THE WAY WE EXIST AND DO NOT EXIST
by Julian Feijóo
March 2005
Prajnya Paramita – Mother of all the Buddhas*
*
Image: From the cover of Echoes of Voidness by Geshe Rabten, Wisdom Publications.
1
“Things are not the way they seem, nor are they otherwise.”
From the Lankavatara Sutra (quoted by Surya Das in Awakening to the Sacred)
PART I: THE WAY OF LOGIC
Anyone who has done even superficial study of the Buddhist teachings has run
into the pivotal term of emptiness. Not only has this term been the source of an
amazing number of commentaries, but also, in the English translation, is
probably a very easily misunderstood term, at least at the intellectual level. Since
this term is important not only in understanding the Buddhist teachings, but in
reaching a correct view in meditation, it will be worthwhile to spend some time
to see if its meaning can be clarified. Further, it would be beneficial to explore
how a correct intellectual understanding could be an aid in our meditation
practice.
EMPTINESS AND LOGIC
It will be helpful to start this study in a somewhat historical and perhaps
academic note. We must note that Buddhism in its historical context had to
contend with other strong religious teachings. Not surprisingly, Buddhism is
strongest in its criticism of Hindu concepts. Hinduism is the religion to which
Sakyamuni, later to be the Buddha, was born, and the religion from which he
departed in his search for truth.
How does the term emptiness fit into this picture? First I will remind the reader
that emptiness is a translation of the original term anatman (non-self)1, and many
agree a poor translation with which we are stuck due to universal usage. First of
all, in a poor summary here of the Hindu teachings, it was said by Hinduism that
all men and women had a soul. It was said that, ultimately, this soul was part of
a universal soul, an aspect of the universal soul called Atman. Liberation was,
then, held to be the leaving behind of all the transient elements of the
personality, and the realization of this divine identity in the One Soul, or One
Self, called Atman. The Buddhists attacked this belief by observing that nothing
Actually, the correct Sanskrit term is Sunyata (Tonba Nye in Tibetan). It means “empty
of,” so it is a relative term. It does not mean non-existent, but , upon deep examination, empty of
any substantial lasting stuff or any existence in its own independent of relative causes and
conditions. So the term “emptiness” is relative to “empty of,” and not an absolute statement of nonexistence. One way in which this is obvious is that the world of things, the world of appearances,
continues to appear and function (e.g. fire burns, water wets, rainbows glow, etc.).
1
2
that we can perceive with our senses exists unchangingly or independently of
causation. Certainly, a God (Brahma or Ishvara, the Atman) that was ultimately
unknowable could in no way to be said to be a self-existing ultimate essence of
any kind. In addition, there is nothing existent that we perceive through anything
other than our senses (which includes the eye of the mind). Therefore, the doctrine of
no ultimate soul or no-atman was called anatman (in Sanskrit the addition of an
“a” before a name is its negation, and before a vowel the prefix became “an”). A
translation of anatman can be no-self or non-self. Now, the word self has some
strong implications in English that actually do not apply in this context! When in
Buddhism it is said that the “I” and dharmas (external appearances) both are
devoid of self what is meant is that they exist in a relative and transient way, and that
there is no self-existing permanent substance or substratum behind them. Otherwise
this would be an absurd statement, since we in contemporary Western thinking
never believed that things had some sort of self or personality in the first place
(which is another meaning of this word in English). The same applies to our own
sense of identity or our mind, when it is said that we are devoid of self, it does
not mean that we do not functionally exist or that we do not have a personality;
not at all2What is actually meant in the Buddhist context is that if we search our
own make-up we will never find an eternal, self-existing component. No atman.
At the same time it is obvious that we function, walk, speak, and so on, even
though there may be no eternal substance behind these actions.
Now, for the word emptiness. The Buddhists became quite adept at debating the
Hindu and other religions, and showing the errors the other religions.3 In this
context, the word empty is used in the sense that all dharmas are empty. Empty of
what? Specifically, very specifically, empty of any self-existing, independent
substance that is not subject to causes and conditions, impermanence and birth
and death (or origination and cessation). Another way to say this is that all
things exist through Interdependent Origination or Interdependent Causation.
We will discuss this term a little later. But again, empty is an unfortunate term in
English because it leads our mind to fall into the idea that all dharmas do not exist.
Were we to fall into that belief we would be falling into one of the horns of
heresy, of nihilism. The other side is to say, “well, since I walk, and talk, and think, I
have a definite, solid, substantial, lasting existence, it is concrete,” which would be the
. The term “ego,” which means “I” (as in the phrase ‘[ego] cogito, ergo sum’ or “I think,
therefore, I am”), also applies to that image of ourselves composed of all the graspings to images
of myself and the external world as solid and self-existing. The term “ego” also introduces all
sorts of confusion, since Freud used the term “ego” in his psychoanalytic theory for the “I” in the
sense of a group of mostly conscious executive functions in the personality that I identify as being
“myself.”
3
The sage Nagarjuna developed the foundation for this logic, called Madhyamika. Later
commentators such as Dharmakirti, Dignaga, and the great sage Shantideva developed a broad
foundation that was followed by commentaries upon commentaries, in the manner of the Indian
and Tibetan tradition, up to this day.
2
3
error of eternalism. Again, remember, what emptiness means is empty of atman,
of any independent self-existing essence. There are a number of words that
perhaps could better convey the dynamic creative emptiness of everything:
openness, isness, thusness, nakedness, interdependence, be-ing-ness, "veridicalness"(to
invent a word), and so on. All these words have some connotation of what the
meaning is, but I am afraid that we are stuck with the term emptiness. This will be
OK, as long as we know what we mean when we use it.
INTERDEPENDENT ORIGINATION
A corollary of the term emptiness is Interdependent Origination. It is the other side
of the coin, so to speak. There is an ancient and classical scheme comprised of
twelve links of causation, but we will merely speak here of the implications of
the concept itself. The original diagram, often called the Wheel of Life and Death,
was designed by the Buddha himself, who ordered it be painted at the entrance
of all monasteries as a reminder of the transitoriness of our existence and of the
true cause of our suffering. The classical scheme is very valuable in analyzing
aspects of the person and events, but the core principle underlying this wheel of
causation will be sufficient for our purposes.
The basic notion of this principle is that everything we can see, smell, touch, and
so on, including what we call mental events usually termed emotions, thoughts,
intellectual constructions, everything, exists due to causes and conditions. Once
the causes sustaining a particular phenomenon wane, then the phenomenon
disappears and we might say “it ended” or “it changed.” If “A” always comes
before “B,” then, given that “A” disappears, “B” will never come to exist. In
reality our existence is a never-ending flow of the emergence of certain causal
factors, and the cessation of certain other factors, so in another sense, reality is a
constant flux and nothing really ever either originates, or ends. It may sound
radical, but if we analyze, we will clearly see there is no exception to this reality.
Furthermore, events influence each other mutually, all the time. My existence
defines the table I see, and the table I am seeing defines me as the seer of the
table. My son defines me as his father, and my being his father defines him as my
son. Another simple example is the length of a stick of incense. We can have a
three-inch and a six-inch stick side by side. In this case the six-inch stick is the
long one. Now take away the three-inch one, and add a twelve-inch stick; now the
six-inch stick is the short one, with no change in its physical structure.
Furthermore, now the six-inch stick defines the twelve-inch as the long one. This
points to the mutually defining nature of many of the characteristics we observe,
young and old, funny and not, good and bad, nice and mean, and so on. This
coemergence of subject and object even defines my own self. For example, I was
at a party last night, and a friend asks me: “were you at the party last night?”
And I answer, yes of course I was, how else could I have seen the host’s new red
4
couch?” Now, it is possible that while I was not aware of myself at the time, I do
remember seeing the new red couch. Immediately I construct my presence there,
in the assurance that if the couch was perceived there, I was there as a perceiver. It goes
deeper than that to the very physical constitution of the objects in our world.
Thich Nhat Hanh has coined a felicitous term: he calls this truth Interbeing. It is
short, and essentializes this fact. He speaks of how a simple piece of paper has
sun elements, rain elements, tree elements, and so on, referring to all the many
factors that come together at one point or another to create that piece of paper.
The piece of paper in turn constitutes other things. What we are to understand,
then, is that this principle is the other side of the coin of emptiness. When I speak
of the piece of paper as empty, I mean it is absolutely lacking any permanent,
uncaused, self-existing nature (or self). When I speak of the piece of paper as
existing interdependently I mean that it is a temporary pattern sustained by
current causes and conditions, which pattern will disperse as soon as these
conditions change. This is the same as saying that this sheet of paper is empty. One
describes how the sheet of paper is; the other one tells me how the sheet of paper
is not. We can see that emptiness and Interbeing are the two sides of one coin. This
is also what is meant by the cryptic comment in the sutras that “emptiness is form
and form is emptiness.” Indeed, everything I perceive with my senses is form, and
it is empty of any self-existing independently existing substance, and everything I
perceive with my senses is Interdependent Causation or Interbeing. So
Interbeing is emptiness, and emptiness is Interbeing. There is no other kind of
form. The idea of a form that exists from its own side independent of creation
and causation can be imagined, but cannot really exist; it is said to be like a flower
growing in the middle of the air, or a rabbit that has grown horns (unless it is a
stuffed jackalope in some joke shop!). These are things I can imagine, but do not
exist functionally. Thus we can say that when I see emptiness, I see Interbeing, and
when I see Interbeing I see emptiness. In this sense the two are one, and not
contradictory. There is a student of Theravada (the original) Buddhism called,
Joanna Macy, who wrote her doctoral thesis on the parallel between Interbeing
and General Systems Theory.4 This is a fascinating parallel that is beyond the
scope of this essay. Suffice it to say that in many areas of science we have reached
the realization that all that exists is relative and multi-caused. More and more
science sees itself studying patterns and process, relationships rather than stuff
and substances. This is so, even though most scientists usually compartmentalize
this knowledge. This truth does not bring them wisdom as they leave the lab or
university and go home and regard their world as a “common sense” solid and
permanent place.
World as Lover, World as Self by Joanna Macy. Parallax Press. Systems theory envisions
the universe as constituted of dynamic systems. These are open and continuously exchange
energy and information with other systems. Thus material (and biological and mental) reality is
here composed of pattern, dynamic exchange, and information, instead of some solid and inert
lump of stuff. The closed system of physics is only a theoretical entity, not appearing in nature.
4
5
THE HEART SUTRA
If you have ever tried to read the Heart Sutra, which is one of the most important
writings belonging to the “second turning” of the teachings, you know how
cryptic and paradoxical it can sound. Based on the above discussion, it may be
possible to understand the Heart Sutra at a logical level. No doubt the ambiguity
and stark style of the sutra is a powerful tool for cracking our sense of solidity of
our self and of the world. I must add that the very ambiguity of the term
“emptiness” in this case is heuristic, because it does add an open dimension of
meaning in its ambiguity that lends itself to insight in actual experience, derived
from actual meditation practice (as opposed to purely logical conclusions). It is
possible that paraphrasing it makes it lose a lot of its impact, but as a learning
exercise, it might be interesting to do such a reading. In this spirit and with all
deep respect and veneration to the ancient teachings of the Buddha, I have
paraphrased one version of the Heart Sutra. I wish to make it clear that I do not
regard this paraphrase as an authentic version of this scripture. It is used here
only as a device to move forward our current discussion. Please forgive me for
any errors or misunderstandings that might have crept in. Keep in mind that I
have a profound respect and devotion for the teachings of the Buddha, and that
this version is merely an expedient to illustrate the points made here:
THE HEART SUTRA (paraphrased)
Once I heard this teaching.
The Conqueror was staying on Vulture’s Peak, in the keep of the King. With him was a
great gathering of monks, and a great gathering of warrior saints [bodhisattvas].
At a certain moment the Conqueror went into deep meditation on the part of the teaching
known as “awareness of the profound.” At that moment too did the realized being, the
great warrior, the lord of power, Loving Eyes [Avalokitesvara or Chenrezi], see into this
one deep practice, the practice of the perfection of wisdom. And he saw perfectly that
the five heaps [skandhas]—the five parts of a person—were completely open in nature
and manifested subject to causes and conditions—thus devoid of any independent
nature of their own.
And then, by the power of the Enlightened One, the junior monk named Shariputra
turned and asked this question of the great warrior Loving Eyes, the realized one, the
lord of power: “If any son or daughter of a good family hoped to follow the practice
of the perfection of wisdom, what would they have to do?”
This then is the answer that the lord of power, the realized one, the great warrior Loving
Eyes gave to the junior monk named Shariputra:
“Here, Shariputra, is what any son or daughter of a good family should see who
hopes to follow the deep practice of the perfection of wisdom.”
6
“See first all five heaps [skandhas]—all five parts to a person—as devoid of any
essence of their own that would be an independent nature of their own. Your body
is devoid of any independent nature of its own, and this absence of independent
nature, which is the fact of interdependent causation, is your body; this utter
openness which is the lack of being composed of any self-existing substance, and
the fact that it exists due to the interdependence of causes and conditions is, in
fact, your body. Interdependent origination is nothing but your body, and this
body is nothing but the open dimension that manifests as interdependent
origination.”
“The same is true of your feelings, and your ability to discriminate between
things, and all the other factors that make you up, and all the different kinds of
awareness that you possess; all of them are pure and open and devoid of any selfexistent independent existence, and all are appearances that arise due to causes
and conditions in accord to interdependent causation (like a rainbow or a mirage
that lacks substance yet appears to the eye given the right causes and conditions).”
“And thus we can say, Shariputra, that everything is this utterly open dimension
appearing as interdependent causation. Nothing ever begins in the sense that
events flow smoothly from one to the other. For the same reason nothing ever
ends. Nothing is ever impure in the sense that the impurity is also flowing,
passing with no substantial essence, and has the same open insubstantial nature.
Nothing ever becomes pure for the same reason. Nothing ever gets less, since it
is just part of the constant flow of being without fixed identity, and for the same
reason nothing ever becomes more.”
“And thus we can say Shariputra, that with interdependent causation, there is no
independently existing body. There are no self-existing feelings. There is no selfexisting ability to discriminate. There are no self existing factors among the
factors that make you up, and there is no self-existing consciousness5.”
“There are no self-existing eyes, no self-existing ears, no self-existing nose, no
self-existing tongue, no self-existing body, no self-existing mind; nothing selfexisting to see, nothing self-existing to hear, nothing self-existing to smell,
nothing self-existing to taste, nothing self-existing to touch, and nothing selfexisting to think of.”
“There is no self-existing part of you that sees. There is no self-existing part of
you that is aware of what you see, and this is true all the way to the part of you
that thinks, and the part of you that is aware that you are thinking.”
This is the relative consciousness that thinks, imagines, and so on as opposed to pure
awareness. The monkey-mind is called sem in Dzogchen teaching, and the wisdom mind of
enlightenment is called Rigpa. The Shengtong approach (empty of other) says awareness is not
empty of its own characteristics (cognizance, compassion, spaciousness). This is the one aspect of
our being which is permanent (unchanging), unborn and unceasing and that is why, therefore, it
is the basis for liberation from the suffering of grasping onto (or fighting) impermanent
appearances.
5
7
“There is no self-existing misunderstanding of your world, for it is only another
pattern of appearance of this utterly open manner if existing. There is no selfexisting independent stopping of this misunderstanding, and the same is true all
the way up to your old age and your death, and to stopping your old age and your
death, since these are all also appearing due to causes and conditions, transient
and impermanent.”
“There is no self-existing suffering, there is no self-existing source of this
suffering. There is no such thing as a self-existing cessation of this suffering.
There is no self-existing independent path to the cessation of this suffering.”
“There is no self-existing form of knowledge. There is absolutely nothing
whatsoever to reach that is self-existing, nor anything that could be said to be
existing independently of causes and conditions, for nothing that appears to the
senses is self-existing.”
“Thus it is Shariputra, that warrior saints [bodhisattvas] have nothing that is selfexisting to reach, and because of this, they are able to practice the perfection of
wisdom, and stay in the perfection of wisdom. This frees them of every obstacle in
their minds, and this frees them from all fear. They go beyond all wrong ways of
thinking [which in, truth, is ultimately all thinking] and reach to the ultimate end of
nirvana.”
“All the Enlightened Beings of the past, the present, and the future too follow this
same perfection of wisdom, and thus bring themselves to perfect enlightenment,
to the matchless state of a totally enlightened Buddha.”
“Thus are they the sacred words of the perfection of wisdom, for the sacred words
of great knowledge, sacred words of the unsurpassable, sacred words that are
equal to the One beyond all equal, sacred words that you put a final end to every
form of pain, sacred words that you should know are true, for false they cannot
be, sacred words of the perfection of wisdom which here I speak for you:
Tadya ta, ga-te ga-te, para ga-te, Para sang ga-te, bodhi soha.
“And thus it is, Shariputra, that the great warrior saints [bodhisattvas] must train
themselves in the profound perfection of wisdom.”
With this the Conqueror stirred himself from his deep state of meditation. He turned to
the great warrior, to the realized one, Loving Eyes, the lord of power, and blessed his
words, saying, “True.” “True,” he said, and “True” again.
“Thus it is, O Son of Good Family, and thus it is, O Son of Good Family, and thus
is it. One should follow the profound perfection of wisdom just as you have
taught it. Every one of Those Gone Thus rejoice in your words as I do.”
And when the Conqueror had spoken thus, the junior monk Shariputra took joy, and the
warrior, the realized one. Loving Eyes took joy as well.
8
And all the assembled disciples took joy, and so did the entire world with its pleasure
beings, and its men, and jealous pleasure beings, and spirits too-take joy. All sang their
praises of what the Conqueror had spoken.6
THE LOGIC OF EMPTINESS
After the spread of the Mahayana teaching of the Prajnyaparamita, came the
great sage Nagarjuna. He built a system of logic and meditation by extracting the
most powerful and basic logic that could be derived from the teachings of
emptiness. His school was called Madhyamika,7 essentially. While there are a
couple of variants to the school, we will skip to the core meaning of Nagarjuna’s
teaching. What this sage did is revolutionary in the history of world thought, for
all ages. Our idea of philosophy is that some very intelligent and perceptive
individual or group of individuals builds a group of assertions based on some
observations as well as some assumptions. Thus we have what we call
“philosophical systems.” However, have we not just observed that what we term
“mental events,” thoughts and emotions, are part of the conditioned world?
Thoughts, and philosophical systems being constructed of thought, cannot
transcend thinking. Thinking is part of the bind of the mind that is trapped by
samsara, the circle of birth and death. This is not to say that thinking should not
happen, or that it does not happen. It is saying that thought and concept is not
truly a reliable avenue to ultimate reality.
How can any sage, no matter how brilliant, take us beyond thought? 8In this
way, the aim of debate it to show our own opponent that they are holding ideas
that are either illogical or contradictory. It is not a matter of my putting forth
propositions, but more of debunking the opponent’s based on his own beliefs. In
this way, the teaching that Nagarjuna developed shows us, by using the logic of
the relative world, that things are not the way we think. If we think that things
6
Please note that the paraphrase body is in Arial type; insertions in Book Antiqua type
are my additions for clarity of meaning. This version of the Heart Sutra has been modified from
the version translated by Geshe Michael Roach of the Asian Classics Input Project. Any errors
and misunderstanding reflected therein are, therefore, the responsibility of the author of this
essay.
7
The Madhyamika developed through layers upon layers of commentary by authors such
as Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Chandrakirti, and so on.
8
This is what makes the Madhyamika so interesting. I will mention as a parenthetical
note that one of the brilliant rules of Buddhist debate is that if I am debating, I could never
introduce a proposition that my opponent does not believe or does not agree with. For example,
were I to say: “Take the Sun, it is yellow,” and my opponent said: “I do not agree with this.” I might
have to pull back. If the topic of interest is the sun, I could say: “Take the Sun, it radiates light,” or
“Take the Sun, it is round.” If the quality of interest is color, I might start “Take marigolds, they are
yellow.” Now my opponent might say, “yes.” Now I can build from there. I’d say most of the
religious, ethical, and even political arguments in the West are due to a lack of respect to the
opponent’s belief system, their reality, to start with.
9
are self-existing and eternal, he shows us that they are not. Then if we turn
around and say, “then things do not exist.” He can show us that they certainly exist
in some manner because they function (that is, they appear to us), and so on. This
teaching is basically designed to throw a monkey wrench on the mind that
makes propositions about external reality.
If we were curious as to how this would look using formal logic, let us look at the
following propositions (often called the tetralemma or four propositions):
~[ +(a exists) or ~(a exists) ]
does not exist.
It is not the case that either (1) a exists or (2) a
~{ [ +(a exists) and ~(a exists) ] or ~[ +(a exists) and ~(a exists) ] } neither
is it the case that (3) both are true, nor is it the case that (4) both are not true.
We can apply this to any statement: growing, starting, ceasing, and so on. When
we analyze these propositions, they leave us unable to make any verbal or
intellectual statement about reality. And that is the point of Madhyamika. We
might ask: “What is left?” We are left with an impression of crazy logic. What use
is this system that leads us to be unable to assert anything? The Madhyamika is
strong training for the mind that is addicted to the fiction that there is some sort
of reality behind the curtains of what is experienced. This leads us to seek the
only avenue that will really bring us the real “emptiness,” which is not merely an
intellectual concept or some clever verbal game. It leads us to the actual
experience of the open dimension of being that the Prajnyaparamita seeks to
bring us to. We need at some point to leave the movement of thought behind,
which could never reach that shore, and, within the practice of meditation, reach
the shore of being, what the Dzogpachenpo9 call the Nature of Mind.
THE PRACTICE OF VIPASYANA
Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche speaks of the shared practice of Vipasyana in all
the Buddhist schools in the context of Mahamudra instruction. His book is an
eminently readable presentation of the teachings contained in the more abstruse
manual of Mahamdura practice composed by Takpo Tashi Namgyal in the 16th
This term describes a practitioner of Dzogchen, the highest teaching of the Nyingma
lineage. Also of Mahamudra, the practice of what is called the New Translation schools, and most
notably of the Kagyu, called the practice lineage. What comes about from this training is a constant
presence in the stream of being, beyond thought and appearance.
9
10
century. He tells us that the word “vipasyana” means literally “to see intensely” in
the Sanskrit.
It is remarked that in the traditional sequence, the emptiness of persons is taught
before the emptiness of objects. We must remember that this means, “the relative
and interdependent nature of persons is taught before the relative and interdependent
nature of dharmas (i.e. objects).” In the first part of this paper we were discussing
primarily logical definitions. Now we are looking at how intellectual study and
search support meditation. He states that it is easier to teach the emptiness of
persons, because we can more easily see how unstable and passing mental
phenomena are. Once we have established the impermanence of mind and of the
person, it is easier to proceed to the emptiness of dharmas (or objects).
THE “COMMON SENSE” NATURE OF OBJECTS IN THE WEST
Now, this is interesting, because most Westerners would probably feel that we
can more easily accept the emptiness (or relative and caused) nature of the
external world, than the emptiness of our own person. The person or personality
which we often called the “self” (whether composed by factors or a “soul”)
means some sort of identity and not, as in classical Buddhism, the atman. I may
be wrong, but it seems to me that we are more accustomed to accept physical
material things as impermanent and empty of essential being. This may be partly
so because most of us accept the scientific theory of the atom. There is lots of
evidence to this fact.
I am reminded of the famous example of Eddington’s table. Eddington, a physicist,
commented on the dual nature of objects. He would say “I see this table as a solid
object. I run my hand against it and it stops it; I can rub my hand on it and clean it.” On
the other hand he states that he “knows” at another level that this seemingly solid
object is composed of atomic particles. The atoms, as we know, actually have
more space between them than matter. The nucleus is surrounded by what we
now term an “electron cloud” with more distance between them in proportion to
size than a baseball in the area of a baseball field. Therefore, the “solid” effect is
the effect of experiencing the electromagnetic repulsion between the atoms of my
hand, and the atoms of the table. Further scientific discoveries have done nothing
but expand even further on the non-solidity of physical objects. We have not
commonly accepted the possibility, however, that this might either be an everreceding horizon, or that there is no matter, no solidity, any anything behind
these patterns except for the patterns themselves! This may be so whether the
ultimate is atoms, electrons, sub-atomic particles, quarks, mesons, busons, and
others, or strings and superstrings, or whatever model emerges next. Of course,
these models and theories are intellectual constructions, no matter how refined
11
or accurate they turn out to be. In case we forget: the next model that emerges in
the future will, inevitably, also be a conceptual construction.
THE “COMMON SENSE” UNDERSTANDING OF
THE PERSON IN THE WEST
On the other hand, us Westerners and our science have not penetrated too
deeply into the nature of who we might truly be. We have relegated the study of
the personality to psychology. While the ordinary person does not give too much
thought to the workings of their psyche, it has been long accepted that our
personality is composed of parts, and is not one single unitary thing.
Psychological science sees the human personality as a composite of factors,
biological as well as psychological. There is controversy as to how much of a role
biology plays in the workings of our personality as opposed to our learning and
mental functions, which are sometimes compared to “software.” Everyone agrees
that it is probably a combination of psychological (or mental) and biological
(including genetic, biochemical, and so on) factors. Essentially, practically all
definitions of mental disturbance describe some sort of imbalance or conflict
between different aspects of the personality even when the genesis may be
biological10. Purely biological approaches still see mental events as a product of
biological and biochemical mechanisms, and thus caused by multiple factors.
Interestingly, however, psychology has not delved too deeply into our own sense
of being a solid person or an identity. The study of pure awareness as such is nonexistent in psychology, and it is only the neurological sciences that interest
themselves in awareness itself or in levels of consciousness and so on. Generally it
is held that we are either our brains or our self-image, often called our identity,
and things are left at that.
The other potent factor in our Western approach to the person is that of the
prophetic religions, generically called the People of the Book, particularly
Christianity, although Judaism and even Islam also have played a significant
role. While our culture has on the whole embraced scientific and rational ways of
thinking we do not too often apply these when we relate to ourselves as persons
in our everyday lives.
It is generally taken for granted that there are two possibilities and two
possibilities only: One is the materialist assumption, which is basically nihilistic,
and the other could be called a religious or a variant of the eternalist assumption,
For example, in the case of the schizophrenias which are almost universally regarded as
biological, we generally diagnose according to cognitive and affective sysmptoms. These signs at
a higher order than biochemistry. For example, hallucinations, delusions, blunting of affect,
looseness of associations, identity disturbances are all at what we consider the mental level. Even
if we used a CAT scan to diagnose the illness, we still observe these signs clinically.
10
12
which is the deist assumption. The materialistic assumption takes the position
that all mental phenomena are exclusively derived from material events. In this
framework, mental events emerge as a property of matter as the complexity of
matter becomes significant enough; thus life and mentation are termed emergent
properties of matter. Life and mind are said to be inherent in the properties of
matter, even at the lowest level, and to emerge as the level of complexity becomes
great enough. Consciousness emerges from the brain, as a flame comes from the
burning of a candle. In this model, my mind is dependent on material events
and, therefore, ceases completely after death, which is the term for the complete
cessation of my biological processes. The other assumption, and one which might
actually create more problems, is the religious and theistic (God based) belief
that individuals have a unitary and eternal self-existing essence as the core of
their being, often called their “soul” or “immortal soul.” Interestingly, in the
Buddha’s time this assumption was known and debated; it was called the
Ishvarist belief named after the Hindu creator-god Ishvara. In this model it is
believed that the mind is a function of the soul even if it mutually interacts with
the body. This soul is considered to be eternal, and unitary, of one substance, not
dependent on any causes that maintain it (even though it is believed to have
depended on God for its creation at some undetermined time before birth,
probably at conception11). This is what would be considered a variant of the
eternalist assumption. I believe that it is due to these unconscious assumptions
that it might be easier for Westerners, at least superficially, to be able to accept
more easily initially the emptiness of material phenomena. It will be interesting
to see Thrangu Rinpoche’s description of the role of an analysis of both mind and
appearances in meditation.
EMPTINES IN VIPASYANA MEDITATION
On of the first things pointed out by Thrangu Rinpoche regarding this topic is
that we must realize that anything we experience is, in fact, experienced by
mind. This is so regardless of what scheme of experience we use. In the Buddhist
tradition our physical organs of experience are defined by five sense organs,
which are: eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body (skin and touch). There are five
It goes without saying that this belief that the soul’s “life” begins at conception is at the
root of the battles we are experiencing today around the issues of abortion, contraception and so
on, vs. the assumptions of the “pro-choice” position. These assumptions are rarely made explicit
in political debates, since they are metaphysical beliefs. The code name “life” is used to cover an
aggressive stance toward other beliefs, and the code name “choice” often hides materialist
assumptions. Both assume that their assumption is the only possible way to conceive of “life.” If
we disagree with this point, it goes without saying also that we must be aware of the reality of
the “pro-life” individual, since arguing for an alternative reality will not undermine this position.
The only chance is showing the person the illogical nature of their position itself, using their very
beliefs (for example, believing in the death penalty but not in abortion, or war as a tool of
progress but not abortion, and so on).
11
13
corresponding consciousnesses, one for each sense, and then the sixth, the mental
consciousness, also called mind (meaning the faculty that perceives our thoughts
and the mental aspect of emotions, as well as sensory information from the other
five consciousnesses). For each organ of perception there is a consciousness that
exists and arises as a mental phenomenon (one for visual, one for sound, and so
on). Therefore there are five sense organs and six consciousnesses. Taking this
into account we easily see that anything we experience is actually experience by
mind. Let us maintain for now, as we usually do in everyday life, that there is
some sort of “external” physical world that impacts the senses. Once stimulated,
the energy of this impact or interaction is then transmitted through some
mechanism (which we assume is an external physical brain) to the mind. For us
to be conscious of an object, a sensation, and so on, we are first conscious of a
mental event (from one or more of the sense consciousnesses). Initially this is a
raw sensory impression, then the higher functions synthesize that into an object
with a name and a place in our world based on past experience. In biology we
think of this as the sense organs then “reporting” to the different sensory areas of
the brain, and then all this information being synthesized in the cortex
somewhere emerging as consciousness. Therefore, we have constructed a world
based on sensations that we interpret as the “external” world, but is a collage
made of sensation reflected in the mind. We call “material” what is experienced by
the first five consciousnesses, and “mental” what is experienced by the sixth. Indeed,
our sense ranges create narrow windows for our “world.”
For example, we know from science that light exists as infrared (very low
frequency) and ultraviolet (very high frequency). Both are electromagnetic
emissions, or light, but we do not see these, while we see the middle range of
frequencies. If we use, for example “night goggles” we see in a different way. On
the other hand, for example, bats only “see” by emitting sounds that then bounce
off objects. What is it that bats “see?” Do they actually perceive some sort of
image created from the sounds that bounce back? How do they experience this
sonar map of the world? We do not know. The world we experience is abstracted
from a huge, probably infinite, amount of information we do not perceive. What
we take from granted as the “external world” is a composite of the experiences of
these six consciousnesses, and is created by the mind (the sixth). If you saw the
movie The Matrix (please consider only the first one, not the sequels), you saw a neat
presentation of how that reality is created. In the movie, a computer feeds signals
directly into the brain and creates a synthetic reality. If we return for a moment
to the assumption that all we experience corresponds to a world “out there” we
can explore the notion that this is just that, an assumption. It is perhaps a logical
extension of our experience, that behind our mental perceptions there is something
that creates them or triggers them. Truly, however, on further thought all we know
is what we directly experience, and are ultimately unable to say anything certain about
what we do not experience. This “world out there” we postulate is an assumption, a
14
construction, not something we experience directly. All we experience directly is
mind. This last observation will be important as we continue to discuss
vipasyana and its objects.
THE SELFLESSNESS OF PERSONS
We must reiterate now that what is referred to, as “the selflessness of persons” is
the lack of any uncaused separate self-existing nature to persons. This does not
deny the existence of a person that has my name that is writing this right now,
but it challenges the idea that this is a person that exists as unchanging and is
independent of causes and conditions. Thrangu Rinpoche points out that if you
look at what a person considers “me,” it varies from person to person. Some
people think of “me” as their body, others as their mind. Other people may think
as certain aspects of their mind only as “me,” and so on. The same goes for the
concept of “mine.” In one sense there are only groupings of phenomena, some of
which society allows us to use in exclusivity. This is the concept of property, of
“mine.” Some people might think “I am my soul, and my mind and my body are
‘mine;’ they are not me but belong to me.” The materialist thinks, “my body and the
mental functions supported by the brain is me and that is all there is to it. Once dead, it
will all be gone.” Most of us think “I am angry,” and not “there is anger” or “I have
anger.” In the first case we are more identified with the emotions that we take to
be solid, unchanging, the same as our atman which is an important point in
meditation. One of the main reasons to understand emptiness is that, as we
observe emotions rise and disappear, we see (and intimately experience) the
transient and conditioned nature of them, and we eventually become freed from
their control. This occurs, of course, as part of the practice and profound view of
meditation and not as some shallow psychological trick. Bearing this in mind, it
might be of interest to see a psychological exercise developed by Italian
psychiatrist Roberto Assagioli:
“I put my body into a comfortable and relaxed position with closed eyes. This done, I
affirm:
“I have a body but I am not my body.
My body may find itself in different conditions of health or sickness; it may be rested or
tired, but that has nothing to do with my self, my real ‘I’. My body is my precious
instrument of experience and of action in the outer world, but it is only an instrument. I
treat it well; I seek to keep it in good health, but it is not myself.
I have a body but I am not my body.
I have emotions, but I am not my emotions.
These emotions are countless, contradictory, changing, and yet I know that I always
remain I, my-self, in times of hope or of despair, in joy or in pain, in a state of irritation
or of calm. Since I can observe, understand and judge my emotions, and then
increasingly dominate, direct and utilize them, it is evident that they are not myself.
15
I have emotions, but I am not my emotions.
I have desires, but I am not my desires.
Desires are aroused by drives, physical and emotional, and by outer influences. Desires
too are changeable and contradictory, with alternations of attraction and repulsion.
I have desires but they are not myself.
I have an intellect, but I am not my intellect.
It is more or less developed and active; it is undisciplined but teachable; it is an organ of
knowledge in regard to the outer world as well as the inner; but it is not myself.
I have an intellect, but I am not my intellect.12
This is not the complete exercise, but it is the part suggestive of the point we are
discussing. As a last consideration, when we discuss the selflessness of objects,
we keep in mind that since it is our mind that perceives phenomena, all
phenomena are also interdependently determined, since the mind is. It is only
mind that we are in direct contact with! This is, in fact, what is to be elucidated in
meditation.
THE SELFLESSNESS OF PHENOMENA
One more we remind ourselves that the selflessness we refer to is the lack of any
substantial, concrete, permanent, uncaused nature. In other words, phenomena
also lack self-existence and are, therefore, empty in this sense.
There are many logical arguments showing the lack of self-existent nature of
objects. These go along the lines that all physical objects are composed of parts
(and these parts, in turn, of more parts). There are also arguments that explore
what is happening when we think something begins, or something ends. For
example, does a plant really come from a seed? Then again, where else would it
come from? Does the seed gradually disappear as the bud of a plant appears? At
what exact point is there no more seed, or an all-plant thing? Is there an exact
point? On the other hand, if I look at the plant pot one day, it is just seed in dirt
and if I look again a week or two later, it is a sprout. These are just given as
examples of the logical aspect of exploration. There is an excellent book covering
a classic text on the subject13. It explores in detail the process of reaching this
conclusion. My favorite chapter is the analysis of a car (used to be a chariot, but
we are being modern). For example, I could replace the wheels of my car one
day, then the hood the next day, then another day the glass windows, the
different parts of the engine, and all other parts until one day there was not a
12
13
From the book Psychosynthesis by Roberto Assagioli.
Emptiness Yoga, by Jeffrey Hopkins, Wisdom Publications.
16
single solitary part that was an original part in my car. We could say that it is the
same car, and that its parts have been replaced (isn’t that what happens to
virtually all the cells in our body in time?). On the other hand we cannot really
strictly say is the same car (someone could take all the removed parts stored in y
garage and assemble another car). We also cannot say it is not the same car (just
as I am considered the same person that was once five years old), since I have
been driving it around all the time, and calling it “my car.” The car is not the
wheels alone, nor the motor, nor anything else. So, therefore, I cannot say that it is
true this is my car, nor can I say it is true that this is not my car. Further I cannot really
claim that it both is and isn’t my car because things either are something or they are not
something; it has to be either my car or not. I also cannot really deny that it both is and
isn’t my car, not really (remember the Tretralemma?). All the parts together are
called a car, but there is nothing apart from these parts, although mentally we
overlay something called “a car” that owns these parts and has its own selfexistence. These are not just thoughts in the ordinary sense, but the reflexive
ways in which I relate to reality. These analyses helps us see that logically,
nothing in our world has self-existence. But these are not merely idle
speculations. They are ways to get the mind to reach the point where only direct
seeing is what can be relied upon as an organ of reality. This seeing is called nonconceptual because thoughts and concepts do not enter into this manner of
approaching reality. It is direct and it is the path as well as the goal of
meditation.
PART II: THE WAY OF THE YOGI
THE WAY OF THE LOGICIAN AND THE WAY OF THE YOGI
Now, so far the way we have been discussing emptiness, or the absence of any
self-existing self-caused essence, is the way of the logician, or what is called the
way of the scholar. It is the intellectual way to approach this emptiness. This
approach has a purpose. Its purpose, culminating in the logic of the Madhyamika
as mentioned before, is to allow the wheels and cogs of analysis and intellect to
ground to a halt through their own devices. By applying the various reasonings
of emptiness, we begin to see that the intellect cannot really reach this region.
Those of us enamored with thinking and analysis would ask: “What are we to do
then? How do we look for truth?” We might regard the Madhyamika as mere
sophistry, since we might be convinced that, no matter what, any approach to
truth, to reality, has to be framed in concept, in ideas, and in philosophies. Here
is where we tend to fall short in the West and, not to worry, we are in very good
company through the ages. Madhyamika analysis when properly applied will
actually complement the way of meditation, and give us confidence in the fact
that reality cannot be approached by the intellect. Ultimate reality cannot
actually be thought, it can only be encountered in Being.
17
We might say that reality can only be Be-ed, to invent another verb. If Be-ing is a
process and not a thing, then it can be Be-ed, just as walk-ing, a process done by
our legs, can be walked or wash-ing dishes by hand, a process done with our
hands, can be wash-ed. In actual reality, there are no concrete beings, there is legging, there is hand-ing and so on. Even a lamp or a table can be said to really be
our world lamp-ing or table-ing.
From here we reach the counterpart of the vast scholarly approach, which is the
simple and deep way of the kusulu, of the “simple” yogi14. The way of the yogi is
the way of direct experience, and here also is where it might be helpful to clarify
the way in which the same words are used in both these approaches.
While the word “emptiness” is used in the scholarly teachings to mean very
specifically (as it has been said before) “emptiness of an uncaused self-existing
essence,” the experiential meaning perhaps approaches it from a somewhat
different angle. When referring to the teachings of the Buddha, three Turnings of
the Wheel are talked about. In the first he taught about the Four Noble Truths,
and the way to the end of suffering. In this context, the early Buddhist schools
believed that there were certain self-existing items in the world. For example,
what is called the five skandhas or five heaps were believed by the early schools
to have existence from their own side. Also, the early Buddhists were atomists,
they believed there was a very tiny part to all matter composed in fact of eight
elements which included color, smell, taste, and so on. While objects themselves
were believed to be impermanent, atoms were believed to truly exist. In this
sense the early Buddhists are not that different from the average man in the
street under the influence of modern scientific beliefs (or we could say myths!).
We should remember also that the word atom did not mean what we mean
today. Our word atom comes from the Greek, from the word tomos which
means division, as in “tome I” for a book. Add to that word the letter “a,” and
you have a-tomos, or “not divisible” or “without division,” hence atom. In
modern science we now recognize that what we now call atoms are indeed
divisible into parts: nuclei (and these into protons and neutrons) and electrons. In
turn, the basic parts of the atom are then subdivisible into a number of subatomic
particles. The divisibility of matter in modern science now goes all the way down
to theoretical entities called strings and superstrings. The most fascinating aspect
Here we should not be misled. Most of the great yogis were also very learned in the
ways of logic and scripture. This goes to highlight, however, that no amount of scholarly learning
can reach the culmination of the Buddhist path. For us ordinary practitioners, however,
intellectual learning can serve both to dispel doubts about our experience, as well as to confirm
the legitimacy of our experience and our ability to communicate the teachings authentically. Even
then, it is only upon reliance on a living and authentic teacher in our lineage (our tradition) that
we are able to overcome self-deception and confusion.
14
18
of this in terms of our discussion is that these strings are theoretical, and we yet
seem to have no empirical confirmation of their functions or “existence.” It is
even possible that we have reached down to the smallest resolution of natural
observation we are physically capable of, and that anything in a smaller scale
may remain unobserved, so we might end up stuck with some mystery at this
level. The future will tell about that, since whenever science seemed to have
reached an impasse, new discoveries make the bottom drop out in some radical
manner. Either way, suffice it to say that the “atoms” of the early Buddhists were
a lot more like little leggo’s that made things.
The Buddha demolished the naïve belief in these little self-existing entities in the
Second Turning of the Wheel. This is the Heart Sutra. This is when he declared
unequivocally and radically that anything, anything at all, anything that we
perceive, anything that we think we are, anything any of the senses or the mind
(feeling and thought) can try to grasp, is all empty. If you have a question about
that, please reread the Heart Sutra as paraphrased here, or in its original version.
This was a radical step.
Now, from the point of view of the yogi, the emptiness of what seems the
external world, called the world of appearance, is approached from the angle of
the emptiness of the mind, which could also be called the emptiness of self. To
remind ourselves, we are not referring to an “empty mind” as we would
ordinarily would speak of an "empty head." Neither are we proposing that in the
emptiness of the mind no sensations, thoughts or emotions arise. What is said
again is that this utter lack of self-existing substantiality applies to the mind, to
thought formations, and to emotions. One extremely important fact is a fact that
is extremely difficult to begin to face seriously, but one that can only be lived
through the practice of meditation, of observing the mind and its functioning.
This fact is that everything we call material as well, is only known through the mind.
There is a real danger here that the reader, if not a practitioner, will dismiss this
by saying “well, of course we experience through the mind or the senses, but there is a
world ‘out there’ that is reflected.” This would be doing a complete 180 degree
falling right into the extreme of eternalism: there is something substantial and
self-existing behind our sensory experience. The opposite argument would be
just as off the mark: “since all we experience is mind, there is nothing anywhere
outside of mind.” This would fall into the extreme of nihilism (which is often the
position of what is called idealism in Western philosophy). Now, based in the
Second Turning of the Wheel, there was a school prior to the Madhyamika. This
was called the Citamattra, or Mind Only School. The Mind Only School states that
since there is only Mind perceiving and creating all phenomena, all is mind. The
sage Madhyamika counter is: "if you say that all is Mind, how do you prove that all is
indeed Mind"? If you point to experience, all you can point to is experience itself, call it
mind or not, and such a Mind would not be able to validate itself by looking at itself just
19
like the eye cannot see itself as it sees. Therefore, this unverifiable Mind is something we
cannot say anything about because it is outside of verifiable experience." Anything we
see is not Mind, but some impermanent manifestation, as taught by the Buddha
in this second turning.
The radical statement then by the Madhyamika was that nothing can be said
about reality, it can only be known by being. Reality cannot be thought about
ultimately, although we use words to describe it. No mental picture is it, because
the picture is impermanent and temporary. The only way reality is known is in
Being, beyond even the perceiver or the perceived.
Now, there was a Third Turning of the Wheel, and to grossly generalize, this was
the teaching of Buddha Nature. It seems that the mere teaching of emptiness led
too easily to nihilistic notions. In fact, this consideration is a big part of our
motivation for writing this essay. There is something called The Nature of Mind. It
is not mind, but its nature itself. When we observe the mind in meditation we can
see that the mind itself is empty in the sense that is flows, it comes up and ebbs
away. There is no location where these things come from, nor any place where
they go. All mental phenomena, including our experience of sensations that
create our “external material” world are the empty functioning of the sense
organs, reflected by the sense consciousnesses, plus the mind itself or mental
“eye.”15 Therefore, we see that mind is empty. This emptiness of the mind is, in
fact, what is Buddha Nature. It is not a dead emptiness, because all phenomena
both confusion and Buddhahood actually come from it. The difference between a
Buddha and an ordinary person is not that one has Buddha Nature and one
doesn’t, but how this nature is related to.
In his discussion of Mahamudra, Thrangu Rinpoche says: “If the mind were an
actual thing, it would be produced, it would eventually cease, and in between these two
moments, it would abide”16 (i.e. exist). And Takpo Tashi Namgyal himself,
discussing the essence of mind, quotes in his Manual:
“The venerated Gampopa wrote: The essence of the mind consists of three aspects:
essence, nature, and characteristics. Its essence consists of the state of clarity and nonconception, its nature is devoid of any substantive mode of arising, dwelling, and ceasing,
Cittamatra language is still used to explain the functioning of consciousness. Basically
there are five sense organs. These organs are activated by contact with their objects (for example
sound is the object of the ear, light of the eye, and so on). Each gives rise to a consciousness, the
seeing consciousness, the hearing consciousness, tasting consciousness, and so on. That makes
five consciousnesses, and a sixth is the mind, which apprehends the other five as well. All these
are then synthesized into a seemingly smooth experience as instruments blend into a harmonious
whole in a symphony.
16
Essentials of Mahamudra, p. 149.
15
20
and its characteristics refer to the dualistic appearances of cyclic existence and permanent
peace [samsara and nirvana].”17
By non-conception Gampopa is clearly stating that this realization has nothing to do
with any thought or concept, and it is a direct recognition or realization of this
nature. Having no arising as described, it means it is not born, and because it is
not born, it does not die. This is the heart of who or what we are. Not even a what,
though, just an isness. If we say it is, we are wrong, but if we say it isn’t we are
wrong as well.
LIVING EMPTINESS
It is hoped that two things can be accomplished by discussing this topic: The first
is that the logic of emptiness and the teachings of the Prajnyaparamita make
logical sense as well as take us beyond logic. The second aim is to leave the
reader with no uncertainty whatsoever that meditation and yogic practice under
the guidance of a qualified teacher is the royal and the only road to the living
understanding of emptiness18. Actual Dharma practice is indispensable in order
to truly be able to let go of the grasping of the notion of self, and of misperceived
impermanent things that causes suffering. This grasping is, in fact, the Second
Noble Truth, the truth of the cause of suffering. Practice and the living teacher
are irreplaceable as the means to ultimately attain the Buddhahood that will
allow us to be an instrument to help all beings.
In his book The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, Sogyal Rinpoche presents a more
direct and living description of the nature of mind. His words blaze with the fire
of realization; they please with the fragrance of the flower of the Nature of Mind.
He describes one experience of his master’s leading him to the recognition of this
nature:
“Suddenly he sprung on me a question with no answer: ‘What is mind?’ and
gazed intently deep into my eyes. I was taken totally by surprise. My mind shattered. No
words, no names, no thought remained—no mind, in fact, at all.
What happened in that astounding moment? Past thoughts had died away, the
future had not yet arisen; the stream of my thoughts was cut right through. In that pure
Mahamudra, by Takpo Tashi Namgyal, translated by Lobsang P. Lhalungpa, p. 214.
It is said that there are some very rare individuals who, due to extensive experience in
previous lives, are completely ripe for realization. This was the case of Garab Dorje, the founder
of the Dzogchen lineage. Garab Dorje received pith instructions in Dzogchen, sat down, and
when he got off his cushions was completely realized. Some Westerners imagine they can be like
this, and fall into the tremendous dangers of self-deception and ego inflation. Ordinary beings,
such as 99.99999 % of us are, need to receive extensive instructions and practice. We are fortunate
such teachings do exist for our benefit.
17
18
21
shock a gap opened, and in that gap was laid bare a sheer, immediate awareness of the
present, one that was free of any clinging. It was simple naked, and fundamental. And
yet that naked simplicity was also radiant with the warmth of an immense
compassion.”19
After the student has been fortunate enough to be introduced to the nature of
mind by the master, and prepared enough to receive such introduction, the rest
of the practice is the nurturing of this state. This is no mean project, and it can
take many years between the time of the initial and unstable insight to the time
when the recognition of this nature is robust and stable. Ultimately this stability,
with all the obscurations (emotional and intellectual barriers) dissolved, is what
is called buddhahood. That is why it is said in Tibetan: “Meditation is not
meditation, meditation is getting used to meditation” (or more literally: “meditation is
not; getting used to is”20). So there is ultimately nothing to be learned here. It is not
a matter of adding more condiments to the soup; it is a matter of stripping all the
varnish so that the wood may show in its natural beauty. The ordinary mind is
so full of distractions and grasping that the ultimate process is one of unlearning.
Learning in practice means the growing recognition that all manifestations are of
the nature of mind, and that even those things we ordinarily called “impurities”
and “confusion” as well as “external appearances” all come from this nature and
are manifestations of the unsulliable purity of this nature. This also involves
more and more relinquishing those habits of mind that see the world as
concretely self-existing and grasp these “external” and “concrete” objects,
mistaking them for the source of ultimate satisfaction.
Sogyal Rinpoche tells us more about this nature:
“…There is the very nature of mind, its innermost essence, which is absolutely and
always untouched by change or death. At present it is hidden within our own mind, our
sem [or superficial mind], enveloped and obscured by the mental scurry of our thoughts
and emotions. Just as clouds can be shifted by a strong gust of wind to reveal the shining
sun and wide-open sky, so, under certain special circumstances, some inspiration may
uncover for us glimpses of this nature of mind. These glimpses have many depths and
degrees, but each of them will bring some light of understanding, meaning, and freedom.
This is because the nature of mind is the very root itself of understanding, meaning, and
freedom. This is because the nature of mind is the very root itself of understanding. In
Tibetan we call it Rigpa, a primordial pure, pristine awareness, that is all at once
intelligent, cognizant, radiant, and always awake. It could be said to be the knowledge of
knowledge itself.”
19
20
The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, Sogyal Rinpoche, p. 42.
Oral communication by Sogyal Rinpoche.
22
“Saints and mystics throughout history have adorned their realizations with different
names and given them different faces and interpretations, but what hey are all
fundamentally experiencing is the essential nature of the mind. Christians and Jews call
it ‘God’; Hindus call it ‘the Self,’ ‘Shiva,’ ‘Brahman,’ and ‘Vishnu’; Sufi mystics name it
‘the Hidden Essence’. And Buddhists call it ‘buddha nature.’ At the heart of all religions
is the certainty that there is a fundamental truth, and that this life is a sacred
opportunity to evolve and realize it.”21
In his beautiful poetic style, Nyoshul Khenpo tells us that upon realization of our
true nature:
“An effortless compassion can arise for all beings who have not realized their true nature.
So limitless is it that if tears could express it, you could cry without end. Not only
compassion, but also tremendous skillful means can be born when you realize the nature
of mind. Also you are naturally liberated from all suffering and fear, such as the fear of
birth, death, and the intermediate state. Then, if you were to speak of the joy and bliss
that arise from this realization, it is said by the buddhas that if you were to gather all the
glory, enjoyment, pleasure, and happiness of the world and put it all together, it would
not approach one tiny fraction of the bliss that you experience upon realizing the nature
of mind.”22
Speaking of the actual being of the nature, Nyoshul Khenpo is even more poetic:
“Profound and tranquil, free from complexity,
Uncompounded luminous clarity,
Beyond the mind of conceptual ideas;
This is the depth of the mind of the Victorious Ones [the Buddhas].
In this there is not a thing to be removed,
Nor anything that needs to be added.
It is merely the immaculate
Looking naturally at itself.”23
WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE WE DISCUSSING?
If so far you are taking all that has been said in stride and may be thinking:
“interesting, I can see what it all means.” I will be greatly dismayed. What we are
discussing here may well be called the most important topic that will ever be
discussed. It is the most important topic that can ever be discussed because it goes
beyond any and all topics. It is not about a topic, but about the actual realization
of the real nature of all “topics.” This is a way of saying that it is the realization of
21
22
23
TTBLD, p. 47.
TTLBD, p. 363
TTBLD p. 49.
23
the true way in which you are. Its major implication is that, being free of grasping
of all that is truly not, you are free to be, and this freedom by implication has all
the characteristics the Masters describe (ordinarily called Buddhahood in its
ultimate expression).
Hopefully you are by now a little skeptical. You might not feel you “know it all”
or “understand it all.” This is hopeful, because then you are open. It is this
openness, this gap, that is the doorway to realization of this truth. It is not the
answer but the opening to “not-knowing.”
To give a few simple examples of the difficulty for any of us in realizing the true
nature of the mind: Suppose you met a fish and started discussing the nature of
water. You might say things like “this is mostly what you are made of. Not inside you,
not outside you, but both. You cannot see it, but without it you would not exist. It
extends in vast areas called oceans.” You should have one confused fish.
Or suppose you were talking to characters in a movie. You know the movement
is the rapid sequence of still after still frame. You tell them: “you felt like you went
from the store to your house, but actually you did not go anywhere, nor come from
anywhere. You look at the things in your world, but they all exist thanks to something
called ‘a screen’ that supports everything you hear. What creates the forms is called ‘a
light bulb’ and it is only the light reflected on the screen in all different manifestations of
form and color that makes your world.” How do we get this movie character to stop
paying attention to the objects in their world, and start noticing that the common
denominator of his entire world is this light? How could they ever perceive the
screen itself? One confused movie character.
To give one final example: suppose you are staying with your grandmother and
she asks you to check her attic. No one has been there for fifty years; no one
knows what if anything is in there. Now, the attic is completely dark, and you
have a bunch of flashlights you can use. Some have red light filters, some green.
Some project a square shape, some round, some are dim and some are brighter.
But they all one essential and identical quality underlying all of them, which is
light. Now you go and use a particular flashlight, and make a portion of the attic
visible. You are illuminating the existence of the attic. This is like our awareness
illuminating our world. This is what is spoken of as the luminosity of mind. The
color and shape of the flashlight is your karmically determined perceptions, but the
light itself is only light. No matter if the shape of the beam is square or round,
the color green or blue, it is light reflecting the conditions of the flashlight. What
you see in the attic is your world. This is the luminosity of the mind. Luminosity
does not mean that you see lights or sparks or anything else when you realize the
nature of mind. Luminosity refers to the fact that the world of the attic is
illuminated, in fact,in a sense, created by the illumination. After you shut the door to
24
the attic, there is no way to say how the attic really is, there is no really is. If a tree
falls in the forest, does it make a sound. No. If no one is there to have the
experience, sound, which is something a person perceives, does not exist. We
might have satellite photos of a tree changing positions on each take. Or we
might have left cameras that filmed the falling of a tree. But the motions of air
waves, dots on a piece of film, or electromagnetic patterns in a piece of magnetic
tape are not experience. The actual experiences of sound, or of sight, are not
external experiences, but what happens in my mind as the auditory or visual
consciousness is activated. Of course, we created a mental image of a tree falling
by asking the question itself “if a tree falls and there is no one there,” but one does
wonder whether anything can be said about that falling except something like:
“when I visited on Monday the tree was standing, and when I returned the following
week, the tree was down.” Or, “when I listened to the recording I heard the tree fall,” or,
“when I viewed the video, I saw the tree fall.” Makes you wonder. The nature of
mind is the source of all experience, and experience is of its nature. In the same
way, the emptiness of mind, and its luminosity are one and the same. Here we are
visiting the yogis experience of “form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.”
Now in all we have discussed we could say: “well the fish really has real water
around it, and the movie people have a real projection bulb in front, and a screen behind
them, and the attic really has stuff in it when I shut the door.” On the other hand,
really and truly, we have no reasonable way to say anything about anything
beyond the appearances we see (hear, smell, etc.). We only know directly what is.
IF THIS IS SO SIMPLE HOW COME WE MISS IT?
IF THIS IS SO COMPLICATED HOW CAN WE PRACTICE IT?
I remember one time driving to retreat with a good friend. I shared with him:
“you know, in a way, when it comes to meditation, there is nothing to be done.” His
answer shot back: “If there is nothing to be done, how come I am busting my ass
driving to retreat?” Point well taken, and effort appreciated. I was unable to
answer him on that day. Later the thought came to me: It is not that we have to do
anything fundamentally. Actually, it is that we are in such a deeply ingrained mental
habit of doing (of planning, creating ideas, judging, and so on) that the only way we can
uncoil this mess is by learning to drop, let go of, doing (but to Be) interiorly.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche once described meditation as “Mind suspended in
the middle of nowhere.” Pema Chodron, one of his senior students, says he once
confided in her saying,“it is a great relief knowing that you don’t have to do
anything.”
Sogyal Rinpoche describes what is called the “ four faults”. These defects, of
course, are relative to our confused mind that cannot see its own nature:
25
“The teachings speak of the four faults, which prevent us from realizing the nature of
mind right now:
1. The nature of mind is just too close to be recognized. Just as we are unable to see our
own face, mind finds it difficult to look into its own nature.
2. It is too profound for us to fathom. We have no idea how deep it could be; if we did,
we would have already, to a certain extent, realized it.
3. 3. It is too easy for us to believe. In reality, all we need do is simply to rest in the
naked, pure awareness of the nature of mind, which is always present.
4. It is too wonderful for us to accommodate. The sheer immensity of it is too vast to fit
into our narrow way of thinking. We just can’t believe it. Nor can we possibly
imagine that enlightenment is the real nature of our minds.” 24
THE NATURE OF MIND
In writing about the nature of mind, Padmasambhava, Guru Rinpoche, Tibet’s
second Buddha wrote:
This self-originated Clear Light, which from the very beginning was never born,
Is the child of Rigpa25, which is itself without any parents—how amazing!
It has never experienced birth and has nothing in it that could cause it to die—how
amazing!
Although it is evidently visible, yet there is no one there who sees it—how amazing!
Although it has wandered through samsara26, no harm has come to it—how amazing!
Although it has seen budhahood itself, no good has come to it—how amazing!
Although it exists in everyone everywhere, it has gone unrecognized—how amazing!
And yet you go on hoping to attain some other fruit than this elsewhere—how amazing!
Even though it is the thing that is most essentially yours, you seek for it elsewhere—how
amazing!27
THE POWER OF THE UNDERSTANDING OF EMPTINESS
We have covered the concept of emptiness as it is presented in Buddhism. We
have seen that there is a conceptual approach, of logic, that ultimately leads to
the exhaustion of the very process of logic itself. We then leapt into emptiness as
it is understood from the point of view of experience. Here is where the heart of
Buddhism is. The teachings are not an academic exercise, but a very realistic
24
25
TTBLD, p. 50
1 Rigpa is a term for the wisdom mind as opposed to sem, the busy confused monkey-
mind.
Samsara is this seemingly solid world of things, and its rounds of beginning and end,
life and death, birth and death and rebirth. It is not a place, but the world created by the grasping
mind.
27
TTBLD pp. 259-60.
26
2
26
endeavor leading to the end of all unnecessary suffering. The insight that all
phenomenal appearances are all unreliable and passing is central to an
individual’s capacity to free themselves from self-forged chains. These chains are
created first from a misapprehension of the nature of the objects that present
themselves in experience. Then, believing these objects to be permanent and
inexhaustible, we develop a flawed strategy for happiness28 that bases itself in
grasping things that promise pleasure, and avoiding things that promise to be
unpleasant. To quote Nyoshul Khenpo one last time:
The nature of everything is illusory and ephemeral
Those with dualistic perception regard suffering as happiness,
Like those who lick the honey from a razor’s edge.
How pitiful they who cling strongly to concrete reality:
Turn your attention within, my heart friends.29
The great Sufi mystic Rumi, using entirely different imagery, speaks to us of this
truth in one of his poems:
THE QUESTION
“One dervish to another, What was your vision of God’s presence?
I haven’t seen anything.
But for the sake of conversation, I’ll tell you a story.
God’s presence is there in front of me, a fire on the left,
a lovely stream on the right.
One group walks toward the fire, into the fire, another
toward the sweet flowing water.
No one knows which are blessed and which not.
Whoever walks into the fire appears suddenly in the stream.
A head goes under on the water surface, that head
pokes out of the fire.
Most people guard against going into the fire,
and so end up in it.
Those who love the water of pleasure and make it their devotion
are cheated with this reversal.
The trickery goes further.
The voice of the fire tells the truth saying, I am not fire.
I am fountainhead. Come into me and don’t mind the sparks.
If you are a friend of God, fire is your water.
You should wish to have a hundred thousand sets of mothwings,
so you could burn them away, one set a night.
The moth sees light and goes into fire. You should see fire
Abbot Thomas Keating, the Abbot founder of the Catholic Centering Prayer movement
used to call this way of functioning our “projects for happiness.”
29
TTBLD, p. 31.
28
4
27
And go toward light. Fire is what of God is world-consuming.
Water, world-protecting.
Somehow each gives the appearance of the other. To these eyes
you have now, what looks like water
burns. What looks like fire
is a great relief to be inside.
You’ve seen a magician make a bowl of rice
seem a dish full of tiny, live worms.
Before an assembly with one breath he made the floor swarm
with scorpions that weren’t there.
How much more amazing God’s tricks.
Generation after generation lies down, defeated, they think,
but they’re like a woman underneath a man, circling him.
One molecule-mote-second thinking of God’s reversal
of comfort and pain is better
than any attending ritual. That splinter
of intelligence is substance.
The fire and water themselves:
accidentals, done with mirrors.”30
Insight into the deviousness of the pursuit of pleasure and the pushing away of
pain, which is the truth of emptiness, along with an earnest understanding of the
workings of the law of karma, lead us in the direction of altruism. This gives us
the actual power to increasingly be less controlled by the hopes and fears of the
confused mind. This does not happen overnight, but it is an endeavor that can be
completed within one lifetime. Such is the power of this realization of emptiness,
an insight that is not intellectual, but a deeply lived understanding.
A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE NATURE OF YOUR MIND
Many of us often lament: “If only I knew what to do.” “If only I could have a sign.”
Please consider this the sign you have been asking for: You are not reading this
by accident. Just as other events emerge when the karmic seeds of their causes
ripen into fruition, so the fact that you have been fortunate enough to be exposed
to the Buddhist teachings is no accident. You are fortunate first of all to be a
human being under your circumstances and, second, to live in a time and place
where the Buddhist teachings are abundantly available as they now are in the
West. Therefore, if the study of emptiness or the Dharma is to be more than an
intellectual pastime, it is essential that one follow a qualified teacher and practice
sincerely. What is at stake is no less than your complete freedom and, perhaps
even more importantly, that in this freedom you can, in turn, be of immeasurable
help to countless others.
From The Essential Rumi. Translations by Coleman Barks with John Moyne. The Question:
In Rumi’s Mathnawi: V, quatrains 420-55. Page 97 in Barks’ collection. Harper Collins.
30
28
Sarvanmangalam!
29