[Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants

[Joy Vriens]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:

> If that is how your teacher misrepresented Nagarjuna, this is a different
> sort of problem. Nagarjuna has a lot more to say about p-s than that.

So I have seen. But some of this "second Buddha's" theories (especially
ch XXIV and XXV) seem often to have been used as a sort of plateau, on
which other theories could be built. In order to avoid having to study
directly all the sources and their commentaries, it was customary for
more "practice" oriented schools to develop textbooks (rnam gzhag, lam
rim, chos spyod etc.), in which the main views of that school were
summarized, including relevant quotes of the sources. Some holy authority
would have dealt with the tenacious job of studying all that and
compiled a sort of readers digest, which was considered sufficient as a
study to get on with the real job. If then e.g. Nagarjuna would be
discussed later, he would be the guy who taught quote quote quote (from
the textbook) and whose theories led up to and supported the view of
that school. Some popular quotes were:

14. /gang la stong pa nyid rung ba//de la thams cad rung bar ‘gyur//gang
la stong nyid mi rung ba//de la thams cad mi rung ‘gyur/
14. Those for whom emptiness is possible, for them everything is
possible. Those for whom emptiness is not possible, for them everything
is not possible.
18. /rten cing ‘brel par ‘byung ba gang//de ni stong pa nyid du
bshad//de ni brten nas gdags pa ste//de nyid dbu ma’i lam yin no/
18. Whatever is contingently related, that is explained as emptiness.
That is contingently configured; it is the central path. (ch. 24)
9. /'ong ba dang ni 'gro ba'i dngos//brten tam rgyur byas gang yin
pa//de ni brten min rgyur byas min//mya ngan 'das pa yin par bstan/
9. Whatever things come and go are dependent or caused. Not being
dependent and not being caused is taught to be Nirvana. (ch 25)
19. /'khor ba mya ngan 'das pa las //khyad par cung zad yod ma yin//mya
ngan 'das pa 'khor ba las //khyad par cung zad yod ma yin/
19. Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara. (ch. 25)

With the introduction of the two truths, p-s becomes the conventional
truth and emptiness the "underlying" absolute (asat?), or the 
potentiality of the p-s process instead of its products (sat?).

9. /'ong ba dang ni 'gro ba'i dngos//brten tam rgyur byas gang yin 
pa//de ni brten min rgyur byas min//mya ngan 'das pa yin par bstan/
9. Whatever things come and go are dependent or caused. Not being 
dependent and not being caused is taught to be Nirvana.

And Nirvana is what one is after. Moreover, the emphasis being put on 
practice and practice being primarily deity yoga, one is reminded at the 
beginning of every session that "stong pa nyid du 'gyur, stong pa'i 
ngang las..." (All is empty and from emptiness arises...a seed syllable 
etc.). At the end of the session everything dissolves in emptiness or 
clear light (another shortcut for what used to be the concept of 
luminous thought).

But I guess that is a bit the history of Buddhism, shortcuts that then 
start leading a life of their own. Is it due to intellectual laziness, 
lack of time, going for what is considered essential...?

My own favourite shortcut for s-p would be "This being,  that becomes; 
this arising, that arises; This not being, that does not become; this 
ceasing, that ceases" and even shorter, Buddhadasa's "correlation" 
(idappaccayataa).

> So Nagarjuna refuses to take the blame for this.

I am not surprised, what didn't he refuse?

Joy