Produced by root cause and conditions because of the realization of the illusory nature of phenomena. The root cause of this realization is the two accumulations of merit and wisdom. The contributing circumstance, or necessary condition, is the teachings of the precious teacher; and
Nonexistent when examined because actually there is not even illusion; all phenomena, existence, nonexistence, truth, and untruth are great emptiness.
According to this view, the essence of absolute truth (Don.dam bden.pa)c is the dharmadhatu which is beyond all activity. Within absolute truth there are no distinctions because absolute truth is free from all mental activity. Sublime beings have the true realization that the essential characteristic of absolute truth is freedom from all mental activity, while ordinary philosophers and people who do not have this realization only guess at the meaning of absolute truth. For this reason, the Buddha taught two systems of absolute truth:
The absolute truth of enumeration (rNam.grangs don.dam bden.pa). According to the higher Svantantrika school (Rang.rgyud gong.ma), absolute truth is not explained by saying that all is just like mirage. Although there is really no truth to relative truth because absolute truth does not exist anywhere, in this system absolute truth can still be explained in relative terms as the absolute truth of enumeration by listing things as being great emptiness. For example: “Form is great emptiness, great emptiness is form, great emptiness is not different from form, form is not different from great emptiness.” In the same way that form is is explained, the other skandhas of feeling, perception, intention, and consciousness are explained. All together, these are called the “sixteen great emptinesses.”
The absolute truth without enumeration (rNam.grangs ma.yin.pa’i don.dam bden.pa). This system explains that the basis of understanding the nature of all phenomena is that it is separate from all activity, and that the wisdom of the Buddha is free from all enumeration.
According to the Prasangika (Thal.’gyur.ba) school of highest Madhyamika, in actual meditation, the absolute truth which is free from all mental activity is neither “absolute truth of enumeration” nor “absolute truth without enumeration”; there is no promise that absolute truth is anything.
Briefly, relative truth and absolute truth can be explained as follows. Inverted relative truth. This is the ordinary state of the individual who maintains with attachment the point of view that all phenomena are real, not illusory. For example the mirage of a beautiful actress created by a magician, to which the onlookers become attached, believing it is real, is like the phenomena which arise in one’s mind to which one becomes attached, believing they are real. This is an example of the view of the ordinary individual.
Actual relative truth. This is the sublime state of the realization of the illusory nature of all phenomena. With this realization, all attachment to phenomena as being real vanishes, but in one’s practice, there is still some attachment to this illusion because of previous habit. As one’s practice becomes higher, even though there is still illusion, one’s attachment to this illusion becomes less and less. For example, as the magician in a magic show is not attached to the beautiful actress whom he creates, so even if phenomena arise in the mind of a sublime being, there is no attachment to these phenomena as being real. This is the example of the view of the sublime being.
Absolute truth. This is the state of buddhahood in which there are neither phenomena nor absence of phenomena; neither conception of attachment nor of nonattachment. For example, one who is not affected by the apparitions, mirages, or mantras of the magician is like a buddha for whom there is neither attachment nor nonattachment. This is the example of the stage of buddhahood.
To summarize, absolute truth is the firm realization of the basic condition of the dharmata, the realization that all phenomena are beyond existing and not existing, eternalism and nihilism, being true or false, beyond all activity, and are free from the two extremes of knowing and not knowing.
The Prajñaparamita, the two truths of higher Madhyamika, and so on, all teach that relative truth is inseparable from absolute truth and absolute truth is inseparable from relative truth; in reality, there is only one truth.
For the Buddha’s wisdom mind, there is no difference between object and subject, but because the wisdom mind of ordinary individuals is obscured, we must practice systematically. We must understand that the basic condition of all phenomena is illusion. We must realize that actually it neither exists nor does not exist, but is like the sky. The understanding that ultimately the two truths are inseparable is the relative truth which is understood by the sublime mind.
The self-nature of the mind which understands relative truth is absolute truth, because if we examine the nature of the thoughts which arise in the mind, we will see that they do not exist anywhere: they neither exist nor do not exist, they are unobstructed, unborn, unceasing, not permanent, not coming, not going, their meanings are not distinct or separate, their meanings are not indistinct or nonseparate: they are completely beyond all activity. This is the dharmata, and this dharmata is the absolute truth. Outside, inside, shape, color, and so on, do not exist anywhere; all is like the sky.
Whoever realizes actual relative truth also realizes absolute truth, because actual relative truth and absolute truth are inseparable. Ultimately, there are not two truths, because in Dharmadhatu there is no basis for expression of the two truths. Buddhahood is Wisdom Mind within which there is no dualistic mind. Where there is no dualistic mind, there are no two truths. When we remain in natural Wisdom Mind or awareness of inseparable great emptiness and luminosity, there are not two truths, because this is Dharmadhatu.
3. VAJRAYANA
According to the higher Vajrayana, inverted relative truth is attachment to all phenomena as being ordinary reality. Actual relative truth is seeing all phenomena as transformed into wisdom deities and their purelands by visualizing or meditating. Thus, all phenomena cannot go beyond the great empty expanse of the Dharmadhatu: this is absolute truth.
From Thinley Norbu, The Small Golden Key (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1993), “The Two Truths.”
a Kun: all; rdzob: deceive or conceal; Kun.rdzob: conditional or relative; bden.pa: truth.
b Don: purpose, meaning; dam.pa: undeceived; bden.pa: truth
c The literal meaning of absolute truth (Don.dam bden.pa) is as follows. Don means purpose; the purpose is the attainment of liberation. Dam.pa means undeceived; with a good understanding of the nature of the mind, one is never deceived. bDen.pa means truth; the mind which is not mistaken, the natural mind which is undeluded and unchanging, is always true.
26
THE SUTRA OF THE HEART OF TRANSCENDENT KNOWLEDGE
Thus have I heard. Once the Blessed One was dwelling in Rajagriha at Vulture Peak mountain, together with a great gathering of the Sangha of monks and a great gathering of the Sangha of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Blessed One entered the samadhi that expresses the Dharma called “profound illumination,” and at the same time noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, while practicing the profound Prajñaparamita, saw in this way: he saw the five skandhas to be empty of nature.
Then, through the power of the Buddha, venerable Shariputra said to noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, “How should a son or daughter of noble family train, who wishes to practice the profound Prajñaparamita?”
Addressed in this way, noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, said to venerable Shariputra, “O Shariputra, a son or daughter of noble family who wishes to practice the profound Prajñaparamita should see in this way: seeing the five skandhas to be empty of nature.
Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are emptiness. Thus, Shariputra, all dharmas are emptiness. There are no characteristics. There is no birth and no cessation. There is no impurity and no purity. There is no decrease and no increase. Therefore, Shar
iputra, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no dharmas; no eye dhatu up to no mind dhatu, no dhatu of dharmas, no mind consciousness dhatu; no ignorance, no end of ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no nonattainment. Therefore, Shariputra, since the bodhisattvas have no attainment, they abide by means of Prajñaparamita. Since there is no obscuration of mind, there is no fear. They transcend falsity and attain complete nirvana. All the buddhas of the three times, by means of Prajñaparamita, fully awaken to unsurpassable, true, complete enlightenment. Therefore, the great mantra of Prajñaparamita, the mantra of great insight, the unsurpassed mantra, the unequaled mantra, the mantra that calms all suffering, should be known as truth, since there is no deception. The Prajñaparamita mantra is said in this way:
OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA
Thus, Shariputra, the bodhisattva mahasattva should train in the profound Prajñaparamita.”
Then the Blessed One arose from that samadhi and praised noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, saying, “Good, good, O son of noble family; thus it is, O son of noble family, thus it is. One should practice the profound Prajñaparamita just as you have taught and all the tathagatas will rejoice.”
When the Blessed One had said this, venerable Shariputra and noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, that whole assembly and the world with its gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas rejoiced and praised the words of the Blessed One.
From the Prajñaparamita literature, translated by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche and the Nalanda Translation Committee.
27
SHUNYATA
Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche
Cutting through our conceptualized versions of the world with the sword of prajña, we discover shunyata—nothingness, emptiness, voidness, the absence of duality and conceptualization. The best known of the Buddha’s teachings on this subject are presented in the Prajñaparamita-hridaya, also called the Heart Sutra; but interestingly in this sutra the Buddha hardly speaks a word at all. At the end of the discourse he merely says, “Well said, well said,” and smiles. He created a situation in which the teaching of shunyata was set forth by others, rather than himself being the actual spokesman. He did not impose his communication but created the situation in which teaching could occur, in which his disciples were inspired to discover and experience shunyata. There are twelve styles of presenting the Dharma and this is one of them.
This sutra tells of Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva who represents compassion and skillful means, and Shariputra, the great arhat who represents prajña, knowledge. There are certain differences between the Tibetan and Japanese translations and the Sanskrit original, but all versions make the point that Avalokiteshvara was compelled to awaken to shunyata by the overwhelming force of prajña. Then Avalokiteshvara spoke with Shariputra, who represents the scientific-minded person or precise knowledge. The teachings of the Buddha were put under Shariputra’s microscope, which is to say that these teachings were not accepted on blind faith but were examined, practiced, tried, and proved.
Avalokiteshvara said: “O Shariputra, form is empty, emptiness is form; form is no other than emptiness, emptiness is no other than form.” We need not go into the details of their discourse, but we can examine this statement about form and emptiness, which is the main point of the sutra. And so we should be very clear and precise about the meaning of the term “form.”
Form is that which is before we project our concepts onto it. It is the original state of “what is here,” the colorful, vivid, impressive, dramatic, aesthetic qualities that exist in every situation. Form could be a maple leaf falling from a tree and landing on a mountain river; it could be full moonlight, a gutter in the street, or a garbage pile. These things are “what is,” and they are all in one sense the same: they are all forms, they are all objects, they are just what is. Evaluations regarding them are only created later in our minds. If we really look at these things as they are, they are just forms.
So form is empty. But empty of what? Form is empty of our preconceptions, empty of our judgments. If we do not evaluate and categorize the maple leaf falling and landing on the stream as opposed to the garbage heap in New York, then they are there, what is. They are empty of preconception. They are precisely what they are, of course! Garbage is garbage, a maple leaf is a maple leaf, “what is” is “what is.” Form is empty if we see it in the absence of our own personal interpretations of it.
But emptiness is also form. That is a very outrageous remark. We thought we had managed to sort everything out, we thought we had managed to see that everything is the “same” if we take out our preconceptions. That made a beautiful picture: everything bad and everything good that we see are both good. Fine. Very smooth. But the next point is that emptiness is also form, so we have to re-examine. The emptiness of the maple leaf is also form; it is not really empty. The emptiness of the garbage heap is also form. To try to see these things as empty is also to clothe them in concept. Form comes back. It was too easy, taking away all concept, to conclude that everything simply is what is. That could be an escape, another way of comforting ourselves. We have to actually feel things as they are, the qualities of the garbage heapness and the qualities of the maple leafness, the isness of things. We have to feel them properly, not just trying to put a veil of emptiness over them. That does not help at all. We have to see the “isness” of what is there, the raw and rugged qualities of things precisely as they are. This is a very accurate way of seeing the world. So first we wipe away all our heavy preconceptions, and then we even wipe away the subtleties of such words as “empty,” leaving us nowhere, completely with what is.
Finally we come to the conclusion that form is just form and emptiness is just emptiness, which has been described in the sutra as seeing that form is no other than emptiness, emptiness is no other than form; they are indivisible. We see that looking for beauty or philosophical meaning to life is merely a way of justifying ourselves, saying that things are not so bad as we think. Things are as bad as we think! Form is form, emptiness is emptiness, things are just what they are, and we do not have to try to see them in the light of some sort of profundity. Finally we come down to earth, we see things as they are. This does not mean having an inspired mystical vision with archangels, cherubs, and sweet music playing. But things are seen as they are, in their own qualities. So shunyata in this case is the complete absence of concepts or filters of any kind, the absence even of the “form is empty” and the “emptiness is form” conceptualization. It is a question of seeing the world in a direct way without desiring “higher” consciousness or significance or profundity. It is just directly perceiving things literally, as they are in their own right.
We might ask how we could apply this teaching to everyday life. There is a story that when the Buddha gave his first discourse on shunyata, some of the arhats had heart attacks and died from the impact of the teaching. In sitting meditation these arhats had experienced absorption in space, but they were still dwelling upon space. Inasmuch as they were still dwelling upon something, there was still an experience and an experiencer. The shunyata principle involves not dwelling upon anything, not distinguishing between this and that, being suspended nowhere.
If we see things as they are, then we do not have to interpret or analyze them further; we do not need to try to understand things by imposing spiritual experience or philosophical ideas upon them. As a famous Zen master said: “When I eat, I eat; when I sleep, I sleep.” Just do what you do, completely, fully. To do so is to be a rishi, an honest, truthful person, a straightforward person who never distinguishes between this and that. He does things literally, directly, as they are. He eats whenever he wants to eat; he sleeps whenever he wants to sleep. Sometimes the
Buddha is described as the Maharishi, the Great Rishi who was not trying to be truthful but simply was true in his open state.
The interpretation of shunyata which we have been discussing is the view of the Madhyamika or “Middle Way” philosophical school founded by Nagarjuna. It is a description of an experiential reality that can never be accurately described because words simply are not the experience. Words or concepts only point to partial aspects of experience. In fact, it is dubious that one can even speak of “experiencing” reality, since this would imply a separation between the experiencer and the experience. And finally, it is questionable whether one can even speak of “reality” because this would imply the existence of some objective knower outside and separate from it, as though reality were a nameable thing with set limits and boundaries. Thus the Madhyamika school simply speaks of the tathata, “as it is.” Nagarjuna much preferred to approach truth by taking the arguments of other philosophical schools on their own terms and logically reducing them ad absurdum, rather than by himself offering any definitions of reality.
There are several other major philosophical approaches to the problems of truth and reality which preceded and influenced the development of the Madhyamika school. These lines of thought find their expression not only in the earlier Buddhist philosophical schools but also in the approaches of theistic Hinduism, Vedantism, Islam, Christianity, and most other religious and philosophical traditions. From the point of view of the Madhyamika school, these other approaches can be grouped together into three categories: the eternalists, the nihilists, and the atomists. The Madhyamikas viewed the first two of these approaches as being false, and the third as being only partially true.
The Dzogchen Primer Page 27
