If emptiness is possible,
Then everything is possible,
But if emptiness is impossible,
Then nothing else is possible either.
To explain this passage from Nagarjuna, Khenpo draws a connection between emptiness and dependent origination, saying that they are the same. The conclusion of every argument to date has been that whatever we were considering was dependently arisen mere appearance. What about the converse? If there was something out there that was not dependently arisen mere appearance, then it would be either not dependently arisen or not an appearance. If it doesn't appear in some way, there be nothing to discuss. If it is not dependently arisen, then it is independent, free of causes and conditions. Such a thing would then inherently exist and therefore would not be empty.
With emptiness or dependent origination, anything is free to arise with the right causes and conditions. Thus, everything is possible. If dependent origination was not true, then there would be no cause for anything to come into existence or to change. As Khenpo says, "Nothing would every arise or cease." Nothing else would be possible in this case.
How does this affect how we approach the day? Do we view our day as solid and predetermined or do we view it as unbounded, with the space for anything to arise with the right causes and conditions? What does this imply about the most difficult situations and people?
No comments:
Post a Comment