The preliminary recitations that we just performed constituted what are known as the Three Daily Activities which are paying homage to the Buddha by reflecting on his kindness and enlightened qualities, reciting passages from the Sutras expressing the key teachings of the Buddha and finally reflecting on the transient nature of life, impermanence. The last verse was of dedication dedicating the merit and virtue accumulated from engaging in such activities.

Next is the recitation of the Heart Sutra. The Heart Sutra presents the Buddha’s teachings on emptiness and of all of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, it is the most concise sutra that presents the teachings on emptiness. The recitation of the Heart Sutra is common to all of the Buddhist traditions following the Mahayana Sutras. There are some differences in the lengths and translations of the Heart Sutra but it is common in all Mahayana traditions to recite this sutra. Of course we will recite it in Tibetan but those in the audience who are Japanese or Chinese, please feel free to quietly recite the sutra in your own languages. Those of you unfamiliar with the sutra please reflect upon the profound and enlightened qualities of the Buddha.

After this I as normally do, I will recite two verses. The first is the salutation verse from Maitreya’s Abhisamayalamkara, the Ornament of Clear Realizationand the second is the salutation verse from Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamikakarika, Fundamentals of the Middle Way.

Since the text that I am basing the teachings on is the meditation chapter from Shantideva’s Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life, I will do a recitation of salutation to Manjusri.

As is the custom at the beginning of a teaching to cultivate the proper and appropriate motivation and state of mind, we will recite the formula for taking refuge to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha as well as reaffirming the generation of bodhicitta, the altruistic intention to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. When one takes refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha one does so for the higher purpose of fulfilling the welfare of all other sentient beings. With this in mind one should cultivate the right and appropriate motivation.

The chapter on meditation from Shantideva’s text, the version I have consists of nine folios. Since we have three days to cover these nine folios and there is no need to be concerned about the entire text, I felt that at the beginning today I would present a general overview of the Buddha’s teachings. Particularly since Tibetan Buddhism is a comprehensive form of Buddhism that contains the essential aspects of all of the elements of the Buddhist tradition such as the Lesser Vehicle, the Great Vehicle and the Vajrayana Vehicle, so I feel that perhaps it would be beneficial to have a general overview at the beginning.

At the outset however I would like to make one thing clear, which is my basic belief that I share with others whenever I have the opportunity, is that I generally believe that it is more reliable, more appropriate and more beneficial for people to remain within their own traditional faith. Given the diversity of cultures, societies, environments and so on, there have evolved a multiplicity and diversity of spiritual traditions. Generally I feel it is safer and more reliable for individuals to follow one’s own traditional faith.

Out of millions of individuals there might be a few who, for whatever reason, either not ell exposed to their traditional religions or have not acquired any particular interest in their traditional faith, but whose vision of life is not totally defined by a materialistic perspective. They are aware of the limitations of the materialistic way of life and recognize the need for some sort of a spiritual element in their lives whereby their basic aspirations can be fulfilled through some sort of spiritual teachings. Not only this but there are also individuals who would like to cultivate a spiritual life within the framework of a traditional religious teaching. So this is possible.

For example in Tibet ever since Buddhism flourished there, the majority of the Tibetan people have been Buddhists; they follow the Buddha’s teachings. However at least over the last four centuries there have been Muslim communities in Tibet, followers of the Islamic faith. The Muslim faith probably came to Tibet through Kashmir or Ladhak. In any case in Tibet there were those who followed the Islamic faith over the last four centuries and also from the turn of this century there were a few Tibetans who adopted Christianity as their own personal religion.

So we see that just as in Tibet where the overall culture and society may follow the Buddhist faith, there were however individuals who followed different faith traditions. Similarly in the West, although the main religious faith of Western society is the Judeo-Christian tradition however out of a society of millions of individuals there are a few who are inclined towards teachings outside the main Judeo-Christian tradition. For example here the majority of people who have gathered for this teaching are individuals with an interest and inclination towards Eastern spiritual traditions in general and Buddhist teachings in particular.

However I think it is very important that those whose personal inclination and affinity may be towards Buddhism in this case not to fall into the trap of criticizing or being overly critical of one’s traditional religion. In the case of an individual because of his inclination and mental disposition, although the traditional religion may not seem effective in their individual case this does not mean that the traditional religion and its message is not effective nor a source of inspiration for millions of others. So it is very important not to lose one’s reverence and respect for one’s traditional religion.

There are two grounds for this. First of all the traditional religion continues to serve the spiritual aspirations of millions of individuals so out of respect for individuals’ choices and their rights, one needs to pay reverence and respect towards the traditional religion. Furthermore we are living in a time when we all recognize the importance of developing inter-religious understanding and harmony. Under such circumstances it is very important not to criticize and judge other religious traditions but rather to maintain respect, reverence and admiration towards other traditions.

To give the example of my own case, I consider myself as someone who is a devout follower of the Buddha Shakyamuni. I can actually claim that my admiration for the Buddha is grounded in a genuine conviction based upon understanding of the essence of his teachings. I also feel that at least in me there is the perfect realization of taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. So this is the case of my own personal belief as a committed practicing Buddhist.

But at the same time when I look at other faith traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other major world religions, I have a profound sense of admiration and reverence for them. This is because each of the great spiritual traditions has served the spiritual needs of millions of individuals in the past, they continue to do so and they will continue in the future. They provide spiritual solace and inspiration as well as a deep sense of fulfillment of peoples’ spiritual needs. In a sense these are very powerful and profound methods for other sentient beings to bring about the fulfillment of their spiritual aspirations. They are in a sense sources of profound benefit to millions of individuals. So when I look at these other faith traditions from this angle, my admiration and reverence for these traditions tremendously increases. One of the aspects this reflects is the diversity and multiplicity of the mental inclinations, spiritual inclinations and mental dispositions and interests of sentient beings.

On what grounds do I base this kind of attitude or perspective of the other faith traditions? Again I draw from my own Buddhist teachings. For example if one looks at the Buddha’s teachings they are, within the followers of a single master, the Buddha Shakyamuni, there is a tremendous diversity. This is so particularly in the realm of philosophy where one finds a great diversity. In some cases divergent and conflicting opinions can be found. For example within the followers of the Mahayana tradition, all of whom accept the idea of the selflessness of phenomena, the no-self of phenomena, there are the Mind-Only School and the Middle Way School. From the point of view of the Mind-Only School when looking at the understanding of emptiness as presented by the Madhyamika School, regard it as nihilistic. They view it as constituting a negation of everything. When one looks at the Mind-Only School from the perspective of the Madhyamika School, they feel that not only has the Mind-Only School fallen into the extreme of absolutism but also the extreme of nihilism. So one can see that not only is there diversity but in some areas there are conflicting perspectives as well.

What is the significance of all of this diversity and in some cases contradictory viewpoints, all of which are attributed, in the case of Mahayana Buddhism, to the same teacher, the Buddha Shakyamuni? For me the profound lesson one needs to learn from this tremendous diversity is an appreciation of the diversity of the mental inclinations and mental dispositions of practitioners. If this is the case within the Buddhist traditions themselves then certainly there are sufficient grounds to extend this perspective to other traditions and admire the richness and diversity of the spiritual teachings.

Also since the majority of people who are gathered here have an interest in the Buddha’s teaching and have an affinity and inclination towards the teachings of the Buddha, I would like to make an appeal. I think it is very important for those who consider themselves to be practicing Buddhists to cultivate a deeper understanding of the teachings of the Buddha. Without some understanding of the teachings of the Buddha your practice will not have effect and it will not have the benefits you seek. Especially if one’s interest and practice of the Buddhadharma is not grounded in some kind of deeper understanding and if it is based on a superficial premise such as following a certain fashion, even though one may practice one’s practice will not have the effect it would otherwise have. Therefore it is very important to cultivate a deeper understanding.

How does one cultivate a deeper understanding of the teachings of the Buddha? Here the key is to develop some understanding of a basic, overall framework of the Buddha’s teaching. Whatever one practices one will be able to situate that within an overall understanding of the basic framework of the Buddhadharma. This I think is very important. When one does this one’s practice will have an added dimension; it will have an added effectiveness.

I would also like to point out that when one speaks about Dharma and when one tries to cultivate an understanding of the Dharma, one’s attitude towards the Dharma should not be like that of other forms of knowledge such as just gathering information. The essence of the Dharma is the practice. For example when one speaks about food, although one can go on with a very detailed and sophisticated discussion of food and how it is prepared but at the end of the discussion one has yet to eat it. The very purpose of the food is not fulfilled. No matter how elaborate the discussion or one’s understanding of the food, one has not eaten.

In a similar way of course one can enter into very complex and highly sophisticated discourse on the Dharma. However at the end of the day if one does not implement the teachings, if one does not practice the Dharma then the essence of the Dharma is lost. Just as when food is not eaten, its purpose is not fulfilled. Similarly in the case of the Dharma at the end of the day if it is not practiced then the purpose of the Dharma is not fulfilled. The purpose of the Dharma is to bring about discipline to one’s mind, to tame and discipline one’s mind. This is the purpose of the practice of the Dharma.

Since the essence of Dharma practice is bringing about inner transformation and discipline within one’s mind, it is very important that right from the beginning, even when engaging or participating in a teaching, both on the part of the teacher as well as student to have the right kind of relationship. One needs the right kind of attitude so that even in the teaching itself the subject matter that is being taught is constantly related to one’s own mind so that there is no gap between one’s state of mind and the teaching being given. As the Kadampa masters said that when a teaching is being given and one is listening whether it be on the part of the teacher or on the part of the listener, if there is a gap between them then the teaching is not successful. So it is important when participating in a teaching, not only for the students but also the teacher to insure that their state of mind is constantly related to the points of the teaching. There should be no gap between one’s state of mind and the teaching being given.

Otherwise normally when one approaches a teaching, often mental afflictions arise in one’s mind. For example it is normal for all of us when we first try to study a text, at the beginning when our minds are afflicted by anxiety as to not knowing and a lack of understanding, to have anxiety dominate our mind. As one deepens one's intellectual understanding of the text then one may get to the point where one feels that one has mastered it. One has knowledge, it has increased and at this point the anxiety dissolves to be replaced by a sense of pride, in fact arrogance. This is so much so that one starts to feel competitive towards one’s perceived equals and look down upon those whom one considers to be inferior in their knowledge. Towards someone of greater understanding one feels envy.

Already one’s mind has become dominated by the mental afflictions, which if one examines carefully arise whenever there is the opportunity. They arise whenever one gives them an opportunity, as the mental afflictions are very opportunistic. Whenever there is the opportunity they naturally arise within one’s mind. On the other hand when one does not have such anxiety then one’s mind can be become dominated by discouragement, depression, no interest or no enthusiasm. One’s mind tends to swing between on the one hand discouragement and on the other hand arrogance. This is how the mental afflictions afflict one’s mind.

Therefore it is important that whatever understanding one has developed be turned into the understanding of a Dharma practice. Otherwise there is the danger that if as a result of one’s cultivation of understanding one becomes more and more arrogant then what a Tibetan master would say will become a reality. This is that the gods themselves have turned into demons. As other masters have said that for someone who has a high level of intellectual understanding and very rational resulting in great arrogance, such a person often has a high degree of skepticism. For such a person it is said that even if the Buddha himself came in person, there is little chance that the arrogant person could be tamed. One must insure that one does not fall into this extreme or danger. The point that I am stressing is that one should insure that the Dharma becomes a Dharma practice and the Mahayana teachings become a Mahayana practice.

This is not something unique to the Buddhadharma alone. I think it is equally applicable to all other spiritual traditions. Of course it is up to the individual as to whether or not to become a religious practitioner or not. Once one has chosen to become a religious practitioner, it is very important to make sure that one actually implements the teachings within one’s life, integrate the teachings within one’s daily life. This I think is very important. One needs to make sure that one’s thoughts and actions are commensurate or in accordance with the spiritual teachings one believes in.

When one speaks about Buddhadharma, I think it is important to understand what is meant by Buddhadharma. What is the essence of the Buddhadharma? The Sanskrit term dharma has the etymological meaning of sustaining or being protected. What is being sustained or what kind of protection is being sought? Here I think it is important to understand that that the dharma in the context of Buddhadharma must be understood in terms of nirvana, in terms of the true cessation of all suffering and mental afflictions.

How is one protected and what is sustained? This refers to in the case of the Buddhadharma of dealing with the mental afflictions which lay at the root of all of one’s suffering. This is true not only in this life but also of many lifetimes. By the means of dealing with the mental afflictions, by countering and overcoming the mental afflictions, one gains nirvana thus one is protected. Therefore when one speaks about Buddhadharma, one must ground one’s understanding of the Dharma in terms of nirvana.

For a practitioner of the Buddhadharma the key task is to adopt an attitude towards the mental afflictions as that of an enemy and one must combat the mental afflictions. Also one must apply the antidotes to the mental afflictions and this is the essence of the task of a Dharma practitioner in the Buddhist sense. Therefore at least a Buddhist practitioner must have the following conditions. He or she must never willfully embrace any of the mental afflictions. This is a sort of minimum requirement. On the other hand if someone continues to deliberately and willfully embrace the mental afflictions, refusing to acknowledge their shortcomings and their destructive nature, there is simply no way that such a person could be described as a Buddhist practitioner.

In the realm of the physical discipline sometimes it is possible that by an imposition from outside such as a threat of force, one can create a degree of discipline or politeness. For example if someone is nodding off and another comes by threatening to strike them with a stick if they fall asleep again, that person will become more awake and alert. However this is not the case when dealing with the mind. One cannot simply impose upon the mind that it will change simply saying to reject the mental afflictions. One must combat with the afflictions. Simply by imposing on the mind the wish, such transformation cannot take place.

How then does one bring about a transformation? I believe that the transformation of the mind has to be come about as the result of the voluntary adoption of a particular discipline. It has to be consciously cultivated by reflecting upon the pros and cons of the mental afflictions, on the destructive nature of the mental afflictions, on the benefits of discarding them, on the benefits of overcoming the mental afflictions and so on.

Also one needs to look at the examples of the great enlightened beings like the Buddha and reflecting that these great enlightened beings have attained a total transformation of their minds and perfect peace. They accomplished this by first applying the antidotes and later overcoming the negative aspects of their minds such as the mental afflictions. By engaging in such disciplines they have attained mental discipline and peace of mind. Through this way they have attained perfect enlightenment, a state of joyfulness. By reflecting upon these kinds of examples and also reflecting upon the destructive nature of the afflictions and so on then gradually an enthusiasm and interest will arise within one’s mind to seek out such a discipline. In this way one will be able to voluntarily adopt within one the kind of discipline that I am speaking about that leads to transformation.

What one finds is that in the realm of mental phenomena it is only by applying other mental factors and thought processes that one can undermine the force of the mental afflictions and so on. Given this complexity one finds in the practices different approaches. Principally there are two categories of practices, one belonging to what is known as the method aspect of the path and other known as the wisdom aspect of the path. Generally speaking the method aspects of the path are thought processes where it is not so much the actual object of mind that is emphasized, not the cognition of an object but rather cultivating a particular thought process through which the transformation takes place. For example true renunciation, which is the genuine aspiration to attain liberation from suffering and samsaric existence, is a part of the method aspect of the path. Similar is great compassion. These are states of mind or realizations that are attained as the result of prolonged contemplation.

These need to be cultivated through processes of insight and understanding. For example great compassion, which is the aspiration to see others free from suffering arises on the basis of thought processes that reflect upon the nature of the sufferings of others and so on. The factor of insight or wisdom is also very critical.

One realizes that the inner discipline, the transformation of the mind is something that has to occur on the basis of a voluntary adoption of the spiritual discipline and is not something that can be imposed from outside by the means of force. What is the method or process by which one brings about this change? Here I believe that it is through cultivating constant familiarity that this occurs. It is a fact of the nature of our human minds that the more one habituates it, the more one familiarizes it with something, the greater one’s ability to sustain that thought process or the greater will be one’s ability to cultivate that understanding. This is a very natural fact of the mental factors of the mind.

What is required is to cultivate a constant familiarity and through this constant familiarity one will be able to bring about a gradual transformation and change. One can see change within one’s own life. For example one may have a very strong emotional reaction to a small incident or have a negative state of mind that is slight at the beginning but it then becomes a very powerful surge of negative emotions. From the Buddhist point of view the reason why such occurrences come about is because of one’s long habituation and familiarity with the thought processes leading to the experience of negative emotions. Therefore if one cultivates the habits of contrary thought processes or positive aspects of the mind then similarly one will gradually make the positive emotions more and more natural, a more spontaneous part of one's mind.

For example someone may have had a very short temper in his or her early life. Then as the result of reflecting and contemplating on the destructive nature of anger and on the shortcomings to oneself of having such powerful negative emotions, and by cultivating the antidotes to anger and hatred such caring and respect towards others, gradually the person becomes gentler and more compassionate. This is something that we can all attest to. When one talks about this kind of transformation obviously one cannot expect change in terms of days or weeks. Rather one can only see results or fruits of mental transformation in terms of years; the possibility of change takes years.

Why is it that through familiarity the mind changes, that certain thought processes become more natural and spontaneous? It is a natural fact; it is the nature of reality just as a sprout comes out of a seed. Similarly there is a law of causation that through constant familiarity, through constant cultivation of positive thought processes certain emotions and experience become more dominant within one’s mind. Therefore when one thinks about the cultivation of constant familiarity one is talking about in essence the practice of meditation. The Tibetan word for meditation is gom, which has the etymological meaning of deliberately cultivating familiarity with a chosen object.

Meditation is nothing but a state of mind that is derived as the result of consciously and deliberately cultivating familiarity with a chosen object. This kind of understanding, meditative understanding can only arise on the basis of deep reflection and contemplation, which is said to be the knowledge derived through contemplation or reflection. This must be grounded based on an understanding derived through study and learning.

So when one talks about cultivating understanding or Dharma, it is not adequate to simply have the information and say that such and such a lama says this in such and such a text. One should not leave one’s understanding of the Dharma at only that level. Because at that level basically what one has done is gathered information but so far as one’s own self is concerned, one has not taken a standpoint. One is acting as a neutral, dispassionate observer. What is required is to process the information, integrating it to one’s own mind so that the understanding one gains is based on a personal understanding as the result of contemplation. This level of understanding is said to be the second stage of understanding known as understanding derived through contemplation. This then can lead to the third level of understanding, which is the understanding derived through meditative practice.

Although in actual fact it is the understanding derived through meditative experience that is the direct antidote of the mental afflictions but before one arrives there one must go through the gradual process of cultivating the first two levels of understanding. It is in this way that one can gradually bring about the transformation within one’s mind. Otherwise if one leaves one’s understanding purely at the level of information then if one is hard-pressed why it is the case by someone else then one exhausts any explanation quickly as one has not integrated that understanding. One ends up saying that such and such a person said so but one doesn’t know for sure oneself. This is the danger that one may fall into if one’s knowledge is not integrated and cultivated on the basis of understanding.

(Break)

I spoke about the importance of how a spiritual discipline and mental transformation can take place as the result of deliberately cultivating prolonged habituation and familiarity [with a topic]. I am talking about the practice of Dharma. What is the actual procedure of the development of Dharma realizations from the Buddhist point of view?

It would be helpful here to reflect upon the meaning of a verse found in Nagarjuna’s Fundamentals of the Middle Way where Nagarjuna pays homage to Gautama Buddha whose heart was compelled by great compassion and who taught the Sublime Dharma in order to dispel and eliminate all forms of distorted views.

I prostrate to Gautama
Who through compassion
Taught the true doctrine,
Which leads to the relinquishing of all views.

In this verse Nagarjuna encapsulates the essence of the Buddha’s teaching. There he praised and paid homage the Buddha Shakyamuni by reflecting upon the Buddha’s great qualities of wisdom and compassion. He suggests that the Buddha’s heart is influenced by the powerful force of great compassion towards other sentient beings and out of this compassionate motivation he taught the path or methods that enables all sentient beings to eliminate the negativities of their minds. Through eliminating all of their mental afflictions and ultimately all of their distorted views they can attain perfect enlightenment.

What one finds here is that Nagarjuna paid homage to the Buddha Shakyamuni by explicitly identifying two of the Buddha’s foremost enlightened qualities, the quality of wisdom and the quality of compassion. Another significance of this verse is that it suggests that even the teacher, Buddha himself was not fully enlightened from the beginning. The Buddha was just like us, a sentient being at the beginning, an ordinary being with flaws. But as the result of prolonged practice and the development of great compassion along with the cultivation of wisdom the Buddha eventually developed within himself these enlightened qualities. He eventually attained the perfection of both compassion and wisdom thus becoming a fully enlightened being.

When the Buddha taught the path to other sentient beings, his disciples and so on he taught the path from his own personal experience, setting forth the entire process by which one can go through this spiritual transformation. He drew from his own personal experience having gradually gone through the process overcoming various levels of negativities and mental afflictions. He gradually cultivated various levels of spiritual realization such as compassion, bodhicitta and so on.

One finds that the key aspects of the Buddha’s qualities are compassion and wisdom. Similarly the essence of the path that he taught are the practices of compassion or skillful means and the practice of wisdom, the wisdom of emptiness. Together what one has here is a path that is the union of method and wisdom. Here again one can reflect on a verse from Nagarjuna’s Fundamentals of the Middle Way where he stated that Buddha taught the Dharma by means of the Two Truths. These Two truths are the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. Ultimately the insight that is being cultivated is the insight into the ultimate nature of reality. The understanding of this ultimate nature of reality is then grounded in and also leads to an understanding of conventional reality, which is the world of multiplicity. In a way one can say that there are two aspects of the path, method and wisdom, co-related to each other and to the two aspects of reality, the conventional and ultimate truths.

When one talks about the idea of the Two Truths, I think one can relate this to one’s ordinary experience. Even in one’s day to day life one often confronts situations where one’s perception on the situation does not correspond to the actual reality. This is a basic fact of one’s life. If one goes further one can even also say that even in one’s world view, one’s understanding of the physical universe, there is often a gap between one’s perception and understanding and the actual reality. For example, as a result in the advance of scientific knowledge particularly in the area of physics such as quantum mechanics and relativity theory, one finds that what was once thought to be an accurate representation of the physical world is no longer valid. One has had to modify one’s understanding so there is often a gap between one’s perception and reality. This is really the basis for the very idea of the Two Truths.

In fact if one looks at the philosophical traditions of ancient India, one finds that this model of approaching the understanding of reality within a framework of two truths is quite common including non-Buddhist schools. The term two truths is used also outside Buddhist philosophical circles. However when one looks at the understanding of Two Truths from the Madhyamika perspective then the concept of the Two Truths is related to the basic fact of the disparity between one’s perceptions and actual reality of things and events.

One can also speculate that, given the limited capacity of one’s ordinary levels of thought, one may perceive a situation or event being in one way. But given the limited capacity of one'’ ordinary knowledge the reality of the thing or event may be something else. Through subjecting one’s perceptions to deeper analysis, one will then be able to find out whether there is a gap between one’s perception and reality or that one’s perception does correspond to reality.

In fact this is how we advance in scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge of the physical universe does not arise simply by taking our perceptions of the world at face value. We do not stop at that but we ask questions and go beyond the level of appearance trying to penetrate to a deeper level of understanding of what actually is the true nature of reality. So in this way we have made advances in our scientific understanding of the physical universe.

The Madhyamika understanding of the Two Truths is also grounded in this appreciation or recognition of the disparity between one’s perceptions and reality. The Madhyamikas would distinguish between these two levels of reality, ultimate and relative truth by the following way. Any level of understanding that is derived as the result of penetrating into the deeper nature of reality, not being content with the level of appearances alone and probing into the actual essence of reality, what is discovered is said to be the ultimate truth or nature of reality. The knowledge that derives from the level of appearances or perception alone where one does not go beyond the bonds of convention or ordinary perception, this level of understanding is said to be the conventional truth. This is how the Madhyamikas would define ultimate truth and the conventional truth.

Again if one reflects upon the salutation verse of Nagarjuna’s Fundamentals of the Middle Way one finds that Nagarjuna presents the theory of emptiness by the means of reflecting upon the characteristics of things and events. He analyzes such characteristics such as origination and cessation, one and many, existence and nonexistence, coming and going, and so on. He subjects these characteristics of dependently originated phenomena and then analyzes whether or not these characteristics are truly intrinsic to the phenomenon under investigation. So what one finds here is that dependently originated phenomena, things and events are taken as the subject under investigation. Their characteristics such as origination and cessation are then subjected to analysis of whether these characteristics are inherent or intrinsic characteristics or whether they exist as intrinsic natures of the things and events. As a result what one finds here is that although things and events possess these characteristics of origination, cessation, identity, difference, coming, going and so on, these characteristics are the relative nature of things and events. They are not intrinsic natures of the things and events.

The reason for this is that when one subjects them to analysis then one does not find them, their very identity or existence ceases to exist. For example when one subjects the idea of causation to critical analysis, when things come into being the question is that either they can come into being as the result of causes and conditions or they can come into being without any cause. Causeless production or the coming into being through no cause is untenable, which means things do come into being from causes and conditions. Now if this is the case are the causes identical to the effect or are the causes of a different nature than the effects?

Identical causes cannot produce an effect that is identical with itself therefore this is rejected. A cause that is independent of the effect again is untenable so this is rejected [as there is no link between cause and effect]. Both of the possible alternatives are rejected. One finds in Nagarjuna’s Fundamentals of the Middle Way where he states there is nothing whatsoever at whatever time that something comes into being; from no cause, itself, by an independent cause or from both. So what one finds here is that the mind that analyzes the nature of things and events, so far as the perspective of that mind is concerned such diverse characteristics such as origination and cessation, singularity and multiplicity cease to exist. This is because the analyzing mind is the mind that probes into the essential nature of reality.

When one reflects along these lines then one will understand what is meant by the union of appearance and reality found in the various texts. Appearance here refers to the conventional level of reality and emptiness refers to the ultimate level of reality. These two, appearance and reality must be understood in relation to one and the same thing. One cannot talk about appearance on one basis and emptiness on another basis. So from the Madhyamika point of view the understanding of appearance and emptiness must be grounded on the basis of a single entity, thing or event. One needs to understand this as the unified nature of things and events.

To summarize, appearance refers to the dependently originated nature of things and emptiness refers the ultimate nature of reality. From the Madhyamika point of view in the final analysis the highest proof of emptiness is dependent origination. The fact that things are dependently originated suggests that things are absent of independent existence, things are absent of intrinsic existence.

When one also speaks about the idea of dependent origination, which is common to all Buddhist philosophical schools of thought, one needs to understand that there are different levels of understanding of this concept. First of all there is the level of understanding of dependent origination that is common to all Buddhist schools of thought. This is the understanding of dependent origination in terms of causal dependence, dependence on causes and conditions. Things and events come into being by dependence upon other causes and conditions. This is one level of understanding of dependent origination or pratityasamutpada.

There is a second level of understanding of dependent origination, which is common to the Madhyamika Schools, the Middle Way philosophical schools. Here the understanding of dependent origination is, in addition to the causal dependence, an understanding of dependence in terms of the relationship between parts and wholes, constituents and constituted. Every thing or every event when subjected to analysis will be found that their very existence or identity is dependent upon other factors such as parts that constitute the whole. This is a subtler understanding of dependent origination and it is also more universal. Whatever thing or event one takes to be the object of investigation, one will find that its very nature is in dependence on other factors, its parts or constituents.

However there is a third level of understanding of dependent origination, which is thought to be the subtlest and highest understanding of dependent origination. Here dependent origination is understood as interdependence, the nature of dependence is understood more in terms of the relationship between the designated basis and the designation. For example every event or phenomenon that has the capacity to function, a capacity to have an impact or to produce a result through either harm or benefit, whatever it may be, if one subjects it to analysis trying to discover what is the true referent to the term, the objective reality of the thing going beyond the label or designation then one finds that one cannot simply find the object.

This is the nature of things and events. When one thinks about a particular object one tends to believe that the term has some intrinsic relation to the basis of designation, one tends to believe that the thing has some kind of objective reality from itself, in and of itself. However when one subjects this to analysis one will find that actually that the very identity and existence starts to disappear. This of course does not suggest that the thing or object does not exist at all, it does exist, as one’s own experience is the proof that it exists. One can come into contact with it, one can interact with it and one can experience pain or pleasure in relation to it. One’s experience itself tells one or affirms its reality but when one searches for it, objective reality, one fails to find it.

This suggests that the thing does not exist in the way in which one believes it to exist. The object is devoid of the independent, objective reality that one believes it possesses. If this is the case then the only alternative left is some kind of conventional reality that one can accord to the thing. So one can only say that things and events exist only from the perspective of the unexamining, unanalyzing mind or consciousness. In a sense one can say that things and events exist only by means of a label, by means of a name or term.

In the Madhyamika literature when one finds references to name only, mere designation or mere imputation this is not suggesting that there are no things outside language. Rather it is suggesting that their level of reality must only be understood within the bounds of convention, within the boundaries of language and reference. What one finds here is a much more complex and subtle understanding of dependence of things and events, the dependent relationship between the designated basis and the designation.

Let us try to go further into the understanding of the first level of dependent origination, dependence in terms of causes and conditions. Here if one observes the natural world around one, one sees a multiplicity and diversity of changes and transformations. This is something that is obvious, that is very evident. The changes and transformations that one sees all around, in order for these to happen there must be at a subtler level, a deeper level a subtle process of change that is taking place. If there were no constant and dynamic changing process in nature at the subtle level then there would be simply no way for accounting for the change and diversity one perceives at the empirical level. Therefore from the Buddhist point of view all things and events are in constant flux, at a very subtle level going through constant transformation and change.

If the question is asked, “Why do these things and events have this nature of undergoing momentary change?” then the answer is that the very factors that brought the thing or event into being also planted the seed for this change. Also the causes and conditions themselves, if subjected to analysis, one finds are also themselves are subject to constant change and are part of dynamic processes. If the causes themselves were not of the same nature there would simply be no way to account for their ability to produce effects. Therefore the causes themselves are subject to constant change and the dynamic process which suggests that the causes themselves are produced by earlier instances of causes and conditions. These in turn were produced by preceding causes and conditions ad infinitum.

When one pushes one’s line of reasoning this way, one comes to the conclusion that the actual chain of causation must be beginningless, must be infinite. The alternative to this would be to posit a beginning to the chain of causation and if one does so then one will have to either accept a beginning with no particular reason or cause in which case it undermines the very idea of causation or one has to say that the beginning’s cause was a permanent, eternal factor. Positing such a factor again contradicts the very basic idea of causation, the principle of causation. So from the Buddhist point of view to pursue the line of thought suggested by the theory of causation one is compelled to accept the idea of an infinite or beginningless process.

If one asks further, “Why are things and events in dependence on causes and conditions? or “Why is there the suggestion of infinity when the process of causation is analyzed” the answer from the Buddhist perspective would be that is the way it is. This is the nature of reality.

(Break)