Difference between revisions of "Emptiness and Existence"
(Created page with " <poem> by Tenzin Gyatso, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama To generate the type of love and compassion that motivates you to seek buddhahood, not f...") |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | {{DisplayImages|2817|3528|2712|3750|2360|4340|3679|3955}} | ||
+ | <poem> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
− | |||
by [[Tenzin Gyatso]], [[His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama]] | by [[Tenzin Gyatso]], [[His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama]] | ||
− | To generate the type of [[love]] and [[compassion]] that motivates you to seek [[buddhahood]], not for yourself but for the sake of others, first you must confront [[suffering]] by identifying its types. This is [[the first noble truth | + | To generate the type of [[love]] and [[compassion]] that motivates you to seek [[buddhahood]], not for yourself but for the [[sake]] of others, first you must confront [[suffering]] by identifying its types. This is [[the first noble truth]]. |
− | + | From the [[time]] we are born to the [[time]] we [[die]] we [[suffer]] [[mental]] and [[physical]] [[pain]], the [[suffering of change]], and {{Wiki|pervasive}} [[suffering]] of uncontrolled {{Wiki|conditioning}}. | |
− | However, if there were such a separate I-self-established and [[existing]] in its own right-it should become clearer and clearer under the {{Wiki|light}} of competent analysis as to whether it [[exists]] as either [[mind]] or [[body]], or the collection of [[mind]] and [[body]], or different from [[mind]] and [[body]]. In fact, the closer you look, the more it is not found. This turns out to be the case for everything, for all [[phenomena]]. The fact that you cannot find them means that those [[phenomena]] do not [[exist]] under their own power; they are not self-established. | + | The second and [[third noble truths]] lead us to understand the [[causes of suffering]] and whether or not those [[causes]] can be removed. |
+ | |||
+ | The [[fundamental cause]] of [[suffering]] is ignorance-the mistaken apprehension that [[living beings]] and [[objects]] inherently [[exist]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | We all have a valid, proper [[sense]] of [[self]], or "I," but then we additionally have a {{Wiki|misconception}} of that "I" as inherently [[existing]]. Under the sway of this [[delusion]], we [[view]] the [[self]] as [[existing]] under its [[own]] power, established by way of its [[own]] [[nature]], able to set itself up. | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, if there were such a separate I-self-established and [[existing]] in its [[own]] right-it should become clearer and clearer under the {{Wiki|light}} of competent analysis as to whether it [[exists]] as either [[mind]] or [[body]], or the collection of [[mind]] and [[body]], or different from [[mind]] and [[body]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In fact, the closer you look, the more it is not found. This turns out to be the case for everything, for all [[phenomena]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The fact that you cannot find them means that those [[phenomena]] do not [[exist]] under their [[own]] power; they are not self-established. | ||
Sometime during the early sixties when I was {{Wiki|reflecting}} on a passage by [[Tsongkhapa]] [founder of the [[Gelugpa school]] to which the [[Dalai Lama]] belongs] about unfindability and the fact that [[phenomena]] are dependent on [[conceptuality]], it was as if {{Wiki|lightning}} coursed within my {{Wiki|chest}}. Here is the passage: | Sometime during the early sixties when I was {{Wiki|reflecting}} on a passage by [[Tsongkhapa]] [founder of the [[Gelugpa school]] to which the [[Dalai Lama]] belongs] about unfindability and the fact that [[phenomena]] are dependent on [[conceptuality]], it was as if {{Wiki|lightning}} coursed within my {{Wiki|chest}}. Here is the passage: | ||
Line 13: | Line 26: | ||
A coiled rope's speckled {{Wiki|color}} and coiling are similar to those of a {{Wiki|snake}}, and when the rope is [[perceived]] in a dim area, the [[thought]] arises, "This is a {{Wiki|snake}}." As for the rope, at that [[time]] when it is seen to be a {{Wiki|snake}}, the collection and parts of the rope are not even in the slightest way a {{Wiki|snake}}. Therefore, that {{Wiki|snake}} is merely set up by [[conceptuality]]. | A coiled rope's speckled {{Wiki|color}} and coiling are similar to those of a {{Wiki|snake}}, and when the rope is [[perceived]] in a dim area, the [[thought]] arises, "This is a {{Wiki|snake}}." As for the rope, at that [[time]] when it is seen to be a {{Wiki|snake}}, the collection and parts of the rope are not even in the slightest way a {{Wiki|snake}}. Therefore, that {{Wiki|snake}} is merely set up by [[conceptuality]]. | ||
− | In the same way, when the [[thought]] "I" arises in [[dependence]] upon [[mind]] and [[body]], nothing within [[mind]] and body-neither the collection which is a {{Wiki|continuum}} of earlier and later moments, nor the collection of the parts at one [[time]], nor the separate parts, nor the {{Wiki|continuum}} of any of the separate parts-is in even the slightest way the "I." Also there is not even the slightest something that is a different [[entity]] from [[mind]] and [[body]] that is apprehendable as the "I." Consequently, the "I" is merely set up by [[conceptuality]] in [[dependence]] upon [[mind]] and [[body]]; it is not established by way of its own [[entity]]. | + | In the same way, when the [[thought]] "I" arises in [[dependence]] upon [[mind]] and [[body]], nothing within [[mind]] and body-neither the collection which is a {{Wiki|continuum}} of earlier and later moments, nor the collection of the parts at one [[time]], nor the separate parts, nor the {{Wiki|continuum}} of any of the separate parts-is in even the slightest way the "I." Also there is not even the slightest something that is a different [[entity]] from [[mind]] and [[body]] that is apprehendable as the "I." Consequently, the "I" is merely set up by [[conceptuality]] in [[dependence]] upon [[mind]] and [[body]]; it is not established by way of its [[own]] [[entity]]. |
The impact lasted for a while, and for the next few weeks whenever I saw [[people]], they seemed like a magician's [[illusions]] in that they appeared to inherently [[exist]] but I knew that they actually did not. That [[experience]], which was like {{Wiki|lightning}} in my [[heart]], was most likely at a level below completely valid and incontrovertible [[realization]]. This is when my [[understanding]] of the [[cessation]] of the [[afflictive emotions]] as a true possibility became real. | The impact lasted for a while, and for the next few weeks whenever I saw [[people]], they seemed like a magician's [[illusions]] in that they appeared to inherently [[exist]] but I knew that they actually did not. That [[experience]], which was like {{Wiki|lightning}} in my [[heart]], was most likely at a level below completely valid and incontrovertible [[realization]]. This is when my [[understanding]] of the [[cessation]] of the [[afflictive emotions]] as a true possibility became real. | ||
Line 19: | Line 32: | ||
Nowadays I always [[meditate]] on [[emptiness]] in the morning and bring that [[experience]] into the day's [[activities]]. Just [[thinking]] or saying "I," as in "I will do such and such," will often trigger the [[feeling]]. But still I cannot claim [[full understanding]] of [[emptiness]]. | Nowadays I always [[meditate]] on [[emptiness]] in the morning and bring that [[experience]] into the day's [[activities]]. Just [[thinking]] or saying "I," as in "I will do such and such," will often trigger the [[feeling]]. But still I cannot claim [[full understanding]] of [[emptiness]]. | ||
− | A [[consciousness]] that conceives of [[inherent]] [[existence]] does not have a valid foundation. A [[wise]] [[consciousness]], grounded in [[reality]], [[understands]] that [[living beings]] and other phenomena-minds, [[bodies]], buildings, and so forth-do not inherently [[exist]]. This is the [[wisdom of emptiness]]. [[Understanding]] [[reality]] exactly opposite to the misconception of [[inherent]] [[existence]], [[wisdom]] gradually overcomes [[ignorance]]. | + | A [[consciousness]] that conceives of [[inherent]] [[existence]] does not have a valid foundation. A [[wise]] [[consciousness]], grounded in [[reality]], [[understands]] that [[living beings]] and other phenomena-minds, [[bodies]], buildings, and so forth-do not inherently [[exist]]. This is the [[wisdom of emptiness]]. [[Understanding]] [[reality]] exactly opposite to the {{Wiki|misconception}} of [[inherent]] [[existence]], [[wisdom]] gradually overcomes [[ignorance]]. |
Remove the [[ignorance]] that misconceives [[phenomena]] to inherently [[exist]] and you prevent the generation of [[afflictive emotions]] like [[lust]] and [[hatred]]. Thus, in turn, [[suffering]] can also be removed. In addition, the [[wisdom of emptiness]] must be accompanied by a [[motivation]] of deep [[concern]] for others (and by the [[compassionate]] [[deeds]] it inspires) before it can remove the obstructions to [[omniscience]], which are the predispositions for the false [[appearance]] of phenomena-even to [[sense]] consciousness-as if they inherently [[exist]]. | Remove the [[ignorance]] that misconceives [[phenomena]] to inherently [[exist]] and you prevent the generation of [[afflictive emotions]] like [[lust]] and [[hatred]]. Thus, in turn, [[suffering]] can also be removed. In addition, the [[wisdom of emptiness]] must be accompanied by a [[motivation]] of deep [[concern]] for others (and by the [[compassionate]] [[deeds]] it inspires) before it can remove the obstructions to [[omniscience]], which are the predispositions for the false [[appearance]] of phenomena-even to [[sense]] consciousness-as if they inherently [[exist]]. | ||
Line 25: | Line 38: | ||
Therefore, full [[spiritual practice]] calls for [[cultivating]] [[wisdom]] in {{Wiki|conjunction}} with [[great compassion]] and the [[intention]] to become [[enlightened]] in which others are valued more than yourself. Only then may your [[consciousness]] be [[transformed]] into the [[omniscience]] of a [[Buddha]]. | Therefore, full [[spiritual practice]] calls for [[cultivating]] [[wisdom]] in {{Wiki|conjunction}} with [[great compassion]] and the [[intention]] to become [[enlightened]] in which others are valued more than yourself. Only then may your [[consciousness]] be [[transformed]] into the [[omniscience]] of a [[Buddha]]. | ||
[[Selflessness]] | [[Selflessness]] | ||
− | Both [[Buddhists]] and non-Buddhists practice [[meditation]] to achieve [[pleasure]] and get rid of [[pain]], and in both [[Buddhist]] and [[non-Buddhist]] systems the [[self]] is a central [[object]] of {{Wiki|scrutiny}}. Certain non-Buddhists who accept [[rebirth]] accept the transitory [[nature of mind]] and [[body]], but they believe in a [[self]] that is [[permanent]], changeless and unitary. Although [[Buddhist]] schools accept [[rebirth]], they hold that there is no such solid [[self]]. For [[Buddhists]], the main topic of the training in [[wisdom]] is [[emptiness]], or [[selflessness]], which means the absence of a [[permanent]], unitary and {{Wiki|independent}} [[self]] or, more subtly, the absence of [[inherent]] [[existence]] either in [[living beings]] or in other [[phenomena]]. | + | Both [[Buddhists]] and non-Buddhists [[practice]] [[meditation]] to achieve [[pleasure]] and get rid of [[pain]], and in both [[Buddhist]] and [[non-Buddhist]] systems the [[self]] is a central [[object]] of {{Wiki|scrutiny}}. Certain non-Buddhists who accept [[rebirth]] accept the transitory [[nature of mind]] and [[body]], but they believe in a [[self]] that is [[permanent]], changeless and unitary. Although [[Buddhist]] schools accept [[rebirth]], they hold that there is no such solid [[self]]. For [[Buddhists]], the main topic of the {{Wiki|training}} in [[wisdom]] is [[emptiness]], or [[selflessness]], which means the absence of a [[permanent]], unitary and {{Wiki|independent}} [[self]] or, more subtly, the absence of [[inherent]] [[existence]] either in [[living beings]] or in other [[phenomena]]. |
+ | |||
+ | |||
The [[Two Truths]] | The [[Two Truths]] | ||
− | To understand [[selflessness]], you need to understand that everything that [[exists]] is contained in two groups called the [[two truths]]: [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] and [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]]. The [[phenomena]] that we see and observe around us can go from good to bad, or bad to good, depending on various [[causes and conditions]]. Many [[phenomena]] cannot be said to be inherently good or bad; they are better or worse, tall or short, beautiful or ugly, only by comparison, not by way of their own [[nature]]. Their value is [[relative]]. From this you can see that there is a discrepancy between the way things appear and how they actually are. For instance, something may-in terms of how it appears-look good, but, due to its inner [[nature]] being different, it can turn bad once it is affected by [[conditions]]. [[Food]] that looks so good in a restaurant may not sit so well in your {{Wiki|stomach}}. This is a clear sign of a discrepancy between [[appearance]] and [[reality]]. | + | |
+ | |||
+ | To understand [[selflessness]], you need to understand that everything that [[exists]] is contained in two groups called the [[two truths]]: [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] and [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]]. The [[phenomena]] that we see and observe around us can go from good to bad, or bad to good, depending on various [[causes and conditions]]. Many [[phenomena]] cannot be said to be inherently good or bad; they are better or worse, tall or short, beautiful or ugly, only by comparison, not by way of their [[own]] [[nature]]. Their value is [[relative]]. From this you can see that there is a discrepancy between the way things appear and how they actually are. For instance, something may-in terms of how it appears-look good, but, due to its inner [[nature]] being different, it can turn bad once it is affected by [[conditions]]. [[Food]] that looks so good in a restaurant may not sit so well in your {{Wiki|stomach}}. This is a clear sign of a discrepancy between [[appearance]] and [[reality]]. | ||
These [[phenomena]] themselves are called [[conventional truths]]: they are known by [[consciousness]] that goes no further than [[appearances]]. But the same [[objects]] have an inner mode of being, called an [[ultimate truth]], that allows for the changes brought about by [[conditions]]. A [[wise]] [[consciousness]], not satisfied with mere [[appearances]], analyzes to find whether [[objects]] inherently [[exist]] as they seem to do but discovers their absence of [[inherent]] [[existence]]. It finds an [[emptiness]] of [[inherent]] [[existence]] beyond [[appearances]]. | These [[phenomena]] themselves are called [[conventional truths]]: they are known by [[consciousness]] that goes no further than [[appearances]]. But the same [[objects]] have an inner mode of being, called an [[ultimate truth]], that allows for the changes brought about by [[conditions]]. A [[wise]] [[consciousness]], not satisfied with mere [[appearances]], analyzes to find whether [[objects]] inherently [[exist]] as they seem to do but discovers their absence of [[inherent]] [[existence]]. It finds an [[emptiness]] of [[inherent]] [[existence]] beyond [[appearances]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
[[Empty]] of What? | [[Empty]] of What? | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
[[Emptiness]], or [[selflessness]], can only be understood if we first identify that of which [[phenomena]] are [[empty]]. Without [[understanding]] what is negated, you cannot understand its absence, [[emptiness]]. | [[Emptiness]], or [[selflessness]], can only be understood if we first identify that of which [[phenomena]] are [[empty]]. Without [[understanding]] what is negated, you cannot understand its absence, [[emptiness]]. | ||
− | You might think that [[emptiness]] means [[nothingness]], but it does not. Merely from reading it is difficult to identify and understand the [[object of negation]], what [[Buddhist texts]] speak of as true establishment or [[inherent]] [[existence]]. But over a period of [[time]], when you add your own investigations to the reading, the faultiness of our usual way of [[seeing]] things will become clearer and clearer. | + | You might think that [[emptiness]] means [[nothingness]], but it does not. Merely from reading it is difficult to identify and understand the [[object of negation]], what [[Buddhist texts]] speak of as true establishment or [[inherent]] [[existence]]. But over a period of [[time]], when you add your [[own]] investigations to the reading, the faultiness of our usual way of [[seeing]] things will become clearer and clearer. |
− | [[Buddha]] said many times that because all [[phenomena]] are dependently arisen, they are relative-their [[existence]] depends on other [[causes and conditions]] and depends on their own parts. A wooden table, for instance, does not [[exist]] {{Wiki|independently}}; rather, it depends on a great many [[causes]] such as a [[tree]], the carpenter who makes it, and so forth; it also depends upon its own parts. If a wooden table or any [[phenomenon]] really were not dependent-if it were established in its own right-then when you analyze it, its [[existence]] in its own right should become more obvious, but it does not. | + | [[Buddha]] said many times that because all [[phenomena]] are [[dependently arisen]], they are relative-their [[existence]] depends on other [[causes and conditions]] and depends on their [[own]] parts. A wooden table, for instance, does not [[exist]] {{Wiki|independently}}; rather, it depends on a great many [[causes]] such as a [[tree]], the {{Wiki|carpenter}} who makes it, and so forth; it also depends upon its [[own]] parts. If a wooden table or any [[phenomenon]] really were not dependent-if it were established in its [[own]] right-then when you analyze it, its [[existence]] in its [[own]] right should become more obvious, but it does not. |
This [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|reasoning}} is supported by [[science]]. {{Wiki|Physicists}} today keep discovering finer and finer components of {{Wiki|matter}}, yet they still cannot understand its [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[nature]]. [[Understanding]] [[emptiness]] is even deeper. | This [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|reasoning}} is supported by [[science]]. {{Wiki|Physicists}} today keep discovering finer and finer components of {{Wiki|matter}}, yet they still cannot understand its [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[nature]]. [[Understanding]] [[emptiness]] is even deeper. | ||
The more you look into how an [[ignorant]] [[consciousness]] conceives [[phenomena]] to [[exist]], the more you find that [[phenomena]] do not [[exist]] that way. However, the more you look into what a [[wise]] [[consciousness]] [[understands]], the more you gain [[affirmation]] in the absence of [[inherent]] [[existence]]. | The more you look into how an [[ignorant]] [[consciousness]] conceives [[phenomena]] to [[exist]], the more you find that [[phenomena]] do not [[exist]] that way. However, the more you look into what a [[wise]] [[consciousness]] [[understands]], the more you gain [[affirmation]] in the absence of [[inherent]] [[existence]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
Do [[Objects]] [[Exist]]? | Do [[Objects]] [[Exist]]? | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | When training to develop [[wisdom]], you are seeking through analysis to find the [[inherent]] [[existence]] of whatever [[object]] you are considering-yourself, another [[person]], your [[body]], your [[mind]], or anything else. You are analyzing not the mere [[appearance]] but the [[inherent]] [[nature]] of the [[object]]. Thus it is not that you come to understand that the [[object]] does not [[exist]]; rather, you find that its [[inherent]] [[existence]] is unfounded. Analysis does not contradict the mere [[existence]] of the [[object]]. [[Phenomena]] do indeed [[exist]], but not in the way we think they do. | + | |
− | What is left after analysis is a dependently [[existent]] [[phenomenon]]. When, for example, you examine your own [[body]], its [[inherent]] [[existence]] is negated, but what is left is a [[body]] dependent on four limbs, a trunk, and a head. | + | We have established that when any [[phenomenon]] is sought through analysis, it cannot be found. So you may be wondering whether these [[phenomena]] [[exist]] at all. However, we know from direct [[experience]] that [[people]] and things [[cause]] [[pleasure]] and [[pain]], and that they can help and harm. Therefore, [[phenomena]] certainly do [[exist]]; the question is how? They do not [[exist]] in their [[own]] right, but only have an [[existence]] [[dependent upon]] many factors, [[including]] a [[consciousness]] that conceptualizes them. |
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Once they [[exist]] but do not [[exist]] on their [[own]], they necessarily [[exist]] in [[dependence]] upon [[conceptualization]]. However, when [[phenomena]] appear to us, they do not at all appear as if they [[exist]] this way. Rather, they seem to be established in their [[own]] right, from the object's side, without depending upon a [[conceptualizing]] [[consciousness]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | When {{Wiki|training}} to develop [[wisdom]], you are seeking through analysis to find the [[inherent]] [[existence]] of whatever [[object]] you are considering-yourself, another [[person]], your [[body]], your [[mind]], or anything else. | ||
+ | |||
+ | You are analyzing not the mere [[appearance]] but the [[inherent]] [[nature]] of the [[object]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus it is not that you come to understand that the [[object]] does not [[exist]]; rather, you find that its [[inherent]] [[existence]] is unfounded. Analysis does not contradict the mere [[existence]] of the [[object]]. [[Phenomena]] do indeed [[exist]], but not in the way we think they do. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | What is left after analysis is a dependently [[existent]] [[phenomenon]]. When, for example, you examine your [[own]] [[body]], its [[inherent]] [[existence]] is negated, but what is left is a [[body]] dependent on four limbs, a trunk, and a head. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
If [[Phenomena]] Are [[Empty]], Can They [[Function]]? | If [[Phenomena]] Are [[Empty]], Can They [[Function]]? | ||
− | |||
− | 1. We could conceive of the [[tree]] as [[existing]] inherently, in its own right. | + | |
− | 2. We could conceive of the [[tree]] as lacking [[inherent]] [[existence]]. | + | Whenever we think about [[objects]], do we mistakenly believe that they [[exist]] in their [[own]] right? No. We can [[conceive]] of [[phenomena]] in three different ways. Let us consider a [[tree]]. There is no denying that it appears to inherently [[exist]], but: |
− | 3. We could conceive of the [[tree]] without [[thinking]] that it inherently [[exists]] or not. | + | |
+ | 1. We could [[conceive]] of the [[tree]] as [[existing]] inherently, in its [[own]] right. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2. We could [[conceive]] of the [[tree]] as lacking [[inherent]] [[existence]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3. We could [[conceive]] of the [[tree]] without [[thinking]] that it inherently [[exists]] or not. | ||
Only the first of those is wrong. The other two modes of apprehension are right, even if the mode of [[appearance]] is mistaken in the second and the third, in that the [[tree]] appears as if inherently [[existent]]. | Only the first of those is wrong. The other two modes of apprehension are right, even if the mode of [[appearance]] is mistaken in the second and the third, in that the [[tree]] appears as if inherently [[existent]]. | ||
− | If [[objects]] do not inherently [[exist]], does this mean that they cannot [[function]]? [[Jumping]] to the conclusion that because the [[true nature]] of [[objects]] is [[emptiness]], they are therefore incapable of performing functions such as causing [[pleasure]] or [[pain]], or helping or harming, is the worst sort of misunderstanding, a [[Wikipedia:Nihilism|nihilistic]] [[view]]. As the [[Indian]] scholar-yogi [[Nagarjuna]] says in his [[Precious Garland]], a [[Wikipedia:Nihilist|nihilist]] will certainly have a bad [[transmigration]] upon [[rebirth]], whereas a [[person]] who believes, albeit wrongly, in [[inherent]] [[existence]] goes on to a good [[transmigration]]. | + | If [[objects]] do not inherently [[exist]], does this mean that they cannot [[function]]? [[Jumping]] to the conclusion that because the [[true nature]] of [[objects]] is [[emptiness]], they are therefore incapable of performing functions such as causing [[pleasure]] or [[pain]], or helping or harming, is the worst sort of {{Wiki|misunderstanding}}, a [[Wikipedia:Nihilism|nihilistic]] [[view]]. As the [[Indian]] scholar-yogi [[Nagarjuna]] says in his [[Precious Garland]], a [[Wikipedia:Nihilist|nihilist]] will certainly have a bad [[transmigration]] upon [[rebirth]], whereas a [[person]] who believes, albeit wrongly, in [[inherent]] [[existence]] goes on to a good [[transmigration]]. |
+ | |||
+ | Allow me to explain. You need a [[belief]] in the {{Wiki|consequences}} of [[actions]] to choose [[virtue]] in your [[life]] and discard [[nonvirtue]]. For the [[time]] being, the {{Wiki|subtle}} [[view]] of the [[emptiness]] of [[inherent]] [[existence]] might be too difficult for you to understand without falling into the trap of [[nihilism]], where you are unable to understand that [[phenomena]] arise in [[dependence]] on [[causes and conditions]] ([[dependent-arising]]). | ||
+ | |||
+ | Then for the [[sake]] of your [[spiritual]] progress it would be better for now to set aside trying to penetrate [[emptiness]]. Even if you mistakenly believe that [[phenomena]] inherently [[exist]], you can still develop an [[understanding]] of [[dependent-arising]] and apply it in [[practice]]. This is why even [[Buddha]], on [[occasion]], [[taught]] that [[living beings]] and other [[phenomena]] inherently [[exist]]. Such teachings are the [[thought]] of [[Buddha's]] [[scriptures]], but they are not his [[own]] final [[thought]]. For specific purposes, he sometimes spoke in nonfinal ways. | ||
+ | |||
− | |||
In What Way Is [[Consciousness]] Mistaken? | In What Way Is [[Consciousness]] Mistaken? | ||
− | Because all [[phenomena]] appear to [[exist]] in their own right, all of our ordinary [[perceptions]] are mistaken. Only when [[emptiness]] is directly [[realized]] during completely focused [[meditation]] is there no false [[appearance]]. At that [[time]], the [[dualism]] of [[subject]] and [[object]] has vanished, as has the [[appearance]] of multiplicity; only [[emptiness]] appears. After you rise from that [[meditation]], once again [[living beings]] and [[objects]] falsely appear to [[exist]] in and of themselves, but through the power of having [[realized]] [[emptiness]], you will [[recognize]] the discrepancy between [[appearance]] and [[reality]]. Through [[meditation]] you have identified both the false mode of [[appearance]] and the false mode of apprehension. | + | |
− | Let us return to the central point: All of us have a [[sense]] of "I" but we need to realize that it is only designated in [[dependence]] upon [[mind]] and [[body]]. The [[selflessness]] that [[Buddhists]] speak of refers to the absence of a [[self]] that is [[permanent]], partless, and {{Wiki|independent}}, or, more subtly, it can refer to the absence of [[inherent]] [[existence]] of any [[phenomenon]]. However, [[Buddhists]] do value the [[existence]] of a [[self]] that changes from moment to moment, designated in [[dependence]] upon the {{Wiki|continuum}} of [[mind]] and [[body]]. All of us validly have this [[sense]] of "I." When [[Buddhists]] speak of the [[doctrine]] of [[selflessness]], we are not referring to the [[Wikipedia:Existence|nonexistence]] of this [[self]]. With this "I," all of us rightfully want [[happiness]] and do not want [[suffering]]. It is when we exaggerate our [[sense]] of ourselves and other [[phenomena]] to mean something inherently [[existent]] that we get drawn into many, many problems. | + | |
+ | Because all [[phenomena]] appear to [[exist]] in their [[own]] right, all of our ordinary [[perceptions]] are mistaken. Only when [[emptiness]] is directly [[realized]] during completely focused [[meditation]] is there no false [[appearance]]. At that [[time]], the [[dualism]] of [[subject]] and [[object]] has vanished, as has the [[appearance]] of multiplicity; only [[emptiness]] appears. After you rise from that [[meditation]], once again [[living beings]] and [[objects]] falsely appear to [[exist]] in and of themselves, but through the power of having [[realized]] [[emptiness]], you will [[recognize]] the discrepancy between [[appearance]] and [[reality]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Through [[meditation]] you have identified both the false mode of [[appearance]] and the false mode of apprehension. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Let us return to the central point: All of us have a [[sense]] of "I" but we need to realize that it is only designated in [[dependence]] upon [[mind]] and [[body]]. The [[selflessness]] that [[Buddhists]] speak of refers to the absence of a [[self]] that is [[permanent]], partless, and {{Wiki|independent}}, or, more subtly, it can refer to the absence of [[inherent]] [[existence]] of any [[phenomenon]]. However, [[Buddhists]] do value the [[existence]] of a [[self]] that changes from [[moment]] to [[moment]], designated in [[dependence]] upon the {{Wiki|continuum}} of [[mind]] and [[body]]. All of us validly have this [[sense]] of "I." When [[Buddhists]] speak of the [[doctrine]] of [[selflessness]], we are not referring to the [[Wikipedia:Existence|nonexistence]] of this [[self]]. With this "I," all of us rightfully want [[happiness]] and do not want [[suffering]]. It is when we exaggerate our [[sense]] of ourselves and other [[phenomena]] to mean something inherently [[existent]] that we get drawn into many, many problems. | ||
+ | |||
Summary for Daily Practice | Summary for Daily Practice | ||
+ | |||
As an exercise in identifying how [[objects]] and [[beings]] falsely appear, try the following: | As an exercise in identifying how [[objects]] and [[beings]] falsely appear, try the following: | ||
Latest revision as of 14:50, 9 February 2017
by Tenzin Gyatso, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama
To generate the type of love and compassion that motivates you to seek buddhahood, not for yourself but for the sake of others, first you must confront suffering by identifying its types. This is the first noble truth.
From the time we are born to the time we die we suffer mental and physical pain, the suffering of change, and pervasive suffering of uncontrolled conditioning.
The second and third noble truths lead us to understand the causes of suffering and whether or not those causes can be removed.
The fundamental cause of suffering is ignorance-the mistaken apprehension that living beings and objects inherently exist.
We all have a valid, proper sense of self, or "I," but then we additionally have a misconception of that "I" as inherently existing. Under the sway of this delusion, we view the self as existing under its own power, established by way of its own nature, able to set itself up.
However, if there were such a separate I-self-established and existing in its own right-it should become clearer and clearer under the light of competent analysis as to whether it exists as either mind or body, or the collection of mind and body, or different from mind and body.
In fact, the closer you look, the more it is not found. This turns out to be the case for everything, for all phenomena.
The fact that you cannot find them means that those phenomena do not exist under their own power; they are not self-established.
Sometime during the early sixties when I was reflecting on a passage by Tsongkhapa [founder of the Gelugpa school to which the Dalai Lama belongs] about unfindability and the fact that phenomena are dependent on conceptuality, it was as if lightning coursed within my chest. Here is the passage:
A coiled rope's speckled color and coiling are similar to those of a snake, and when the rope is perceived in a dim area, the thought arises, "This is a snake." As for the rope, at that time when it is seen to be a snake, the collection and parts of the rope are not even in the slightest way a snake. Therefore, that snake is merely set up by conceptuality.
In the same way, when the thought "I" arises in dependence upon mind and body, nothing within mind and body-neither the collection which is a continuum of earlier and later moments, nor the collection of the parts at one time, nor the separate parts, nor the continuum of any of the separate parts-is in even the slightest way the "I." Also there is not even the slightest something that is a different entity from mind and body that is apprehendable as the "I." Consequently, the "I" is merely set up by conceptuality in dependence upon mind and body; it is not established by way of its own entity.
The impact lasted for a while, and for the next few weeks whenever I saw people, they seemed like a magician's illusions in that they appeared to inherently exist but I knew that they actually did not. That experience, which was like lightning in my heart, was most likely at a level below completely valid and incontrovertible realization. This is when my understanding of the cessation of the afflictive emotions as a true possibility became real.
Nowadays I always meditate on emptiness in the morning and bring that experience into the day's activities. Just thinking or saying "I," as in "I will do such and such," will often trigger the feeling. But still I cannot claim full understanding of emptiness.
A consciousness that conceives of inherent existence does not have a valid foundation. A wise consciousness, grounded in reality, understands that living beings and other phenomena-minds, bodies, buildings, and so forth-do not inherently exist. This is the wisdom of emptiness. Understanding reality exactly opposite to the misconception of inherent existence, wisdom gradually overcomes ignorance.
Remove the ignorance that misconceives phenomena to inherently exist and you prevent the generation of afflictive emotions like lust and hatred. Thus, in turn, suffering can also be removed. In addition, the wisdom of emptiness must be accompanied by a motivation of deep concern for others (and by the compassionate deeds it inspires) before it can remove the obstructions to omniscience, which are the predispositions for the false appearance of phenomena-even to sense consciousness-as if they inherently exist.
Therefore, full spiritual practice calls for cultivating wisdom in conjunction with great compassion and the intention to become enlightened in which others are valued more than yourself. Only then may your consciousness be transformed into the omniscience of a Buddha.
Selflessness
Both Buddhists and non-Buddhists practice meditation to achieve pleasure and get rid of pain, and in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist systems the self is a central object of scrutiny. Certain non-Buddhists who accept rebirth accept the transitory nature of mind and body, but they believe in a self that is permanent, changeless and unitary. Although Buddhist schools accept rebirth, they hold that there is no such solid self. For Buddhists, the main topic of the training in wisdom is emptiness, or selflessness, which means the absence of a permanent, unitary and independent self or, more subtly, the absence of inherent existence either in living beings or in other phenomena.
The Two Truths
To understand selflessness, you need to understand that everything that exists is contained in two groups called the two truths: conventional and ultimate. The phenomena that we see and observe around us can go from good to bad, or bad to good, depending on various causes and conditions. Many phenomena cannot be said to be inherently good or bad; they are better or worse, tall or short, beautiful or ugly, only by comparison, not by way of their own nature. Their value is relative. From this you can see that there is a discrepancy between the way things appear and how they actually are. For instance, something may-in terms of how it appears-look good, but, due to its inner nature being different, it can turn bad once it is affected by conditions. Food that looks so good in a restaurant may not sit so well in your stomach. This is a clear sign of a discrepancy between appearance and reality.
These phenomena themselves are called conventional truths: they are known by consciousness that goes no further than appearances. But the same objects have an inner mode of being, called an ultimate truth, that allows for the changes brought about by conditions. A wise consciousness, not satisfied with mere appearances, analyzes to find whether objects inherently exist as they seem to do but discovers their absence of inherent existence. It finds an emptiness of inherent existence beyond appearances.
Empty of What?
Emptiness, or selflessness, can only be understood if we first identify that of which phenomena are empty. Without understanding what is negated, you cannot understand its absence, emptiness.
You might think that emptiness means nothingness, but it does not. Merely from reading it is difficult to identify and understand the object of negation, what Buddhist texts speak of as true establishment or inherent existence. But over a period of time, when you add your own investigations to the reading, the faultiness of our usual way of seeing things will become clearer and clearer.
Buddha said many times that because all phenomena are dependently arisen, they are relative-their existence depends on other causes and conditions and depends on their own parts. A wooden table, for instance, does not exist independently; rather, it depends on a great many causes such as a tree, the carpenter who makes it, and so forth; it also depends upon its own parts. If a wooden table or any phenomenon really were not dependent-if it were established in its own right-then when you analyze it, its existence in its own right should become more obvious, but it does not.
This Buddhist reasoning is supported by science. Physicists today keep discovering finer and finer components of matter, yet they still cannot understand its ultimate nature. Understanding emptiness is even deeper.
The more you look into how an ignorant consciousness conceives phenomena to exist, the more you find that phenomena do not exist that way. However, the more you look into what a wise consciousness understands, the more you gain affirmation in the absence of inherent existence.
Do Objects Exist?
We have established that when any phenomenon is sought through analysis, it cannot be found. So you may be wondering whether these phenomena exist at all. However, we know from direct experience that people and things cause pleasure and pain, and that they can help and harm. Therefore, phenomena certainly do exist; the question is how? They do not exist in their own right, but only have an existence dependent upon many factors, including a consciousness that conceptualizes them.
Once they exist but do not exist on their own, they necessarily exist in dependence upon conceptualization. However, when phenomena appear to us, they do not at all appear as if they exist this way. Rather, they seem to be established in their own right, from the object's side, without depending upon a conceptualizing consciousness.
When training to develop wisdom, you are seeking through analysis to find the inherent existence of whatever object you are considering-yourself, another person, your body, your mind, or anything else.
You are analyzing not the mere appearance but the inherent nature of the object.
Thus it is not that you come to understand that the object does not exist; rather, you find that its inherent existence is unfounded. Analysis does not contradict the mere existence of the object. Phenomena do indeed exist, but not in the way we think they do.
What is left after analysis is a dependently existent phenomenon. When, for example, you examine your own body, its inherent existence is negated, but what is left is a body dependent on four limbs, a trunk, and a head.
If Phenomena Are Empty, Can They Function?
Whenever we think about objects, do we mistakenly believe that they exist in their own right? No. We can conceive of phenomena in three different ways. Let us consider a tree. There is no denying that it appears to inherently exist, but:
1. We could conceive of the tree as existing inherently, in its own right.
2. We could conceive of the tree as lacking inherent existence.
3. We could conceive of the tree without thinking that it inherently exists or not.
Only the first of those is wrong. The other two modes of apprehension are right, even if the mode of appearance is mistaken in the second and the third, in that the tree appears as if inherently existent.
If objects do not inherently exist, does this mean that they cannot function? Jumping to the conclusion that because the true nature of objects is emptiness, they are therefore incapable of performing functions such as causing pleasure or pain, or helping or harming, is the worst sort of misunderstanding, a nihilistic view. As the Indian scholar-yogi Nagarjuna says in his Precious Garland, a nihilist will certainly have a bad transmigration upon rebirth, whereas a person who believes, albeit wrongly, in inherent existence goes on to a good transmigration.
Allow me to explain. You need a belief in the consequences of actions to choose virtue in your life and discard nonvirtue. For the time being, the subtle view of the emptiness of inherent existence might be too difficult for you to understand without falling into the trap of nihilism, where you are unable to understand that phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions (dependent-arising).
Then for the sake of your spiritual progress it would be better for now to set aside trying to penetrate emptiness. Even if you mistakenly believe that phenomena inherently exist, you can still develop an understanding of dependent-arising and apply it in practice. This is why even Buddha, on occasion, taught that living beings and other phenomena inherently exist. Such teachings are the thought of Buddha's scriptures, but they are not his own final thought. For specific purposes, he sometimes spoke in nonfinal ways.
In What Way Is Consciousness Mistaken?
Because all phenomena appear to exist in their own right, all of our ordinary perceptions are mistaken. Only when emptiness is directly realized during completely focused meditation is there no false appearance. At that time, the dualism of subject and object has vanished, as has the appearance of multiplicity; only emptiness appears. After you rise from that meditation, once again living beings and objects falsely appear to exist in and of themselves, but through the power of having realized emptiness, you will recognize the discrepancy between appearance and reality.
Through meditation you have identified both the false mode of appearance and the false mode of apprehension.
Let us return to the central point: All of us have a sense of "I" but we need to realize that it is only designated in dependence upon mind and body. The selflessness that Buddhists speak of refers to the absence of a self that is permanent, partless, and independent, or, more subtly, it can refer to the absence of inherent existence of any phenomenon. However, Buddhists do value the existence of a self that changes from moment to moment, designated in dependence upon the continuum of mind and body. All of us validly have this sense of "I." When Buddhists speak of the doctrine of selflessness, we are not referring to the nonexistence of this self. With this "I," all of us rightfully want happiness and do not want suffering. It is when we exaggerate our sense of ourselves and other phenomena to mean something inherently existent that we get drawn into many, many problems.
Summary for Daily Practice
As an exercise in identifying how objects and beings falsely appear, try the following:
1. Observe how an item such as a watch appears in a store when you first notice it, then how its appearance changes and becomes even more concrete as you become more interested in it, and finally how it appears after you have bought it and consider it yours.
2. Reflect on how you yourself appear to your mind as if inherently existent. Then reflect on how others and their bodies appear to your mind.
Tenzin Gyatso is the Fourteen Dalai Lama of Tibet. This selection is from How to Practice: The Way to a Meaningful Life, by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Translated and edited by Jeffrey Hopkins, Ph.D.