Practical Ethics and Profound Emptiness

by Jampa Tegchok

  The Buddha is called the Great Sage because his body, speech, and mind are not stained by even the subtlest faults. He has rejected the views of self and of non-self as inherently existent, and he leads others to abandon these erroneous views. Here self refers to the person and non-self refers to emptiness or selflessness. Neither the person nor its emptiness exists from its own side.

  In verse 98, someone said that refuting the inherent existence of things proves that emptiness exists inherently. This is incorrect and is refuted again here. Both things and non-things (their emptiness) lack inherent existence; both self and selflessness do not exist from their own side.

  Someone argues, “For you to say all phenomena are selfless contradicts what the Buddha himself stated, because he taught the existence of a self to some people.” It is true: he said that the person is self-sufficient, substantially existent to a group of disciples who formed a Vaibhashika subschool called the Sammitiya. But when he spoke to people similar to Sautrantika adherents in disposition, he taught the lack of a self-sufficient, substantially existent person but said the person inherently exists. Although it seems the Buddha contradicted himself when speaking to these diverse groups of followers, this was not the case because none of these statements represented his final view. Rather, he taught what was suitable according to the dispositions of these different audiences, and in this way, he skillfully and gradually led them to understand the most profound view.

  In fact, the Buddha’s intention was that there is no self. He rejected both an inherently existent person and the inherent existence of the selflessness of that person. Neither self nor non-self are ultimately perceived just as they are indicates that when we analyze both the person and its selflessness, we don’t find even an atom of inherent existence. For this reason the Great Sage refuted both views of an inherently existent self and non-self. In other words, the person is selfless and that selflessness itself is also empty, or selfless. This is one way of explaining this verse according to the Buddha’s own thought.

  We can also read this verse as saying that a conventionally existent self comes from the previous life and goes on to the subsequent life. This person creates karma and experiences its happy and painful results. Such a self exists, but not inherently. The Great Sage refuted the view that grasps the inherent existence of both a conventionally existent self and its selflessness. Both a person (self) and its emptiness (its selflessness) exist, but neither exists inherently.

  In short, as a skillful teacher who addressed the specific needs of each audience, the Buddha taught the existence of a self to some followers and refuted the existence of such a self to others. His definitive meaning is that both the person and the emptiness of the person do not exist inherently. The view that there is a self was a provisional teaching, a method to lead certain people to the definitive meaning over time.

  Someone protests, “Claiming that all phenomena are selfless contradicts the sutra passage that says, ‘The self is your protector.’” The self that is mentioned in this passage is not an inherently existent self; it is the conventionally existing self. Nagarjuna does not dispute that a person exists conventionally.

  104.As for what one sees, hears, and so on,

  the Sage did not call them either true or false.

  If from one position its opposite arises,

  both do not exist in fact.

  105.Hence, this world is ultimately

  beyond truth and falsity.

  Therefore, [the Buddha] does not accept

  that it really exists or does not.

  Absence of Inherent Existence of Existents and Non-Existents

  What one sees, hears, and so on refers to the six objects of the six consciousnesses — the five sense consciousnesses and the mental consciousness. The Buddha said that these objects are not true or real, meaning they are not truly existent. He also said that they are not false or unreal.

  This might puzzle us. Generally speaking, objects of the senses are said to be false because they do not exist as they appear. They are obscured truths (conventional truths). Ultimate truth — emptiness — on the other hand, exists the way it appears and is said to be true. Ultimate truth is empty and appears empty.

  In saying that objects of the six consciousnesses are neither true nor false, the Buddha negates the two extremes. Here, true means truly existent; false means totally nonexistent. Sights, sounds, and so forth are not truly existent, but neither are they totally nonexistent. Saying they are not true refutes the extreme of absolutism, and saying they are not false eliminates the extreme of nihilism. Both do not exist in fact indicates that both the true existence and total nonexistence of conventionally existent things do not exist.

  If from one position its opposite arises, both do not exist in fact. Someone says, “When true existence is negated on an object, it must be non-truly existent, because non-true existence and true existence are directly contradictory. In that case, non-true existence must be truly existent.” As discussed above, emptiness is posited in relation to objects that are empty — the person, aggregates, and so on. Being dependent on these objects, emptiness is also empty of true existence. Both non-true existence (emptiness) and true existence do not truly exist. This is a difficult but important point.

  Ultimately the world transcends being truly existent and totally nonexistent. For this reason, the Sage doesn’t say it really exists or does not exist.

  106.How could the Omniscient One say

  that what [he knows to be]

  utterly nonexistent

  is finite or infinite, both or neither?

  The Buddha’s Reason for Not Making a Statement Regarding the Four Extremes

  As noted in verses 73 and 74, during the Buddha’s lifetime people posed questions to him regarding the self and the world based on their assumption that phenomena existed inherently. Given their wrong conceptions, the Buddha remained silent. To answer would have reinforced their misconception that phenomena existed inherently. They would have thought that an inherently existent world didn’t have an end or that an inherently existent person had an end; such beliefs would harm them.

  Within the context of inherent existence, he could not give a truthful answer. Asked if the self had an end, didn’t have an end, both, or neither, he could not make an accurate statement because an inherently existent person does not exist at all. Such questions are like asking if a turtle’s moustache is soft, coarse, both, or neither, when no turtles have moustaches!

  Most of these questions take the form of a tetralemma. For example, someone asked the Buddha if the world (1) has an end, (2) doesn’t have an end, (3) both has an end and doesn’t have an end, or (4) neither has an end nor doesn’t have an end. While the fourth option seems to be a reworking of the third, it refers to another inherently existent option.

  If cyclic existence had a beginning, there must have been a time in the past when it did not exist and then later it came into existence. In that case, what brought cyclic existence into being? The only options are there was either no cause or a discordant cause, such as an external creator. Both of these are untenable. Firstly, a functioning thing such as cyclic existence must be produced by a cause. In addition, it could not have a discordant cause — a cause that doesn’t have the capacity to produce cyclic existence, such as an external creator. Such an assertion creates many questions: Why did the creator create? If the creator is permanent, how can he or she create anything, because creation entails change? What was the cause of the creator?

  While cyclic existence has no beginning, it does have an end. If we hold a seed in our hand and think about its causes, the causes of its causes, and so on, we cannot reach an initial cause that was the beginning. However, if we burn the seed so that it is completely destroyed, it has an end and its continuity and potency cease. Similarly, while the ignorance that causes cyclic existence is beginningless, it can be eradicated by the wisdom realizing emptiness. In that way, the continuity of cyclic existence ceases.

>   107.There have been innumerable past buddhas;

  likewise, future buddhas and present buddhas are innumerable.

  And the extent of the three times’ sentient beings

  is considered to be zillions of times more [than those buddhas].

  108.The world’s cessation, occurring in the three times,

  does not cause its increase.

  Why then did the Omniscient One [maintain that]

  its beginning and end are indeterminate?

  Dispelling an Objection That Not Teaching an End to Cyclic Existence Is Wrong

  These two verses express a question someone asked the Buddha: “It’s wrong for the Buddha not to answer the question about cyclic existence having an end, because it does have one. There is a time that the continuity of each sentient being’s samsaric lives will cease, because there are numberless buddhas throughout the past, present, and future.” This person says that even though there are zillions of times more sentient beings than buddhas, the number of sentient beings is always decreasing because each of these buddhas leads zillions of sentient beings to liberation and awakening by showing them the path.

  This person continues, “Furthermore, no new sentient beings are coming into existence, so their number will only decrease as more sentient beings are constantly attaining liberation and awakening. Thus there will be an end to cyclic existence. Why, then, didn’t the Omniscient One make a statement to that effect?”

  Saying that sentient beings are innumerable or countless means that the number is so great, we are unable to count or grasp how many there are. This is not the same as infinite. It’s true that the number of sentient beings is continuously decreasing. Although he did not say there is an end to cyclic existence, the Buddha did not refute this fact. He did not respond because the person asking the question was under the assumption that sentient beings inherently exist. If the Buddha had replied, it would have only strengthened that person’s belief in an inherently existent person. For example, the person could have thought that if samsara has an end, the continuum of an inherently existent person ends at that time and the person becomes totally nonexistent.

  Suppose the Buddha replied, “What kind of sentient being are you referring to? If it is a conventionally existent sentient being who exists by mere name, then yes, there is an end to this person’s samsara. A sentient being that exists by mere conceptual designation wanders in cyclic existence under the control of afflictions and karma. When this being encounters the Buddhadharma, and studies, contemplates, and meditates on the path, he or she can abandon samsara and attain liberation. But if you are talking about a sentient being that exists inherently, I can’t say that there is an end to cyclic existence because an inherently existent sentient being doesn’t exist to start with.”

  There is no beginning to sentient beings or to cyclic existence, but each being’s cyclic existence has an end, no matter what realm he or she is currently born in. Each and every sentient being has the buddha nature — both the naturally abiding buddha nature and the transforming buddha nature — as an inseparable part of his mind. The adventitious stains that cause cyclic existence do not abide in the nature of the mind and there exists an antidote to remove them, the wisdom realizing emptiness. Since this is the case, even someone currently in a hell realm can become a buddha after her buddha nature and the seeds of constructive karma on her mindstreams are awakened.

  While that hell being may not attain liberation in her present body, she will become a buddha in the future when she has a favorable rebirth that allows her to learn and practice the path. In a future life, the continuity of that hell being will one day be a bodhisattva at the end of the tenth ground, who in the next moment becomes a buddha. So in general there is a time when each sentient being will attain full awakening.

  If countless buddhas have helped and are currently helping sentient beings attain awakening, why haven’t we become buddhas yet? All the conditions necessary for practice need to be present in order for us to become buddhas, but we haven’t attained those yet. We must live at a time and place where a wheel-turning buddha has come, meet with fully qualified Mahayana and Vajrayana spiritual mentors, and have interest and enthusiasm for the Dharma. We know from the stages of the path literature that it is extremely difficult to create the causes for all the optimum conditions to attain awakening. And even if we attain them, do we make use of them?

  While all sentient beings have the potential to attain awakening, most sentient beings are not receptive to the Dharma and do not study, contemplate, and meditate on the path. Without creating these causes, there is no way for them to attain resultant buddhahood. All the buddhas and bodhisattvas in the world can neither convince nor force a person to practice the Dharma. For this reason it is difficult to think of a time when all sentient beings will be awakened.

  No matter how far back we go in time, buddhas have been present, but that does not mean that some beings have always been buddhas. Everyone who is now a buddha must have become a buddha gradually through amassing the collections of wisdom and merit. Every buddha was formerly a sentient being; there is no one who has always been a buddha.

  The virtue sentient beings create is related to the buddhas’ awakening activity and is due to the blessings and inspiration of the buddhas. Since virtue has existed in the mindstreams of sentient beings since beginningless time and its cause is the buddhas’ awakening activity, there must be countless buddhas stretching back in beginningless time. The buddhas’ awakening activities manifest chiefly by giving teachings. Through hearing the buddhas’ teachings, sentient beings learn to discern virtue and nonvirtue. By then practicing virtue and abandoning nonvirtue, they gradually actualize the stages of the path to awakening. They could not do this without the buddhas’ awakening activities. In general, if no buddhas arose in the universe, there would not be any bodhisattvas, hearers, or solitary realizers, and thus no new buddhas. Nevertheless, this does not mean that there are buddhas who were never sentient beings prior to attaining awakening.

  Some people say that the first buddha is the all-pure dharmakaya. However, each sentient being has to attain the dharmakaya through training in the path. To say there was a first buddha, we would have to posit another buddha prior to him who was his teacher and guided him on the path so he could attain full awakening. And that buddha would have received teachings from a previous buddha, and so on.

  In a historical sense, we can talk about the first buddha in our particular world system. One thousand buddhas will appear as supreme emanation bodies in the present fortunate eon; three have already appeared and the current one is Shakyamuni Buddha. However, before these buddhas, there were also buddhas who appeared in the form of emanation bodies in other world systems and in other times.

  109.Such is the profound Dharma

  that is obscure to ordinary beings;

  that the world is like an illusion

  is the ambrosia of the buddhas’ teaching.

  The Profound Is Hidden for Those Who Are Unsuitable Vessels

  Samsara and nirvana lack true existence; this is the profound Dharma that is obscure to ordinary beings. The world and the sentient beings in it are like magical illusions; they are false in that they appear truly existent but do not exist in that way in the least.

  Those sentient beings whose self-grasping ignorance is strong and who are extremely attached to things existing as they appear cannot understand this profound teaching. While they ask the Buddha questions such as “Is the self permanent, impermanent, both, or neither?” underlying their question is the assumption that the self truly exists. If the Buddha tried to explain emptiness to them, they would reject it and criticize the Buddhadharma, and thus create unbearable destructive karma. For this reason the Buddha did not share this ambrosia of immortality — the teaching that leads to the deathless state of nirvana — with them.

  110.An elephant created through magical illusion

  might seem to arise and cease,

  bu
t ultimately there is not

  any arising or ceasing at all.

  111.So too, the world, like a magical illusion,

  might seem to arise and cease,

  but ultimately there is not

  any arising or ceasing at all.

  An Example

  In ancient India, magicians could make sticks and stones appear as real horses and elephants through the use of special substances and mantras. Some of the animals may even look like they are being born or dying.

  The audience, magician, and latecomers to the show relate to the magical display in different ways. These three examples are profound, and we must take our time to contemplate them. The audience is under the influence of the spell of the mantra and the special substance, so they see real horses and elephants with their eyes, and they mentally believe there are actual horses and elephants there. Similarly, phenomena appear truly existent to ordinary sentient beings. Under the influence of ignorance, they apprehend and conceive of truly existent people being born and dying, although there are no truly existent people or things at all. Never doubting the accuracy of those appearances, ordinary beings do not see things as illusory but believe they exist the way they appear.

  The magician is affected by the spell and magical substance, so real horses and elephants appear to him. However, unlike the audience he knows they are illusions and does not grasp them as real. In other words, his visual consciousness sees horses and elephants, but his mental consciousness knows they are only an appearance and doesn’t think they are real. Similarly, things appear truly existent to ordinary beings who have realized emptiness conceptually and to aryas in post-meditation time. However, they are not deceived by the false appearances because they have realized that things do not truly exist in the way they appear to. They know they are empty and do not grasp them as truly existent.

  Latecomers to the show are not affected by the special substance and mantra, so horses and elephants neither appear to them nor do they apprehend horses and elephants. Similarly, to aryas’ meditative equipoise on emptiness, truly existent phenomena neither appear nor are they apprehended.