions. You look at a problem in your life and you start to analyze all the causes and conditions that have caused that problem to arise. We have to look very deeply here; it’s not just thinking, “Well, we have arguments and that was caused because you did this and I did that, and you said this and I said that.” That’s part of it, but that’s not looking deeply enough. Problems don’t arise just from one cause – just from one argument or one thing that you said or one thing that I did or didn’t do. All of our actions, our patterns, arise as a result of a huge number of other factors. One is all our habits, in this lifetime and previous lifetimes, from a Buddhist point of view. Well, how did those habit build up? They built up from interaction with others. They built up through the influence of others – the influence of my family and how they were raised and their childhood and ancestors. They were influenced by the political situation and economic situation and so many other things. That influenced my acting, my contributing to the problem as well as your contributing to the problem. All this arose dependently on many causes and conditions. 

Now, what about the problem? Is there a problem that could exist independently from the causes and conditions? Well, no; but it seems as though “there’s the problem,” as if there were a big solid line around it, encapsulated in plastic: “Oh my goodness, what a terrible problem.” We make a big deal out of it. But actually, that sort of solid problem is like an illusion and the way that we think it exists is an illusion. That’s why we have in the verse – verse 105 in the old poetical translation:

O mind, understand that the topics discussed here are interdependent phenomena all; for things must rely on dependent arising to have an existence: they cannot stand alone. The process of change is alluring like magic, for physical form is but mental appearance, as a torch whirling round seems a circle of flame. 

The literal translation is:

Hey, those like me! All of those are things that dependently arise and what relies on dependently arising cannot be self-supporting. Changing into that over there and changing into this over here, their false appearances are an illusion. They are reflections that (merely) appear, like a whirling firebrand.

The problem is something that dependently arose on causes and conditions: what establishes that problem is that it is depending on causes and conditions. That cannot be self-supporting; in other words, it can’t just be sustained and sit there because it’s depending on other things. It not only depended on other things to arise in the first place, but it also depended on other things to continue. It says, “Changing into that over there and changing into this over here,” because all the things that it depends on are changing all the time, because everything that arises from causes and conditions is changing, otherwise it could never have arisen. So, the problem itself doesn’t stay static. It can only stay static if it were supporting itself, sitting there. Conditions change. Political situations change, economic situations change, people’s attitudes change – they go up and down. They might not change in a linear way – most things don’t. It’s not that constantly getting better or constantly getting worse, but it’s going to go up and down and the problem itself is not something self-supporting, self-sustaining, sitting there all by itself. The false appearance that it is sitting there all by itself, solidly – that’s an illusion. The problem is like an illusion. The problem isn’t an illusion – the problem exists; but the way that it appears to exist it an illusion. It appears to exist all by itself and then it appears to us like a monster: “It’s overwhelming and crushing me, I can’t handle it, I can’t deal with it.” Then we get very uptight, nervous and unhappy. But there are so many things that it is depending upon in terms of causes and conditions that will affect the situation that we need to be open to whatever can happen. In other words, when we understand that that appearance of the problem as being solid is false, then we’re not so uptight, we’re not overwhelmed by it. It’s not like there this solid problem over there and a solid “me” over here that’s the victim. In a more relaxed state of mind, one is more open to finding some sort of solution to change the problem or deal with it in some way. This is the whole point here. 

That is one level of dependent arising: things arise dependently on causes and conditions. Can you think in terms of a situation in your life – it’s usually good to think about a difficult situation, one that has produced a lot of unhappiness or suffering – and how that situation appareled. Think not only how it appeared to your eyes and mind, intellectually, but how did it feel, emotionally? Didn’t it feel like some sort of solid thing, sitting there, establishing itself, self-supporting, like some horrible monster? Then we can think, “Well, but hey, this arose dependently on so many different causes and factors and situations.” It can’t possibly be solid and self-supporting; the situation is going to change. These things are like an illusion; they dependently arise; there’s nothing solid, self-sustaining, self-supporting to it. Then, we need mindfulness to remember it in that situation. The more mindful we are, the more that we are able to deconstruct it, the better we’ll be able to handle it. We might not be able to handle it so well when we’re actually with the person, but afterwards you can analyze and then you go back. 

The confrontation occurs; we’re not denying the existence of the confrontation. What we’re denying here is the appearance of it. The appearance of it affects how you deal with it. You have to deal with it. The question is how to deal with it in the healthiest way – the way that’s going to cause the least amount of suffering and the one that will have the clearest thinking involved. That’s all we’re talking about; we’re not saying, “The problem doesn’t exist so forget about it.” You have to deal with it. Once the confrontation has occurred – let’s say, you split up with somebody – then that deconstruction is very important, afterwards. It helps you to lessen the emotional pain which is involved with it. Even when the emotions are not so disturbing, the thought is going to come up over and over again – you’re going to think about it, remember it. Then one has to deal with the nature of thought and deconstruct that. So, it helps; it’s not just, “Well, let time pass and time heals.” These teaching are something which is indicating a method of practice that, if we familiarize ourselves with it enough, is actually very helpful. Confrontations are going to be there when we’re dealing with samsaric beings; even if we become liberated ourselves, others may confront us. The question is, how do we deal with that? We may not cause the problem actively, but things like that happen. Buddha’s cousin Devadatta was always confronting him, so it happened to Buddha as well. 

This is a very important point that things arising dependent on causes and conditions. When we think of that, then it helps us to deconstruct something that appears solid: “Me, poor me, nobody loves me, why does everything go wrong for me,” and then “You, the terrible oppressor who acted so terribly toward me” – so again that solid aspect of the “you.” In terms of individual persons, whether it’s “me” or “you” in that situation, the deconstruction is very important, to see that the way that we act and the way that you act arises dependently on causes and conditions. How you speak, how you act, your emotions and so on are affected by so many different things and it’s important to try to understand what those things are. There isn’t a “you” who exists independently of all those causal factors: age in life, economic situation, emotional background, background of the family, background of the people that you lived with when you grew up, background of your schooling, your biology – maybe you have a lot of allergies, maybe you are handicapped in one way or another. So, many things affect how somebody acts. It all arises based on causes and conditions. Of course, if you start to bring in previous lives, then it becomes enormous – the amount of things that have affected the way that anybody acts, “me” or “you.” There’s nothing solid there, there’s nothing solid to get angry about – this is the whole point. “I get angry at you, what you said,” as if there were a solid “you.” But there is no solid “you.” 

Sometimes you feel like saying something negative or something stupid, but you don’t. That I think is necessary: “In my heart, I’m really angry but I’m not going to say anything.” Just to hold things in is not good, of course, but you have to know the proper time. “I’m really upset, you’re really upset” – it’s never helpful to discuss something difficult in a relationship when both parties are upset; you don’t want to push but let things settle down a bit and speak at the right time. “Well, I really feel like saying something but okay, I don’t, or I say, ‘we’ll speak about this later.’” Or if I’m feeling calm, I call the person up and before I get into a deep and meaningful conversation I ask them, “Is this a good time? If it’s not, when would be a good time?” It’s the only way to deal with it. So, that’s one level of dependent arising: arising based on causes and conditions. 

The next level of it is that things arise dependent on parts. For instance, what is a body? “Oh, I’m so attracted to your body” – what is a body? A body is made up of parts; is there a body that exists separately from parts? Well, no, so it has arisen dependently on its parts. “What do I find so beautiful about you? Well, your lips” – don’t the lips have parts? Do the lips exist just by themselves, independently of their parts? “Or your hands” – well, they’re made up of fingers; so, what are fingers made up of? Everything arises dependently on parts. There is nothing that exists separate from its parts. From the Buddhist point of view – and I think science would agree – there’s no ultimately smallest part. Even if we get down to quarks and strings and stuff like that, you can just go in infinitely, Buddhism says. Because of that, any situation that appears to be a whole – that appearance is an illusion. There is a whole thing – they exist, that’s not an illusion – but it’s like an illusion in that it appears to exist all by itself. “You said this and that to me, blah blah blah blah blah” – well, what you said, wasn’t that made up of words and sentences? It was made up of parts, so which word was so terrible? “That word, you called me some nasty name” – well, that nasty name was made up of syllables, it was made up of parts, so there’s solid there. Everything arises dependently on parts.

Conventionally, though, there are whole things: conventionally, there are words and conventionally you did say something that was unacceptable. The point is making it into some big solid thing. Often, we get so hurt by what somebody said and what is the reason that we get hurt? The reason is because we treat what they said as some solid, self-existing thing. They said it, yes and you can deal with what they said; but when it becomes, in your mind, some really horrible thing, then that’s a problem and that causes a lot of suffering. An action depended on parts: your hand was here, then it was there, then it was there, then in was there – in motion; only one second happens and a time. Which second was no good? All of these things have parts – that’s another level of dependent arising. We spoke about both these levels a little bit last time. 

This time I’d like to speak about the deepest level and the deepest level of dependent arising is mental labeling: things arise dependently on mental labels. What is that? That’s not so easy to understand. We’re talking here about names and words and concepts. What establishes that what happened was a problem? What establish that it’s a problem? The concept “problem,” the word “problem.” Something happened, yes; but it’s only a problem because of the concept “problem.” If there were no concept of “problem,” what happened? “You said this and this and that and I did this and this and that,” and there was this whole series of events – that was all. But then, there was the label “problem,” and you labeled it onto a basis of all these events and said, “This is a problem” – you conceived of it that way. You don’t even have to actively conceive of it that way: it’s not that it’s only a problem during those moments when you’re calling it a problem; but just the concept, mental label, “problem” is what established that it’s a problem – nothing else. There’s a label and a basis for labeling; there’s nothing on the side of the situation that establishes it as a problem. 

This is very profound and very deep. The simplest example that I always use to explain this to people is in terms of colors. You have a whole spectrum of light waves: what establishes that this is red and that’s orange? This portion of the spectrum is red and that portion of the spectrum is orange? It’s merely a convention, just a label. Somebody decided, “From this wavelength to that wavelength, we’re going to call it red; and from that wavelength to that wavelength, we’re going to call it orange.” There’s nothing on the side of light that has this big barrier, this big line that says, “On this side it’s red and on that side it’s orange,” is there? It’s a convention, a label. So, what makes that red? You can speak in terms of the light and all these other physical things – it depends on causes and conditions, of course – but ultimately, you’d have to say that it arises dependently on the mental label “red,” the concept of “red.” Now, is there something there? Yes, of course. Could it be labeled anything? Well, there’s valid labeling and invalid labeling; there has to be an adopted convention that calls that “red” and not “black” or “lamp” or “dog.” Words are conventions as well; people made them up. Way back, cave people decided that they would put together certain sounds, and a certain sound has a meaning. They decided that; there’s nothing inherent on the side of the sound that has a meaning, is there? “Ta-ble:” there’s nothing in the sound of “ta” or “ble” – nothing on the side of those sounds – that gives it a meaning. People decide that it has a meaning. 

Some labels are valid, some are invalid. It all depends on whether there is an established convention: is it not contradicted by a mind that sees conventional reality correctly? If I take my glasses off and I look at you, I see a blur. Are you a blur? There isn’t a blur sitting over there. Other people wouldn’t agree and if put on my glasses, I wouldn’t agree, so that’s not valid. I can label what I see a blur, but I can’t label you as a blur – that’s not correct. You’re not a blur. How do you know what’s valid and what’s invalid? Well, there needs to agreement; it needs to be not contradicted when I put on my glasses and when I ask other people. There are many ways of validating but what validates it is from the side of the mind, not from the side of the object. 

Categories and words serve a purpose, for communication and comprehension. We know that it’s useful because we use it and it serves a purpose. What is the practical application here? Let’s say you are feeling an emotion: you’re feeling jealousy of you’re feeling sad, you’re feeling depressed. What establishes that it is sad or jealous or depressed? What establishes it is the word or concept “sad,” “jealous,” and “depressed.” Here is this whole wide spectrum of feelings and emotions and there’s the concept that takes a certain little portion of that and labels it “jealousy” or “depression.” Every time that I experience something, it’s not exactly the same and what I experience and what you experience is not exactly the same. We can talk about patience, we can talk about love, we can talk about concentration – with all of these things, it’s the same. 

The point is that everything arises dependently on just mental labels, so both the defining characteristics and the basis for labeling – what activity you’re labeling as this or that. The person, the label – it all arises dependently on that and each of those parts arise dependently on further labels. The mental labeling could have repercussions in our attitude. For instance, temperature. Let’s deal with centigrade. Celsius – that was probably the person’s name – made up a convention. He got out a thermometer, a ruler and divided it arbitrarily into numbers, based on the freezing point and boiling point of water. He decided to divide it into 100 – but they could’ve divided it into 17. Look at the British unit of weight, stone – it’s divided into 14. Fourteen pounds make a stone. So, it’s totally arbitrary and we have decided that above 35 or above 40 – depending on what we’re used to – is uncomfortable, that’s intolerable. It affects our attitude because we look at the number and if it’s above a certain number, that’s terrible, that’s no good. It does affect our attitude, but it’s purely a convention. If one understands that it’s a convention and a label, you don’t so upset. It’s hot, okay, it’s 40 degrees; but you don’t get so upset about it. The point is to not be so upset, to deconstruct the solid appearance: “This is a horrible hot day,” and then you get upset about it. We need to realize that whatever problems we experience, whatever situations we experience, “me” and “you” and all these things, arise dependently. 

When we eliminate the impossible way of existing, then how do things exist? They dependently arise. What establishes their existence? The causes and effects on which they depend; the parts on which they depend; but ultimately on mental labeling. What is jealousy? All you can say is that jealousy is what the word “jealousy” – the concept “jealousy” – refers to, on the basis of a certain feeling and emotion and behavior. That’s jealousy. The defining characteristic of that behavior and so on – that’s just the convention, somebody made that up and put it in the dictionary. Different cultures specify different emotions. “Losing face,” “I’ve lost face” – that’s an emotion that maybe many of us don’t have in the West. Or a medieval sense of loyalty – there are many different emotions. It’s just a matter of how you cut the pie: you can cut into this kind of pieces or that kind of pieces. 

There’s nothing on the side of the object that establishes it as “this” or “that;” what establishes it as “this” or “that” is my mind, in terms of mental labeling and how I conceptualize it and deal with it. The importance of that is that you can change your mind. It’s very difficult to change external situation; the mind you can change, you can work on. That’s the significance of this. Lojong, attitude training – change our attitude about certain situations; change negative circumstances into positive ones. We have this in so many of these texts of lojong: when somebody whom I’ve treated so nicely treats me so terribly, look at this person as my teacher rather than as my enemy. They’re teaching me patience. They’re teaching me to not expect that everybody’s going to be perfect – they’re teaching me a lot of things. Or look at them as my sick child who’s delirious: the three-year-old doesn’t want to go to bed and so the three-year-old says “I hate you” – a cranky, overtired child. Do you then get all depressed, thinking, “Oh my child doesn’t love me, my child hates me?” No. Likewise, this person is disturbed – that’s another way of changing your attitude. There are many ways in which you can change your attitude about things and experience it in a very different way. They still insulted us or ignored us or did something not nice to us, but how we label it can be very different and how we label it will affect how we experience it. It’s very helpful – as long as it’s a valid label, a useful label; you can’t just label anything anything.

That is the basic point here about dependent arising. As the text says: “Hey, those like me!” – he’s saying, “I’ve experienced it this way so you’re experiencing life the same way that I have and look, this has been helpful for me.” “All of those are things that dependently arise” – he’s referring to everything that he’s been discussing in the text: all the different problems and karmic situations and things going wrong in your life and so on. “What relies on dependently arising cannot be self-supporting. Changing into that over there and changing into this over here, their false appearances are an illusion” – so the false appearance is an illusion; it’s not that the phenomena themselves are an illusion. They’re like an illusion in the sense that they have a false appearance. “They are reflections that (merely) appear, like a whirling firebrand.” “Reflections” is here the sense that our mind makes a hologram and when you have a whirling firebrand – that’s the example of a torch or a flashlight. If somebody turns if around in a circle in front of you, it looks as though there’s a solid ring of light, or a solid ring of fire if it’s a fire torch. But it’s not; the mind makes a hologram – it’s a reflection, a mental reflection – as if it were a solid ring. But that’s a false appearance: the appearance of a solid ring is an illusion. Is there something there? Yes, of course there is. The torch turning round is not an illusion; the appearance of it as a solid ring of light is an illusion. 

Let’s end the class here with a dedication. We think whatever positive force has been built up by this, whatever understanding has been built up by this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.