Session Three

Yesterday I spoke about that what we naturally desire is happiness and wish to overcome suffering. Contrary to our natural aspirations often we tend to create more conditions for suffering and are ignorant of the ways for creating causes for our own happiness. What is found at the root of all of this is the fundamental confusion or in Buddhist language fundamental ignorance. This is a state of confusion in relation to not only the way things are but also in relation to the way cause and effect relate to each other.

Therefore in Buddhism when talking about fundamental ignorance or avidya one talks of two levels of ignorance. One is the ignorance or confusion relating to the laws of causality, the law of karma. The second one is ignorance or confusion pertaining to one’s understanding of the ultimate nature of reality. These two types of ignorance are related to the two levels of understanding of dependent origination, pratityasamutpada. Understanding the pratityasamutpada in terms of causal dependence will enable one to dispel the confusion pertaining to karmic laws or causality. Understanding or deep insight into dependent origination in terms of the ultimate nature of reality will enable one to dispel the confusion pertaining to one’s understanding of the ultimate nature of reality.

However this does not mean that this ignorance or confusion is the only cause of one’s unenlightened existence. Of course there are many other derivative causes or conditions which are the afflictive emotions and thoughts. These are a complex class of emotions and thoughts. One finds detailed descriptions of these emotions and thoughts in the Abhidharma literature. For example according to the Abhidharma literature there is an understanding of six root negative emotions out of which arises twenty secondary negative emotions. So there is a complex explanation of the role of negative emotions and thoughts.

A further explanation of the process of being in an unenlightened existence is in the tantric Vajrayana literature where there is what are known as the eighty types of conceptions. These are indicative of one being in an unenlightened existence. Similarly in the Kalachakra literature, which belongs to the Vajrayana class, there is also a further identification of factors or causes of samsaric existence. These are understood in terms of propensities or natural dispositions.

These afflictive emotions and thoughts, which arise from one’s fundamental state of confusion, motivate volitional actions. Together the delusions and karmic actions are the origins of one’s suffering. Generally speaking the kleshas or afflictive emotions are defined as that emotion or thought which the mere occurrence of it in oneself creates an immediate disturbance within one’s mind and afflicts from within. This is the general definition of a klesha.

What is meant by karma? I would like to remind you again to situate your understanding of karma in the wider context of the Buddhist understanding of the natural laws of causality. Karma is an instance of the natural causal laws that operate within the universe. There is an understanding according to Buddhism that things and events come into being purely as the result of the aggregation of causes and conditions. Similarly karma is an instance of that. The unique feature of karma is that it involves an intentional action. Karma involves an agent. There are causal processes operating in the world but where there is no agent involved one can not really talk about karma. In order for a causal process to be a karmic causal process there is a need for an agent, an individual whose intention would lead to particular action. This type of causal nexus or causal mechanism is known as karma.

Within the karmic action, generally speaking there are three types of karmic actions corresponding to the effects they produce. The actions that produce suffering or pain are generally speaking considered negative actions or non-virtuous actions. Whereas actions that led to positive consequences, desirable consequences of joy and happiness, these actions are said to be positive or virtuous actions. The third category of actions that lead to experiences of equanimity or states of neutral feelings or experiences are considered to be neutral actions, neither virtuous nor non-virtuous.

In terms of the actual nature of the karmic actions themselves one can talk of two different types of karma. One type is mental karmic acts, which need not be physically manifested as action but rather are mental acts. The second type is physical actions either bodily acts or speech. Principally there are two types of actions. Similarly from the point of view of mediums through which the actions are expressed or executed one can talk of actions of the mind or of speech or of the body. Similarly in the scriptures one also finds discussions about karmic actions which are completely virtuous, completely non-virtuous or a mixture of those two. I feel that many of us who practice the Dharma and who believe in the Dharma perhaps most of our actions are a mixture of the two.

If one looks at a single instance of a karmic action one can see stages within that event. There is the beginning, which is the stage of motivation or intention. Then there is the actual execution of the act. Then there is the culmination or completion of the act. In the scriptures there is an understanding that the intensity or force of an action can vary depending on how these stages are carried out. In the example of a negative action, if the person at the stage of motivation has a forceful emotion say anger, a forceful negative motive and acts out on that impulse but immediately afterwards feels deep regret then that action would be less forceful. This is because the three stages; motivation, action and the completion were not fully in accord, fulfilled. Therefore that action would be seen as less forceful compared to an instance where the person has acted out completely with a strong motivation, actual execution and a sense of pleasure or satisfaction for the act committed. Similarly there can be instances where an individual has very weak motivation but certain circumstances forces the individual to actually commit the act. In this case although the negative act is committed it would be less forceful as a strong motivating force was absent. Depending on how forceful the motivation, actual act and the completion are, there are varying degrees of force and intensity of the karma.

In the scriptures because of these differences one finds discussions of four types of karma; karma in which the action is executed but not accumulated, karma which is accumulated but not executed, karma where the act is both executed and accumulated, karma with the absence of both execution and accumulation of the act. Once one understands the significance of this point that within a single act there are different stages to the actual act, the karma itself is a composite, an accumulated act, then whenever one has the opportunity to engage in a positive action, as a practitioner it is important to insure that at the initial stage, one’s motivation is very strong. One needs a strong intention to engage in the act and while one is actually executing the act one should insure that one has given one’s best effort into the successful karmic action. At the end after the act is committed it is important to insure that one dedicates the positive karma accumulated towards the well being of all sentient beings and one’s own attainment of enlightenment. If one can, it is important to reinforce that dedication with an understanding of the empty nature, the ultimate nature of reality, which would make it more forceful.

Similarly as a practitioner ideally one should avoid engaging in any negative actions at all, however if one finds oneself in a situation where one is committing a non-virtuous action it is important to make sure at least the motivation is not strong. Similarly while one is executing the non-virtuous action if there is a sense of regret or remorse, though committed the negative act will be weakened. Also there shouldn’t be any sense of satisfaction, one should not take joy in any negative action committed. Rather one should feel deep regret and remorse then immediately follow the act if possible with a purification of the negativity. If one can follow a way of life where this is one’s way of relating to positive and negative actions then one will be able to follow the law of the teachings on karma in a much more effective way.

Although there are many different types of negative actions in most of the Buddhist scriptures where teachings on karma are presented, negative actions are condensed or summarized as avoidance of the Ten Negative Actions. There are three actions of body, four of speech and three of mind. The three negative bodily acts are killing, stealing and sexual misconduct. The four negative actions of speech are telling lies, engaging in divisive speech, harsh speech and engaging in senseless gossip. The three negative mental actions are covetousness, harmful intention and holding wrong views. The ideal practicing Buddhist must live a way of life where one avoids all of these negative actions. If this is not possible then one should refrain from as many as possible. In leading an ethically disciplined way of life one avoids these negative actions according to Buddhism.

The general mode of procedure of a spiritual practitioner in Buddhism is that at the initial stage one’s ultimate aspiration is to attain liberation from samsara. Therefore one of the principal tasks of such a practitioner is to gain victory over the kleshas. But at the initial stage there is no way that the practitioner can directly combat the kleshas or afflictive emotions and thoughts. The sensible way to proceed then is to find a way of coping with the expression of these negative emotions and thoughts through one’s conduct of body, speech and mind. Therefore the first step towards gaining that ultimate aspiration of gaining victory over the kleshas is to guard one’s body, speech and mind from engaging in negative actions. One does not give in to the power and domination of the afflictive emotions and thoughts.

Once one has achieved this first stage then one can proceed on to the second stage, which is then to tackle the root cause, the fundamental confusion spoken about earlier. At this stage one can directly counteract the force of the kleshas. The third stage is not only to simply gain victory over the delusions but also to root out all the propensities and imprints left by the delusory states of mind within one’s mind, one’s psyche. Therefore Aryadeva stated in the Four Hundred Verses of the Middle Way that a true spiritual aspirant must at the beginning overcome negative actions of body, speech and mind. In the middle phase one must counter the grasping at a self or ego. In the final stage the aspirant should overcome all views that bind one within samsara.

When Buddhism talks about how both the environment and sentient beings are the results of fundamental confusion and particularly karma, one should not have the notion that karma produces these things out of nowhere. This is not the case. Karma is not like an eternal cause. Rather one must understand that in order for karma to operate, to have the potential to create its consequences, there must be a base, a basis. Therefore both in terms of the physical world and the mental world, the continuum is always there. For example in the case of the physical world, one can trace the continuum of the physical world to the beginning of a particular universe. According to Buddhism one can trace this back to a stage of empty space where there is an acceptance of what is known as space particles. “Space particle” is not the best translation. There is a stage of empty space during which the source of the material universe is contained within the space particles.

Similarly in the case of the mental world so far as the continuum of sentient beings is concerned, there is an unending process of continuity of both matter and mind. This is not the result of karma. The question arises, where does karma fit in? At what point does karma play a causal role in producing sentient beings and the natural environment? Perhaps one could say that there is the natural process in the universe and at the point where the evolution has reached a stage where it can effect experiences of sentient beings with either pleasure or pain, that is the point where karma begins to come into the picture. Karmic processes can make sense only in relation to sentient beings experiences, be it suffering or pleasure.

For example if the question is asked whether consciousness is produced by karma or if sentient beings are produced by karma, the answer should be in the negative. But if the question is the human body or consciousness the product of karma, then the answer would be yes. The human body and consciousness are consequences of positive actions, virtuous actions. When one is talking about a human body and human consciousness one is already talking about a state of existence which deals directly with the experiences of an individual’s pain and pleasure.

Similarly if one is asked the question of whether the natural aspiration, instinctual desire, to seek happiness and overcome suffering is a product of karma. The answer would be no. Similarly when one thinks about the evolution of the physical universe at large in the context of the Big Bang, generally speaking so far as the natural processes of cause and effect in the physical world is concerned, I do not think this is a product of karma. The process of cause and effect in the natural world takes place regardless of karma but in what form or what direct that process leads to then karma has a role to play.

What one finds is that in the natural world in terms of applying inquiry in terms of identifying the objects of inquiry from the Buddhist analytical point of view, it seems that one could say there are two distinct types of objects of inquiry. One object or one realm that is natural, only natural causal laws operate. One can also speak about another realm of inquiry where as a result of causal interactions there are certain properties that are emergent that are contingent as a result of these interactions. Because of this distinction in Buddhist scriptures one finds discussions of different avenues of reasoning or analysis when trying to understand the nature of the world or reality.

For example there is a discussion of what is called the Four Principles. One is the natural principle; the fact that things exist, cause leads to effects. Here there is an appreciation of a principle that is natural. One could almost say there is an acceptance of natural laws. Based on this natural principle then one can appreciate the principle of efficacy, given the natural principle it can produce certain given results. One can also talk about the principle of dependence. Given the natural principles and laws along with the principle of efficacy one sees a natural dependence between things and events, between causes and effects. Based on those three principals then Buddhist critical analysis talks about how one can apply various types of reasoning for analysis that would enable one to deepen one'’ understanding of the natural world. Therefore the fourth principle is the principle of valid proof that is based on the understanding of the three other principles one can accept the notion of given this, this must be the case; given that, that must be the case.

For a practicing Buddhist who is engaged in the Dharma it becomes important to appreciate these “facts” of the natural world. Once one has an appreciation of Four Principles then one is in a position to utilize that knowledge to live a life in accord with Dharma principles. Therefore one could say that one would be utilizing the principle of valid proof to avoid certain negative actions and enhance one’s virtuous actions.

There is the natural world and at a certain point in the causal process karma comes into the picture and the question is in what manner does karma effect or interact with the natural causal law? Perhaps one can relate this to one’s own personal experience. From one’s own experience one knows that certain actions have a continuing effect later the very same day. A state of mind in the morning may have an impact on one’s emotional sense of being in the evening. Even though an act is committed in the morning, an event that was finished, but its effects still linger on within one. I think this is the same principle that operates when one talks about karma and its effects even in the case of long-term karmic effects. It is on this basis that one can understand how karma creates effects felt even after a long time after the act was committed. According to the Buddhist explanation the impact of karma can be felt in successive lifetimes as well.

Here I feel that unless one compliments the general explanation of the karmic process in mainstream Buddhist literature with Vajrayana literature one’s understanding would not be comprehensive or complete. In the Vajrayana tradition there is an appreciation that not only the physical world but also the bodies of the sentient beings are composed of the same five elements; wind, fire, water, earth and space. Space here should be understood in terms of a vacuum, empty space rather than the technical meaning of the absence of obstruction. In the Vajrayana literature there is an understanding of the existence of external and internal elements and how at a very profound level they are related to each other. Through understanding that relationship one can try to understand in a deeper way the way in which karma effects the world.

As discussed earlier the fact that consciousness exists is a natural fact. The consciousness exists, that is it. Similarly in terms of the continuum of consciousness it is again a natural principle. Consciousness maintains its continuity. According to Buddhism there is an understanding that consciousness can not come into being from nowhere. It can not come into being without a cause. Also matter can not produce consciousness. Consciousness does not come out of matter. This is not to say that matter can not effect consciousness. It is a condition for the arisal of consciousness. But in terms of the actual continuum of consciousness matter can not produce consciousness. When talking about consciousness, the nature of consciousness is mere luminosity, mere experience, a knowing faculty. That can not be produced from matter. Since consciousness can not come into being from no cause, nor can it come into being from a material cause, therefore consciousness must come from a ceaseless continuum. It is on this premise that Buddhism accepts the existence of beginningless former lives. Similarly one finds many individuals who have very clear and vivid memories of past lives.

When one talks about the origin of suffering, the sources of suffering, although they are karma and the delusions but the primary cause, the principal cause for the origin of suffering really is the delusions. Depending on different interpretations of the fundamental Buddhist doctrine of anatman, no-soul theory, it seems there is also differences in understanding the nature of the kleshas, the afflictive emotions and thoughts. For example certain states of mind or certain thoughts and emotions which according to the Madhyamika-Svatantrika school or Cittamatra Schools as being non-delusory but from the point of view of the Madhyamika-Prasangika view of anatman these thoughts and emotions would be seen as delusory. Of course this is a very complex point and would require a lot of study.

So now the important thing is that the afflictive emotions are the ultimate enemy or the source of suffering. Once an afflictive emotion develops within our mind it immediately destroys our peace of mind. Eventually it destroys our health. Also it destroys our friendships with other people. All the negative activities such as killing, bullying or cheating come out of the afflictive emotions. So this is the real enemy. That is the destroyer of our peace, destroyer of our fortune, including our health. So therefore that is the enemy, the real enemy. The external enemy today may be harmful to you but maybe the next day is very helpful. The inner enemy always remains as a destroyer. Moreover this enemy is always present no matter where you live. One can always put a distance from an external enemy like in 1959 when we escaped. This enemy whether in Tibet or in the Potala or Dharamsala or here in London, wherever I go this enemy is there. Even somewhere in meditation during a visualization of a mandala, still in the very center of the mandala that enemy is still there. So this is the point now. We have to realize that. The real destroyer of our happiness is always there. (H.H. in English)

What do we do now? If there were no possibility to eliminate this then it would be better to forget and rely on alcohol, sex, all these things. Much better! If there is a possibility to eliminate that then I think we must take this good opportunity of a human being, human good heart, combine these two things. Try to reduce that and eventually eliminate. Therefore according to Buddhist teaching the human body is precious. Why? Because of human intellect and the shaping or changing our mind not only through emotion but also mainly through intelligence, through reasoning. There are two kinds of emotion. One emotion is without any reason such as fear, hatred or those things. Of course usually there are some reasons, “Oh that person is harming me”. Through this one develops hatred. But deep down if one goes further there is not much reason. These emotions without proper reasons are the negative emotions. The other kind of emotion such as compassion, altruism, is a kind of emotion with reason. Further investigation can prove that they are something good, something necessary, and something useful. This kind of emotion, although a type of emotion, goes well with reason or intelligence. So the combination of intelligence and emotion is the way to change our inner world. So long as the basic suffering nature, the enemy is there, so long then we are under that enemy’s control. No permanent happiness. Once you develop some kind of genuine desire to overcome this enemy that is the true aspiration to seek freedom, which is called renunciation in Buddhist language. This practice of analyzing our emotional level and inner world is the very important, key practice. (H.H. in English)

The scriptures say that so far as the desire to overcome obvious suffering, the suffering of suffering, is concerned, even animals have this natural desire. As far as the aspiration or desire to free oneself from the second level of suffering, the suffering of change, this is not unique to the Buddhist path. Many traditional Indian paths are similar in the quest for inner tranquility through samadhi. These practitioners also fully realize that the sensations like pleasure are ultimately unsatisfactory and of no use. The true aspiration to seek liberation from suffering or from samsara or moksha can only arise from recognition of the third level of suffering, the dukha of conditioning. As long as one remains under the domination or control of ignorance and the delusions, one is subject to suffering. There is no room for lasting joy and happiness. Based on this recognition one can truly develop a genuine desire to seek liberation or moksha.

Now the Third Noble Truth. What is nirvana? What is moksha? What is cessation? Is it something possible or not? This is the key question now. (H.H. in English) The Third Noble Truth is the truth of cessation or moksha.

When talking about the truth of cessation, liberation or moksha, one could accept the existence of the possibility of attaining moksha because the Buddha talked about it in the scriptures. I do not think this is satisfactory. It may be useful here to reflect upon a point Aryadeva made in his Four Hundred Verses on the Middle Way. In it he argued that when talking about the ultimate nature of reality, emptiness, one must understand that emptiness is not something the understanding on which requires reliance on scriptural authority. It is something one can approach through critical analysis, through reasoning. The understanding of emptiness can arise through a process of reason. Therefore in Buddhism there is an understanding that through phenomena evident to one’s direct perception, one can proceed directly without the need for any sort of logical proof. There is a second category of phenomena, which although may not be obvious to us but one can infer them based on one’s own direct perception of something. These are technically known as the category of the slightly obscured phenomena. They are not completely obscure because we can infer their existence through a reasoning process. Emptiness belongs to this category. Since emptiness belongs to this category, that emptiness can be approached through a reasoning process, one can infer the truth of emptiness. Therefore one must also accept moksha or liberation is something, which can be understood through this process as well.

As Nagarjuna said a true understanding of moksha should be based on an understanding of emptiness because moksha is nothing other than the total elimination or total cessation of delusion and suffering through the insight of emptiness. Understanding the concept of moksha is very much related to the Buddhist concept of emptiness. Since emptiness can be approached and understood through an inferential process similarly moksha can be approached and understood through a similar rational process.

Because of this intimate connection between the Buddhist concept of emptiness and of moksha, in the Abhisamayalamkara, a classic text written by Maitreya, when referring to the Third Noble Truth there is an extensive discussion of the sixteen types or classes of emptiness. The fact that moksha is an ultimate truth is very explicitly discussed in Chandrakirti’s writings. It seems whether or not one can accept the possibility of moksha depends on how well one understands the Buddhist concept of emptiness.

When one talks about the Buddhist concept of emptiness of course it is obvious one is talking about the absence of something, a form of negation. Similarly when talking about the Buddhist concept of anatman or no-self theory again one is talking about a form of negation or absence. Why this insistence on this absence, this negation? Pause for a moment and think about one’s own experience. For example if one has a certain fear based on a suspicion that there might be something there, in order to dispel that fear one reflects that one might be projecting. Although it might lessen one’s fear but it will not completely dispel it. If one instead develop a thought that this is pure illusion, there isn’t anything here, and if one’s rejection is that categorical it will have an immediate impact on dispelling one’s fear.

If that is the case, what is being negated here? What is it empty of? What are we talking about being empty of? The scriptures say it is an absence of the object of negation. One is negating the object of this apprehension. This is not explanatory so one has to go further to try and understand what is the actual object of negation. One can see here that the key lies in one’s understanding of what is meant by atman in the context of anatman. Depending on one’s own philosophical interpretation of this Buddhist doctrine on anatman, there will be differences in the identification of what is being negated here. What one finds in the Buddhist literature is varying degrees of subtleties in one’s identification of the atman, the object of negation. For example one level is where this atman is identified as a substantially real soul that exists within all of us. The negation of that substantially real, autonomous agent or eternal soul is the meaning of anatman. This is one interpretation of the principle of anatman.

There is also another interpretation of that doctrine which is the Cittamatra understanding where the fundamental ignorance is not so much the belief in a substantially real, eternal soul principle but rather the acceptance or belief in the reality of the physical world. There is an understanding that the fundamental ignorance is the belief in the duality of mind and matter. The object to be negated in the context of anatman is this belief in the duality of mind and matter. This is another interpretation of the doctrine of anatman.

There is of course the Madhyamika-Svatantrika understanding of emptiness. Here there is an understanding that although things come into being as the result of causes and conditions and much of the status of existence is dependent on one’s perceptions but still there is some sort of intrinsic reality to things and events. What is being negated here is independence of objects from perception. The negation of that is the emptiness.

From the point of view of the Madhyamika-Prasangika school even that is not the final meaning of the Buddhist teaching on anatman. From the Madhyamika-Prasangika’s view so long as one has not deconstructed or dismantled the notion of any intrinsicness or any objectivity to the status of things and events, then one is still grasping at things as real, objectively existing, as enjoying some kind of independent status. What is being negated in the context of the doctrine of emptiness is the intrinsic reality, intrinsic existence or identity of things and events. The negation of that is the subtle meaning of the true meaning of the doctrine of emptiness. One sees that depending on one’s own philosophical interpretation of the Buddhist teaching on anatman, one has varying or different understanding of what is to be negated.

What is common to all these four schools which have different interpretations on the Buddhist teaching on emptiness or anatman, is to bear in mind that while engaged in a task one needs to counteract one’s grasping at atman, the self. It is also important to insure that one’s negation does not defy the reality of the conventional world, the lived world of experience. The karmic world and karmic operations can not be destroyed by the negation. Causality, the world of causality should not be negated in the process of one’s understanding emptiness.

In terms of arriving at a philosophical standpoint and form of analysis that would enable the individual to not only be thorough in negating atman and arriving at emptiness while at the same time ensuring the world of interdependence, the world of dependent origination and karma is not destroyed but on the contrary is reaffirmed, it would seem that the Madhyamika-Prasangika doctrine is the most successful. It may be useful here to reflect on a very important passage from Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way, the Madhyamikamulakarika, where he states “That which is dependently originated, I call that empty”. This in turn is dependently designated so the idea is that whatever is dependently originated is empty in the ultimate sense and this empty phenomena is dependently designated.

The fact that things and events are dependently designated implies that they are not non-existent, they are not mere nothingness. What is found here is the way in which the understanding of pratityasamutpada, dependent origination, and the understanding of emptiness together enables the individual to tread the middle way thus avoiding the extremes of absolutism and nihilism. This Madhyamika expression dependently designated has a deep significance as the first part of the expression (dependently) implies that things and events come into being by dependence on other factors. This means they do not posses independent existence, they do not posses some sort of autonomous, absolute status of existence. They come into being only as the result of dependence upon causes and conditions. The first part of that expression negates absolutism. The second part of the expression, which is designated, implies that they are not mere nothingness, they are not non-existent. They do exist. This part of the expression insures that the realty of the phenomenal world is not destroyed.

Therefore Buddhapalita stated in his Commentary on Madhyamikamulakarika that if things and events exist with independent and substantial status, come into existence without dependence on other factors, then why are the designations dependent? Why is there this dependent designation, inter-related designation? Related to this point, it seems from speaking with various physicists, I was told according to quantum mechanics there are problems in postulating this very notion of reality. Even reality as a concept is becoming a problem. For me what this points towards is the difficulty of finding an essence when one searches into the essence of things.

However if one jumps to the other extreme and say that this is pure illusion and everything is just mere projection of mind, then one falls into the trap where the Cittamatrins fell which is total mentalism. Things do not posses intrinsic reality, do not posses objective, independent and substantial status yet at the same time one is not happy with the conclusion that everything is a mere projection of the mind, where is the middle way? Madhyamikas here say that things and events come into being purely as the result of the aggregation of many factors. It is on the basis of this aggregation of causes and conditions that one imputes identity upon that aggregation.

[End of third session]