Day One, Session Two

Question: (Not on tape)
Answer: ... For example Buddhist teachings explain that grasping at the true existence of things and events is at the root of volitional, karmic action. However that does not imply that the grasping at the true and inherent existence of things and events in itself is the product of karma.

Question: Is there a simple example of emptiness that can help a beginner before reaching higher levels of understanding of emptiness
Answer: Discussions on emptiness will come up in subsequent sessions and also during the initiation.

Question: Please explain how if one understands dependent arising and cause and effect? Does one see it in a flash, the connection with ultimate truth that objects are like an illusion?
Answer: It is possible in the case of some people that due to their long karmic seeds that the connection between the interdependent world of cause and effect and the ultimate reality can appear in a spontaneous awareness like a flash. But it is not truly a spontaneous awareness in the true sense of the phrase because one needs to take into account that the individual’s having reflected on this in previous lifetimes.

As for my own understanding of the relationship between the interdependent world of causality and the ultimate reality is concerned, I have definitely put great effort with a sense of involvement and engagement into this understanding. So I can say as far as my current understanding is concerned it is more of a sense, an intuition rather than a spontaneous flash of knowledge. But one thing I can definitely say is that such understanding is truly beneficial. It has been nearly thirty years since I first began to take serious interest and effort into developing and refining my understanding of the Two Truths.

Question: Is it possible that emptiness and god are similar concepts?
Answer: Of course I have found that when we talk about the concept of god that there are diverse interpretations. I have heard sometimes god defined in terms of infinite compassion and defined in terms of a creator or absolute being. So far as god understood in terms of an absolute being or creator, then this is very different from the Buddhist understanding of emptiness.

According to the Madhyamika teachings of Buddhism, all things and events without exceptions are absent of intrinsic reality or independent existence. This includes not only samsara, the samsaric world of everyday reality but also it includes Buddha and emptiness itself; nothing is spared.

Sincere Christian practitioners have asked me questions relating to the relationship between Buddhist meditative practices and the contemplative traditions of Christianity. I have told them that it is possible at the initial stages to have in some sense a combined approach of the two traditions. It is possible for a practicing Christian to adopt certain meditative techniques from Buddhism such as techniques aimed at enhancing compassion or one’s capacity for tolerance or overcoming hatred and anger. These techniques which do not necessarily require accepting unique doctrines of Buddhism could be of course be seen as common practices which can be adopted by practicing Christians. So it is possible at the initial stages for a spiritual trainee to seek refuge both in the Buddha Shakyamuni and also Jesus Christ.

However as one specializes in one’s own spiritual quest, as one embarks further and progresses on the spiritual path then at a certain stage, at a more advanced stage I feel one needs to part company. In some sense one needs to pursue a specialized line of practice because the approaches of the two traditions to some sense are fundamentally different. In the case of Buddhism the entire path of meditative techniques and practices are based upon the fundamental Buddhist philosophical tenet of the no-self doctrine where the emphasis is placed on selflessness and relativity. On the other hand in Christianity the entire spiritual approach is based on a single-pointed dedication towards the objective or goal which is seen in terms of absolute being. So at the more advanced stages I feel one needs to part company.

What we see is that the major religious traditions of the world, each of them has its own uniqueness in its approach along the spiritual path. These unique approaches suit different individuals, individuals with differing mental dispositions.

Question: Prasangikas say that the reality of subject and object can be validated through dependent arising but if ultimate reality is a non-affirming negative how can we say that anything is a cause of something else? How can we establish dependent arising?
Answer: Here in the Madhyamika context when we speak about emptiness it is important to bear in mind that we are not talking about emptiness in terms of mere nothingness. We are talking about the emptiness of independent existence, the emptiness of things and events possessing intrinsic reality or intrinsic identity. So emptiness is not a mere nothingness or nonexistence but rather it is the emptiness of an independent status, an independent existence.

When we look at the multiplicity of the world around us we see the fact that things and events come into being due to other factors is quite obvious. We see things and events coming into being as the result of causes and conditions and this is quite obvious to us. Now if we pursue that line of argument or pursue that line of understanding further, we will arrive at the knowledge of the absence of independent existence. Again if we pursue that knowledge, the absence of independent existence further then it will reinforce our understanding of the world of interdependence, the fact that things come into being as the result of causes and conditions.

Perhaps what is important here is to make a distinction. When we talk of emptiness as the ultimate absence of independent existence, when we talk of ultimate truth as being understood in terms of mere negation, a non-affirming negative, what is important here to understand is that when we arrive at such a knowledge of emptiness, in that state of consciousness there is no underlying sense or inference that maybe there is something else. Maybe things exist in such-and-such a manner? What constitutes true insight into emptiness is the full appreciation of the total absence, the negation of independent existence.

Now the understanding of the interdependent nature of reality comes as a subsequent knowledge. When you have gained such knowledge of emptiness then as a consequence of that knowledge, it reawakens in you the full implication of that knowledge. That is to say, if things and events lack independent existence then it is only through the interdependent nature, it is only through the nature of interdependence that they can come into being. So it is a subsequent knowledge.

When we think about the relationship between or the mechanism or process of our understanding emptiness and also the validity of that knowledge, it is quite a complex issue. Generally speaking when one develops a knowledge of something, one negates a false belief. When one develops insight into emptiness what is being negated is the false belief, which is grasping at the true existence or inherent existence of things and events. This knowledge of emptiness in itself can not apprehend the existence of emptiness nor can it apprehend the validity of the knowledge itself.

However that is not to say that in order to gain knowledge, in order to understand the existence of emptiness, in order to understand the validity of that knowledge, one needs further consideration or reflection. This is not the case. They come about in some sense as a natural by-product of subsequent awareness to one’s awareness of emptiness. So in the aftermath of one’s full realization of emptiness, this total absence, the knowledge that emptiness exists, the knowledge that one’s understanding of emptiness is valid, come naturally and spontaneously subsequent to one’s understanding of emptiness.

Question: How does one remain aware of compassion and tolerance despite all the problems of daily life and the clashes between people?
Answer: When we think about the true meaning of tolerance, I don’t think we should understand tolerance in terms of a meek acceptance of harm and suffering. What is meant by true tolerance is an active principal whereby you deliberately adopt a standpoint not to retaliate against a harm or infliction of pain. So when you understand tolerance in such a way then of course when you practice tolerance it further strengthen your capacity to withstand sufferings and problems.

So when your understanding of tolerance is such I as just described then in some sense one could say that your tolerance or your choice to be tolerant is based on an understanding which is that you see retaliating is foolish and also has no benefit. You will then be a position in fact when you see someone inflicting harm on you, because of your tolerant standpoint you will develop a sense of empathy or compassion towards the perpetrator of the harm. You see that person whose is perpetrating the crime is doing something which is totally stupid and self-destructive.

Question: How can one be sure that one is not going crazy or beyond reality when considering reality?
Answer: One basic rule or a rule of thumb that is used in Buddhism especially in regard to examining one’s analysis in Madhyamika is to check whether or not as a result of one’s analysis of emptiness and ultimate nature of reality, whether or not it effects one’s attitude and relation towards other areas of practice. These include love, compassion, tolerance and also whether or not your attitude towards the law of karma and causality is effected. If one finds that as a result of one’s understanding of emptiness, as a result of your analysis that your respect towards the subtle laws of karma and causality is increasing even to the point where one is so mindful of the consequences of even the slightest negative action, this is a positive indication that one’s analysis is going in the right direction. On the other hand if one finds that as a result of one’s long meditation or analysis on emptiness one is beginning to feel more apathetic, thinking that there is nothing out there and one’s commitment to the laws of karma becomes more lax then that is an indication that one’s analysis is going in the wrong direction. This is the basic rule of thumb.

So when you find yourself in such a situation, then it is very important not to be totally confined into meditating on emptiness alone but rather combining and balancing one’s meditation on emptiness with other practices. These include generating a genuine aspiration to seek liberation from cyclic existence based on developing insight into the suffering nature of samsara and also enhancing one’s capacity for compassion and bodhicitta. So it is with these other aspects of the path that one must balance one’s meditation on emptiness.

Not only that but it is also important to bear in mind that as a result of one’s reductive analysis, one finds things and events can not be found when sought through an analytic process. This unfindability in itself alone does not constitute a full understanding of emptiness. If that were the case then it would be rather limited. This is something one can derive even in respect to things that are totally non-existent. So what is required is that in addition to the insight that things and events, although they may seem solid and enjoying a discrete reality, when sought in an analytic way they are unfindable. Yet they must exist in some way because the reality of their existence is something that is incontrovertible; it is something one’s valid experience, in some sense, speaks for their reality.

If this is the case then in what manner do they exist? They must exist; there must be some level of reality. However they do not exist in an independent or inherent way, as they seem to appear to us. What is the status of their existence? Through this two-pronged approach, when one arrives at a point where one’s understanding of their status is that they truly lack independent existence although they exist in some sense, therefore their existence must be understood only in terms of conceptuality, label or imputation. So it is through this way that one can steer away from falling into the two extremes and stay in the middle, arriving at the true middle way understanding of emptiness. So it is rather a profound insight.

Question: Are we born with a soul? Do we have a soul at the moment of birth or do we build our soul day by day? What do you think of Jesus Christ?
Answer: As a Buddhist and from a Buddhist point of view, since Jesus Christ played such an important role in bringing a spiritual message and spiritual solace and taught on love, compassion and tolerance to millions of people one can not view him as an ordinary person. Definitely a Buddhist would have to say that he was a Noble Being. Now as to what exactly is the status of such a Noble Being, Buddhism would have different explanations. Although the philosophy, the metaphysical teachings of Jesus is very different from the Buddha’s teachings and as practicing Buddhists would consider their own metaphysical or philosophical teachings as reflecting the truer nature of reality, however there is no contradiction for a Buddhist perceiving Jesus as a manifestation or emanation of a Bodhisattva or even the Buddha. In Buddhism there is no contradiction in accepting a teacher whose own personal standpoint may be different from the teachings the person has given because the Buddhist hermeneutic tradition makes a distinction between the author’s intentional standpoint and the scriptures standpoint. They need not be identical.

For example in the Buddhist tradition if one looks at the thangka immediately behind me, on the two sides of the Buddha Shakyamuni there are two figures. On his left is Nagarjuna and on his right is Asanga. Asanga who is considered by Mahayana Buddhists as someone who has attained the third Bodhisattva bhumi, the third Bodhisattva level, in some of his writings such as the Bodhisattva Grounds and also his Compendium, he criticizes Nagarjuna’s philosophy as being nihilistic. Yet we accept that Asanga was a Bodhisattva on a very high level of realization. There is no contradiction in this as we make a distinction between Asanga’s own ultimate standpoint and Asanga’s intended standpoint in a particular text which may be addressing an issue for a particular perspective.

Similarly in the case of the Buddha he has taught so many sutras and in some sutras for example in the sutra the Unraveling of the Buddha’s Intention, which is a hermeneutical sutra, Buddha discusses reality in terms of what are called the Three Natures. This is in contradiction with other sutras that the Buddha has taught but again the hermeneutic tradition in Buddhism maintains that a sutra taught by the Buddha need not necessarily represent the ultimate standpoint of the Buddha. So one can make a distinction between the author’s ultimate standpoint and a particular scripture’s intentional standpoint. This hermeneutical explanation could be applied to other cases as well.

As to the first part of the question concerning the question of a soul, generally speaking if one conceives of a soul in terms of an eternal principle, which is unitary, eternal and indivisible, then this is synonymous with the atman theory of the non-Buddhist schools. There the soul is characterized in terms of an eternal principle. So far as that concept is concerned all Buddhist schools deny the existence of such a soul or self. Such a soul or atman or self would be naturally something that is independent from the psychophysical constituents of the person; it would be independent of both body and mind. This type of self or soul is definitely not accepted by any Buddhist school.

However the Buddhists’ position as to the identity of the individual is explained in terms of the five aggregates. Even on this there is a divergence of opinion within the Buddhist schools themselves. Some schools of Buddhism will accept the identity of the individual or the identity of the person from within the five psychophysical constituents, something identifiable either with the collective or one of the individual aggregates. This is different from another category of Buddhist schools that accept the personal identity of the individual only in terms of dependence upon the five aggregates. It is not identifiable either with the collective of aggregates or any of the individual aggregates; it is seen purely in relation or as a dependent phenomenon.

One of the non-Buddhist ancient Indian schools has a conception of the soul which according to them; the soul is co-extensive with the body of the individual. In this concept although the soul is independent of the body but is co-extensive such that when the body grows, the soul also grows. When a child grows … increase in its size. There is such a conception.

What we find in Buddhism is that the whole motivation behind this complex analysis of the nature of reality is to try and see if it is possible to fulfill one’s basic aspiration to seek happiness and overcome suffering. The very analysis of the nature of reality is connected with a purpose and that purpose is to seek fulfillment of this basic aspiration. Through analysis of the nature of reality and through developing one’s insight and awareness, the idea is that one will be in a better position to seek happiness and the causes of happiness while overcoming suffering and prevent the causes of suffering. Because of this Buddha in his first sermon taught the doctrine of the Four Noble Truths. In some sense one could say that the doctrine of the Two Truths arises from the doctrine of the Four Noble Truths.

One could roughly say that when we are discussing about the nature of the Two Truths in some sense we are in a philosophical domain or realm. We are not talking about a religious idea. However when we go on to a discussion of the Four Noble Truths then we are talking about something that is directly related to our experiences of pain, pleasure, suffering and happiness. We are then talking within the realm of religion or spirituality. So although one could make an arbitrary distinction between the two, the separation of the two, however when we talk about the Four Noble Truths we are talking about a means and a way of overcoming suffering and means and ways of achieving happiness. When we are talking about experiences of pain and pleasure we are talking about events and phenomena which are directly related with the law of causality; pain and pleasure do not come into being from nowhere or without any cause. They come into being as the result of causes and conditions.

Although we are talking about something that is a spiritual matter, something related to our spiritual life, yet at the same time we can not totally divorce it from a discussion of the nature of reality. Because in order to understand fully how the causal mechanism works that gives rise to suffering and happiness, we have to understand the natural laws of causation. In order to understand that fully, we have to understand the nature of reality. So we are already in the realm of the Two Truths. One can not really make such a separation.

One of the reasons why this is such an intimate connection between the teachings on the Two Truths and the Four Noble Truths is that the deeper one understanding of the Two Truths the deeper and more refined becomes one’s understanding of the interrelationships between the Four Noble Truths. One is also in a stronger position to overcome seeming contradictions that might arise in one’s understanding of the Four Noble Truths. On the other hand if one has a rather superficial knowledge of the Two Truths or if one lacks an understanding of the Two Truths, then one’s understanding of the Four Noble Truths will remain on a very superficial level. One’s understanding may only be on the level of everyday reality such that if one tries to probe deeper then one will confront constantly situations where one simply can not understand or come up with seeming contradictions.

For example if one reads the Madhyamika writings by Chandrakirti one finds that because of Chandrakirti’s very advanced and very highly developed understanding of the doctrine of the emptiness of inherent existence or inherent reality, he’s whole understanding of the Four Noble Truths is very sophisticated and deep. One finds that because of his understanding of emptiness his identification of the fundamental ignorance and its mode of apprehension is very different. Because of this and his whole understanding of the nature of derivative delusory states along with their interactions is again very deep. Because of this his conception of True Cessation is much deeper and because of this his understanding of the true nature of the path that leads to such cessation is also very deep. So one sees that one’s understanding of the Two Truths deepens one’s understanding of the nature of the Four Truths. As one’s understanding of the delusory states of one’s mind deepens then also one’s understanding of the nature of suffering and the basic unsatisfactory nature of existence also deepens.

One of the principal implications of the teachings on the Four Noble Truths is that pain and pleasure or suffering and happiness come into being as the result of the interactions of causes and conditions. They do not come into being without any cause or from nowhere nor do they come into being because they were created by some external force or absolute being. Nor do they come into being as a result of some totally unconnected or unrelated cause. The moral one should take from the teachings on the Four Noble Truths is that pleasure and pain, suffering and happiness come into being only and merely as a result of their related causes and conditions.

What we see in the teachings on the Four Noble Truths is two sets of causation; the causation between suffering and its origin and the causation between cessation and the path. When these two sets of causation are further elaborated then we find the teachings on the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination. The whole causal mechanism that gives rise to suffering and existence in the samsaric world when it is elaborated in its fullest form one has the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination starting with fundamental ignorance and so on. Similarly when you try to understand the mechanism that leads to in some sense the unwinding of samsara, putting an end to samsara one finds the reverse order of the Links of Dependent Origination. So the teachings on the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination are in some sense elaborations on the teachings of the Four Noble Truths.

In the sutras where Buddha taught the sermon on the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination he made the statement, “Because there was the cause, the effects ensued. Because the cause was produced, the effect was engendered. For example because there was ignorance, then the volitional actions followed”. Asanga in his Abhidharmasamuccaya (The Compendium of Manifest Knowledge), when he elaborates and comments on these three statements, he identifies three characteristics of dependent origination. He states that these characteristics are that dependent origination entails that effects do not come into being as result of being created by an external agency, force or some entity’s design nor do they come into being due to a permanent, eternal cause, but rather come into being only as the result of related causes and conditions. So these three characteristics are fundamental features of the laws of dependent origination. So it becomes quite clear when Asanga makes such comments on the three cryptic statements by the Buddha.

In his Fundamentals on the Middle Way Nagarjuna raises a point and responds to the objections raised his opponents who are realists and criticize Nagarjuna’s philosophy as being nihilistic. They put the objection in the following manner. If as you [Nagarjuna] accept that all things and events are devoid of independent, intrinsic reality, intrinsic reality and existence, then that means that one can talk about reality only in terms of a mental construct, that means whatever the mind creates, becomes reality. If this is the case then there is no room for accounting for natural law in the relationship between causes and effects. If this is the case then there could not be any causal laws operating and if that is the case there can’t be any laws of Dharma. If this is the case then there can not be Sangha members practicing the Dharma and if that is the case then one can not have Buddhas, fully enlightened beings as there is nothing to practice. If this is the case then there are no Four Noble Truths; there is no possibility of the Three Objects of Refuge and so on and so forth. So in other words you [Nagarjuna] deny everything.

To this Nagarjuna responds by stating that on the contrary it is you [the Realists] if one pursues the line of argument that you adopt who would be faced with all those consequences. According to you since things and events posses intrinsic reality, they posses independent existence therefore they are absent the nature of dependence. If they are independent how can you talk about their being dependent on causes and conditions. If they are absent of dependence on causes and conditions then there are no causal laws operating and if that is the case then the charge of nihilism that you level against me will be reversed.

Chandrakirti in his Prasannapada or Clear Words when he comments on this particular section of Madhyamikakulakarika or Fundamentals on the Middle Way states that what is being stated here by Nagarjuna is that when the Madhyamika’s talk of emptiness they are talking about emptiness in terms of dependent origination. It is not an emptiness in terms of mere nothingness; it is an emptiness in terms of dependent origination. It is only when one accepts emptiness can one fully account for the laws of interdependent origination. Whereas if one denies emptiness then one denies interdependent origination therefore one denies the nature of dependence so therefore one can not account for any of the conventionally valid world of relativity. Therefore one would not be able to validate all of the Buddha’s teachings like the Four Noble Truths, the Three Jewels, taking refuge so on and so forth. So what this discussion indicates is that it shows a clear connection between the understanding of the Two Truths on the one hand and how a deep understanding of the Two Truths contributes towards a deeper understanding of the Four Noble Truths.

Let us meditate for five minutes or so. One object of meditation that would be quite convenient is to examine one’s own self of self. One thing that is certain for all of us who are here is the feeling that “I” exist that “I” as an individual exist here. So far as sense of self and existence is concerned it is quite incontrovertible. However underlying this sense of self, if we search for the true referent of that term self then we find we have this sense that there is something which is solid or concrete, something that is me, a core, my being. Now in our meditation let’s seek whether that appearance is true or whether it is mere illusion.

(End of Day 1)