I first came across this one on Twitter. The language is just too modern and the ideas expressed too neatly and philosophically for this to be from the Pali Canon. It doesn’t sound, in tone, like anything I’ve read in the Mahayana scriptures either.
It’s in fact from a book called The Teachings of Buddha, by Bukkyo Dendo Kyonkai, a Japanese organization. In a fuller version it’s:
As has been pointed out, all things appear and disappear because of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else. Wherever there is light, there is shadow; wherever there is length, there is shortness; wherever there is white, there is black. Just like these, as the self-nature of things cannot exist alone, they are called non-substantial.
The Teachings of Buddha may contain scriptural material, but this passage seems to be from a section that is “about Buddhism” rather than representing a primary source. The Buddha really didn’t talk in terms of everything existing in relation to everything else.
This passage in “The Teachings of Buddha” is probably a paraphrase of something in D. T. Suzuki’s “Studies on the Lankavatara Sutra,” in a chapter on the principle ideas found in the sutra, where he writes:
So long as dualism is adhered to, there is no Nirvana, no self-realisation. Light and shadow, long and short, black and white–they are mutually related; when they stand alone each by itself, they have no meaning. So with Nirvana.
Here we have the same three pairs (light/shadow, length/shortness, black/white) and the idea that these opposites can’t exist alone.
The Lankavatara Sutra is a Mahayana Sutra, probably composed at least 500 years after the Buddha’s death. In my humble opinion it contains at least some spiritual perspectives that the Buddha would have agreed with but that he didn’t explicitly teach. But it’s definitely not something the Buddha himself taught. And of course Suzuki’s commentary on the sutra is definitely not the word of the Buddha.
One correspondent told me that the entire quote beginning “As has been pointed out…” is found in the Lankavatara Sutra itself, but I haven’t been able to locate it there.
Hello. In terms of buddha not talking of everything existing in relation to everything else, i would agree it would not be said in this language but isnt a key theme (some would say THE key theme) is dependent origination? This existing, that arises.
Yes, the message is entirely in line with what the Buddha taught, and with how things are. It’s just not something he said.
Things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves.
Nagarjuna
That’s an interesting quote, because it floats around, and has done for decades, being attributed to Nagarjuna. It’s kind of the think you might expect Nagarjuna to say, although his style is generally quite cryptic and dense, so it doesn’t really sound like him in terms of the way it’s expressed.
As far as I can see this is first attributed to Nagarjuna by Fritjof Capra in his “Tao of Physics,” where we gives a reference to TRV Murti’s “The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.” But when you look at the relevant page in “The Central Philosophy of Buddhism” you see that the words are Murti’s himself. He doesn’t even mention Nagarjuna near that quote.
It looks like Capra took the words “For things are mutually dependent in their nature (i.e. substance on attributes, self on the states, and vice versa) and are nothing in themselves” rewrote them, and attributed them to Nagarjuna, knowing that they weren’t Murti’s. Capra must have known that he wasn’t quoting Nagarjuna, and yet it seems he went ahead anyway. It’s a rather shocking form of dishonesty, even if it may seem minor.
I am surprised to hear you say “The Buddha really didn’t talk in terms of everything existing in relation to everything else.” Do you mean he didn’t use those exact words, or that he didn’t teach dependent arising? “Everything existing in relation to everything else” sounds like a description of dependent origination/arising to me, which is certainly a core teaching of the Buddha’s on how the world works. Teachings on dependent arising are found in both Mahayana and Theravada scripture:
From the Pali canon: Majjhima Nikaya 38: “When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises…”; and Samyutta Nikaya 12.21: “Avoiding two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle way: ‘When this exists, that comes to be;/With the arising of this, that arises;/When this does not exist, that does not come to be;/With the cessation of this, that ceases.'” In addition, in Mahayana sutras such as the Heart Sutra and the Diamond-Cutter sutra, the Buddha explains emptiness itself in terms of dependent arising, and in the Mahavastu Sutra, Volume III, Chapter 124, the Buddha discusses the Wheel of Life in terms of dependent arising.
Surely when the Buddha talked about dependent origination he talked in terms of one specific phenomenon being a condition for the arising of some other specific phenomenon, and that phenomenon being the case of another? And as far as I can recall those chains of conditions were specifically to do either with how we become enmeshed in suffering or freed from it. I think it is implicit in the teaching of conditionality that the entire universe is interconnected, but I don’t think the Buddha ever said explicitly that they were, and I don’t think he was interested in doing that. He seemed very single-mindedly focused on what causes suffering and what liberates from suffering, and not at all interested in outlining any general theories about the nature of the universe. In other words, I don’t think the Buddha taught “how the world works,” except insofar as it helped in the project of attaining liberation.
From GPT CHAT
the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination (Pali: paṭicca-samuppāda; Sanskrit: pratītya-samutpāda), which the Buddha did teach, for example:
Canonical expression:
“When this is, that is;
From the arising of this, that arises;
When this is not, that is not;
From the cessation of this, that ceases.”
— Saṃyutta Nikāya 12.61 (Assutavā Sutta)
That is the authentic phrasing of the same idea in early Buddhist texts.
Yes, what you’ve just posted is a quote from the Buddhist scriptures. The quote “nothing ever exists alone (etc)” isn’t. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, but whatever it is, you haven’t shown that this Fake Buddha Quote is something the Buddha actually said.
With all respect if you are asking the question; what is the point of boating such comment? The reason is that author is claiming the phrase ” “Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.” Is not a Buddha quote; My Point is that Buddha didn’t said it exactly like phrase in quotation mark; but may said it in different words and it’s not a fake Buddha quote ,, ,,,
I’m just enrolled in a course about learning Buddha Dharma, and learning about Buddha, so I quoted from gptchat,,🙏
Hi, Saaed.
Thanks for your clarification.
A quote or quotation is “a group of words taken from a text or speech and repeated by someone other than the original author or speaker.” The words “Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else” are not taken from anything the Buddha said, so it’s not a quote.
It’s not even a paraphrase, which is “a rewording of something written or spoken [that preserves the original meaning]” because there is nothing (as far as I’m aware) the Buddha is recorded as saying that discusses how everything is connected to everything else. When he said “When this exists, this comes to be [etc]” his intention wasn’t to talk about how everything is connected to everything else. His purpose in saying this was to talk about how the mind/consciousness is continually changing, and therefore isn’t a static “thing” that we can identify as being “us.” (You can read this quote in context for confirmation.)
It’s not a quote. It’s not even a paraphrase, because it introduces a completely new topic (“everything is connected” versus “things arise in dependence upon other things”). That’s why I call it a Fake Buddha Quote.
This next part is why I don’t consider the quote in question to be even a paraphrase, and how it introduces new meanings that the Buddha not only didn’t himself state, but that he might well have refused to agree with had he been exposed to them.
Certainly we can interpret conditionality to mean that everything is connected to everything else, but that’s not what the Buddha said, and it’s not what he meant. It’s the kind of thing he probably wouldn’t have been interested in saying either, because it’s not something anyone could ever prove or disprove. Perhaps there’s some small corner of the universe somewhere that isn’t connected to anything else. Perhaps there are entire parallel universes that aren’t connected at all. Those things by definition would be unknowable, and more to the point they have nothing to do with the purpose of the Buddha’s teachings, which was how we can free ourselves from suffering.
The Buddha said, “you should remember what I have not declared as undeclared, and what I have declared as declared.” There were certain things he just didn’t talk about, such as whether the universe was finite or infinite. If someone had come to him and asked whether everything is or isn’t connected to everything else, I suspect he’d have declined to answer, on the grounds that there were things that were “undeclared” by him.
He said, “And why haven’t I declared these things? Because they aren’t beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. They don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment.”
I think probably everything is connected to everything else, even if very indirectly, but it’s not something the Buddha said and I don’t think it’s something he would say.
Thanks for the reply; very wise explanation, wish you all the best 👍🙏