Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche
Examination of Cause, the "Diamond Slivers"
the First Analysis of Madhyamaka to Explain Shunyata*
Published in Thar Lam, April 2007, pages 12-21.

Introduction

In the 2nd century C.E. the great Mahasiddha Nagarjuna founded the Middle Way School, meaning the middle way between assumptions about eternalism and nihilism. It was the most influential school of Indian Buddhism and has come to be known by its Sanskrit name Madhyamaka, U-ma in Tibetan. This school does hold that phenomena certainly exist on the conventional level while engaging in extensive refutations and proofs to establish that all phenomena - both internal mental events and external physical objects - are empty of inherent existence. To analyse the essence, Nagarjuna presented reasons that validly prove why sameness and difference of what would be said to be an inherently existing object are mutually exclusive. He showed that the true essence of all outer and inner appearances and experiences is
- devoid of a cause,
- devoid of a result,
- devoid of both cause and result, and
- that everything manifests as the mere appearance of interdependent arising.

Other than these four propositions of the way things can arise, there seems to be no conceivable way that something might arise and appear.
The first verse of "The Five Reasonings of Nagarjuna" introduces the four verses that follow, opening the gateway to knowledge, prajna in Sanskrit, shes-rab in Tibetan, for us. It describes the essence in the lines,

Since it is beyond the nature of being one or many,
Suffering has no inherent essence,
Like the suffering in a dream, for example.
The suffering in bardo is also like this. - Nagarjuna

In the 7th century, the great Mahasiddha Chandrakirti explained Nagarjuna's book, entitled Madhyamakavatara, in order to clarify the four logical reasons that Nagarjuna composed to explain the first verse, which speaks of the fact that the essence of all things is beyond one and many. In the last century, Mipham Rinpoche wrote The Gateway to Knowledge and in the chapter on "The Four Analyses" brought together the essential points of the many expositions about these proofs that need to be studied so that we understand the selflessness of both apprehending subject and apprehended objects - shunyata in Sanskrit, tong-pa-nid in Tibetan, translated as "emptiness." We need to know that if there were a self-essence, then liberation would be impossible, the reason why these instructions on selflessness, shunyata, are so precious, indeed.
Emptiness is not an idea that is easy to accept, therefore we will approach this topic from the standpoint of whether results arise from causes in order to see that, while phenomena certainly function according to a successive pattern, one condition arising out of another, nonetheless the actual arising itself can never be found, i.e., in the ultimate sense there is no reality that can arise. By engaging in careful analysis, we can gain an intellectual appreciation of emptiness, which is very useful. If we acknowledge emptiness intellectually and gain a philosophical appreciation, then we can develop faith and trust that meditation on emptiness is beneficial and does lead to realization.
In the Mahamudra and Dzogchen Meditation Traditions, it is considered very important to have won the correct view of the way things are and the way things appear. It is truly very difficult to just think about emptiness without having investigated properly. Without sufficient understanding of emptiness, a meditation practitioner can easily make the mistake of taking a slightly similar phenomenon as the result. If we have won a basic understanding of shunyata, then we will tend to make fewer errors in meditation practice. Examining the source of conditioned phenomena and understanding that existents successively arise in dependence upon causes and conditions, bare of any reality, enhance a deeper acknowledgement and appreciation for the truth of being-becoming and all this entails.
Madhyamaka philosophy teaches us to understand and differentiate between the conventional way things appear and function, the way things appear, and the ultimate nature of all things, the way things are. Should we only understand the first and not the latter, we could mistakenly cling to the false belief that things exist inherently and of their own accord. On the other hand, should we only understand the ultimate truth of emptiness and deny conventional appearances and experiences, we could mistakenly cling to the false belief in nihilism, thinking that everything is useless and that virtuous and unvirtuous actions, virtue and vice, are meaningless. Such an attitude leads an individual to turn his or her back on respecting the integral nature of conditioned existence and only shows an "emptiness of the mouth." The truth of emptiness does not contradict nor oppose conventional reality and it never interrupts or stops appearances from functioning according to causes and conditions when they prevail.

Four Diamond Slivers: Examination of Cause

Since it does not arise from itself, other,
Both of them, or without a cause,
Suffering does not arise.
Present suffering is also like this. -- Nagarjuna


1. Does a result arise from itself?

The first possibility we want to consider for something to arise is that it might have arisen from itself. But, having been what it was, a phenomenon no longer recurs after it no longer exists, and it certainly need not reduplicate itself. This can be illustrated by the example of a child: Once born, a child need not be born - an absurd supposition. If this notion is upheld, though, it would be conclusive that a result would merely be a repetition of one and the same thing, again and again, the duplicate necessitated to repeat itself in an uninterrupted repetition of being and not of becoming. This never happens. Should things reduplicate endlessly, nothing would ever become; every phenomenon would be itself. This is never the case, and therefore the assumption is unfounded. Take the example of a seed planted in the earth that grows into a sprout that eventually grows into a tree: Branches grow on the tree, leaves grow on the branches, fruits also spring forth that yield new seeds, that can be planted and grow into many new trees. We see that a cause, the initial seed, becomes something quite different and leads to a similar cause, a seed, but by the time this seed is what it has come to be, it is quite different than the first seed that was planted and has ceased existing a while ago. The new seed is similar but certainly not the same as the one that has ceased existing. This example shows that nothing arises from itself; things do not repeat themselves and become the same phenomenon.
There was a school of philosophy known as Samkhya in ancient India. They taught that things arise out of themselves by reproducing themselves. Even though this school is not widespread today, some people may come to a same conclusion all on their own. Looking at the clay a potter uses to make a pot: The clay is kneaded, turned, and formed into an object on the potter's wheel through the endeavour of the potter. Adherents of Samkhya would say that the clay is the same while the appearance has changed. They tried to prove their point of view by saying that a rice seed grows into a plant and later the rice seed appears again. The Samkhya School used these two examples to defend their position and insisted that although appearances undergo a change, phenomena remain the same. However, this can never be so. Why? Taking a rice seed as an example, the seed and sprout are obviously quite different; the seed is tiny and pale, the plant is tall and green. Should we think they are the same, we can just as well claim this of other phenomena that do not resemble each other in the least, just as a rice seed does not resemble the green plant that grew out of the seed, which exists no more when the plant has become a plant. Can we claim that water and fire are the same or vice and virtue are alike? Certainly phenomena just as dissimilar can never be said to be identical, as was asserted by Samkhya philosophers in the past.
Someone may wonder, "Well, doesn't the cyclic relationship of a rice seed and a rice plant imply that they are somehow the same?" The answer is, no, just like water that flows in a river is never the same as the river. Water is never the river, rather the term "river" connotes "continuously flowing water," and no substance can ever be found to rightfully be identified as flowing water, e.g., a river or stream. Without needing to resort to lengthy commentaries, even an illiterate person can see that a rice plant and a rice seed are not identical, that a cause and a result are never the same, and that the cause has ceased when the result appears. Every housewife knows that she cannot just look at a rice seed laying on the table and hope it will turn into a rice plant; the seed must be planted so that a plant can grow, in which case the initial seed has disintegrated. The same is true for everything that exists: In order for a result to unfold, the original cause can no longer be.
We understand that a source and a result can never be the same and that a source always ceases in the process that makes way for a result to arise. Without needing sophisticated logic, anyone can understand that a cause and result are never the same.


2. Does a result arise from a completely different cause, i.e., from something referred
to as "other" in the texts?

Let us consider the supposition that something arises from something different, from something totally distinct, like a child and its mother or a plant and a seed.
In conventional terms, a result looks different than its cause, but the idea that there is production from something completely "other" than the cause will not pass the test. Why? If cause and result were totally distinct and different, then the two would have to co-exist as distinct and separate in order to uphold their feature of being "other." Now, a cause needs to exist before its result can manifest; by the time a plant has become a plant, the seed is no more. We see that cause and result cannot co-exist, proof that they are different and distinct. Also, should a cause and result co-exist, how could the one be defined as a "cause" and the other as a "result" that never became what it is? If a mother and her child co-existed, how can there be birth? If two phenomena co-exist, how can the one be the source of the other? While identity is valid in a consistent relationship, a relationship that is "other" would have no consistency, i.e., a cause-and-effect relationship could never prevail between totally different entities. In such a case, plants could not only grow from seeds but also from iron, and darkness would be the feature of light. If "other" entailed an arbitrary relationship, i.e., if results were totally other than their sources, events could arise without any consistent pattern or structure. Since this is not the case, we can clearly see that the assumption that results are completely other than their cause is a fallacy.
Some people may argue that what was just stated does not prove that things do not arise from things that are completely different than a cause. They may think that there is a purpose extended from the one to the other, for instance, a source intends to express itself in the result. Such a supposition merely attempts to justify arbitrariness. We all know that there must be a consistent pattern involved in being and becoming, e.g., rice does not grow from a barley seed or from a stone. There is definitely a constructive principle involved when phenomena arise, a consistency that some people interpret as an intention to fulfil a purpose. And without a doubt, a seed and a plant are different and therefore, as the one ceases and the other appears, there can be no purpose extending from the one to the other. We can observe specific events in the cycle of being-becoming, but imputing a purpose is an assumption we can set aside. This is not denying that the cause of a particular event leads to specific results through a consistency that does take place and, without a doubt, functions. Events occur, appearances appear but become subject to interpretation if their consistency is deemed an intention, while, all along, shunyata remains the ground that is the lack of impediment for spatial existents to arise, abide, and cease again when causes and conditions prevail.
Looking at the topic "purpose" from another angle: Just as the cause no longer exists when the result manifests, a purpose that is assumed to be part of a cause would also have ceased when the result manifests. For example, a silversmith who created a beautiful chalice with a pure motivation 600 years earlier cannot relate to the silver we may now hold in our hands because he died a long time ago. Just so, if the substance and purpose of the cause and the result co-exist, the one could never be the other; furthermore, the cause would have ceased to be when the result appears. Therefore, the notion that some sort of conscious purpose is contained in appearances and in events is wrong.
Someone may protest and argue that although the cause ceases before the result arises, it is still possible for a result to arise from a completely different cause, like what happens when a weight is placed on the one pan of a measuring scale and, as a result, the pan at the other end of the rod automatically springs up. They may conclude that the cause sank down and the result instantaneously sprang up, attempting to prove that there is an uninterrupted succession of ups and downs, the cause simply disappearing as the result pops up. Again, such a proposition cannot stand the test of there being self-existence since we will never find a direct, causal connection of events within or without but only conditioned situations and experiences that reveal results. For example, a teacher cannot transplant his or her knowledge into a pupil; their knowledge will never be the same, but they can recite the same words of a text and there would be no difference between the two texts. Now, nothing happens to our face when we see its reflection in a mirror, and nothing happens to a seal when we use it as a stamp. Other examples: Sun rays only ignite a piece of paper held under a magnifying glass without burning the glass, and our echo in a valley or cave does not affect our speech. These examples show that results arise in reliance upon specific conditions and are not necessitated to be a result that is caused by those conditions.
As to the mind, the six consciousnesses never simultaneously perceive and conceive objects that are appropriate to be perceived, nor is a conception of a perception a given, rather a perception triggers a thought that arises and becomes mental events that are based upon conditions that are not only dependent upon what was apprehended as different and other. Certainly, it seems as though one moment or event gives rise to another because things follow an order, but we can never find the moment something arises, and therefore the notion that one thing gives rise to the next can only lead astray. This does not mean to say that things do not function according to causes and conditions, rather that the source of production and arising can never be found.
In Buddhism, it is taught that the accumulation of merit and wisdom on the path is the source of realization, but we will not be able to find the direct relationship between the former and the latter. As it is, everything is empty of solid reality, also the accumulation of merit and wisdom - they are also only ideas.
Appearances and experiences have no self-essence. Since this is the case, nothing can arise and abide and nothing can cease. Apprehension and what is apprehended are like a hallucination or dream. Dreaming of an elephant while asleep, for example, is brought on by various conditions and seems real for the person incapable of realizing he or she is dreaming while asleep. Searching for the elephant and other visions that arose in a dream when awake would be absurd, a meaningless endeavour since there never was an elephant to begin with. Similarly, all phenomena arise due to specific conditions; they seem to arise, abide, and cease again but only do so as mere appearances. Examining appearances in this fashion, we can see for ourselves that all dharmas, i.e., all appearances, are devoid of an own, self-existing essence and have no inherent reality. Nothing arises from itself or from anything other than itself. Nothing has an inherent reality, a self-essence, of its own.


3. Does a result arise from both itself and other?

Let us just consider the possibility that events and experiences arise due to a combination of both an identical cause and a completely different cause. Having discovered that nothing arises out of itself and that nothing arises out of something completely different, we may think that things arise out of a combination of both. This, however, cannot be the case due to the evidence presented in the first two points above, namely, that nothing arises out of itself or from existing others. Believing they do would entail the flaws of the wrong views refuted above.


4. Does a result arise without a cause?

The fourth possibility for arising, i.e., production, to occur is that phenomena arise with no cause at all, a view propounded by the Charvaka School of ancient India and by the hedonists living in ancient Greece.
The Charvakas asserted that phenomena appear without a particular cause and without a specific result, simply in accordance with their own nature. That is how they concluded that vice and virtue as well as previous and future lifetimes are not true. They presented many examples to illustrate that there is neither cause or result: When it rains, mushrooms just sprout up from the ground and without a cause; when it is windy, dust is blown about haphazardly and without fruition. That is how they concluded that when an action is dispersed, it is simply finished. Charvakas taught that nothing exists other than through its own nature and said that seeds are round due to their own nature, thorns are sharp due to the nature of thorns. They also used the peacock as an example to argue that no one had to paint its feathers nor did the peacock need to develop its beautiful feathers, but peacocks simply have colourful feathers because of their own nature. They continued and said that the sun rises in the east in the morning and no one has to pull it up; the Ganges River flows into the ocean and no one has to push it down. That is how they argued that everything is subject to its own nature, without a cause, without a result, rather arbitrarily.
The Charvakas stated that mind derives from the male and female elements that unite at conception. They then defined life to be like the mixture of grain and yeast, called ghee, which has the nature to make someone drunk. Ghee was their symbol of good living and served as their idea of the road to fulfilment. The example they set for their followers is illustrated in a story they told: Once upon a time there was a very old and destitute beggar who was determined to become rich before he breathed his last. He went into the forest, found the paw of a dead wolf, and made many footprints with the paw along the track that led back to his village. Then he summoned all villagers, told them that he had seen a demon roaming around, and showed them its footprints. The beggar-man told the villagers that he would be willing to perform a ceremony on the seventh coming day in order to free the village of the evil spirit and that they only needed to place all their belongings outside their houses, to lock their doors, and hide inside for a while. On the seventh day all villagers did as told, the old beggar-man easefully packed the riches that were so readily available in front of the houses and huts, and, while nobody was watching, he quickly became rich. They used this story to justify their accusations, "The Buddha preaches a doctrine of merit that does not exist in order to become famous and rich. There is no previous life and no life after death. The Buddha says he sees such things but only does so to aggrandize himself." The Charvakas did not like Buddha Shakyamuni very much.
The philosophy of the Charvaka doctrine states that everything ends at death, the body dissolves back into the four elements (they did not accept the fifth element of space), and then the mind simply ceases to be. So their only recommendation was to enjoy life and live merrily. They believed that only what can be seen with the eyes is valid and set up one premise to prove everything. They summarized their instructions very simply: There is no previous life, there is no future life, there is no hell, and there is no heaven. Such statements certainly do not accord with the teachings Lord Buddha asked us to reflect.
Lord Buddha taught that everything originates from causes and conditions; there must be causal and secondary conditions for anything to appear or occur. For example, if a seed is planted in the ground (causal conditions) and there is enough rain and warmth (secondary conditions), plants will grow; if there is not enough rain and warmth, i.e., if the secondary conditions are missing in the winter, plants will not grow. Needless to say, no plant will grow on the table in front of me because there is no seed, no earth, and no rain. We certainly know that in the absence of causes and conditions that provide consistency, nothing can arise. Should things arise arbitrarily, there would be no consistency and flowers could grow out of sticks and stones. Anyone with common sense can see for himself that this is impossible.
Concerning previous lives, we can see the continuum of our mind based upon our mind forms, i.e., today's impressions and expressions are based upon yesterday's, and the mind of this year is based upon last year's mind. Mind flows continuously. Everyone experiences his or her own mind as a continuum of own feelings and thoughts. We never experience that our mind is new or another instance in our lives, rather we experience the continuum of our mind. Even when born, our mind is a continuum from the time we spent in the womb. Since we see no disjunction in our mind stream, we may ask, where did the mind come from at the moment of birth? If we state that it arose suddenly, wouldn't this deny its presence at the moment of our conception? Should it have arisen arbitrarily at that time, what about the continuum we experience in life? It must have come from a previous life. Not even a tiny seed suddenly springs forth without a continuum of being and becoming that plants are always subject to, too. Not even mushrooms spring into existence haphazardly, rather they grow from spores. So, the Charvaka's example of mushrooms is silly.
Concerning future lives, we know that a cause brings a result. For example, we do not fear that we will not have a mind tomorrow because we have it today; experience has taught us that having a mind today means having it tomorrow and the day after that. We are assured that the mind is not in danger of suddenly disappearing or of being blown away like a speck of dust in the wind. A lit candle certainly renders light. In the same way, mind flows in a never-ending continuum. Mind, too, yields a result and that result is the mind, which will continue after death, so there must be a future lifetime.
The "one analysis" that the Charvakas used to justify their view is certainly not very convincing. The simple fact that something cannot be seen does not mean it doesn't exist. If this were the case, a blind man would be right when he denies the existence of things he does not see. If we accept the Charvakas' arguments and deny knowledge won from deduction and inference, then it would be conclusive to deny the existence of our hearts, lungs, and other internal organs that we cannot see for ourselves. However, being able to perceive the outer form of our bodies and knowing that the body consists of those organs, we do indirectly "see" them. This is the reasoning to prove the existence of past and future lives. Through inference and deduction, we are able to acknowledge the truth of being-becoming and to accept the existence of past and future lives.
Logically examining the possibility of past and future lives in order to gain an intellectual appreciation of the continuum from lifetime to lifetime is analogous to the case of a travelling businessman. When he arrives in another country to sell his goods, he is not really interested in the country but is only concerned about selling his ware and about buying things he can sell when back home. He is not really concerned about his own welfare since he knows he will be home again soon. Similarly, by gaining an intellectual appreciation of our continuum from lifetime to lifetime, we develop a feeling much like the businessman in this example, that we are here on a temporary visit and will soon move on to a new lifetime, i.e., we acknowledge the fact that this lifetime is certainly not permanent. As a result, our attachments to this life are reduced, and this is very beneficial.


Conclusion

We have now concluded our short discussion about the "Four Diamond Slivers," the investigation of the only possible causes that can be imagined concerning how any phenomenon can arise. We looked at each point as to whether anything can arise

- from itself,
- from other,
- from both itself and other, or
- from neither self nor other, i.e., without a cause.

We saw that nothing is really produced, nevertheless things appear, which accords with the mode of perception and experience, namely that things unceasingly arise and function in a structured interrelationship with a source and with conditions that are prerequisites and necessary for a source to come to fruition. If we do examine carefully, we discover that whatever arises is empty of a self-essence, i.e., an inherent reality of its own. This being the case, it follows that nothing abides or ceases the way it appears to do.
In Buddhist scriptures, the analogy of horns of a rabbit are presented to describe our illusory mode of perceiving the world and being within. If rabbits have no horns, investigating how long a rabbit can have horns is rather foolish. Understanding that ultimately nothing can arise, it is conclusive that nothing abides or ceases. All appearances are mere appearances that do occur but have no solid, self-existing reality of their own. Since nothing abides, nothing can arise, nor can things be stopped from arising when causes and conditions prevail. Ultimately, everything is beyond conceptuality, the meaning of shunyata, the ultimate truth that is the ground for the relative truth of being and becoming.


Questions

Student: In the example of the travelling businessman, what is analogous to the homeland?
Thrangu Rinpoche: The future lifetime is what corresponds to the homeland in the example. If a businessman were to go to a foreign country, neglect his business, and just have a good time, he would probably return home broke and may run in to trouble. Like this, if we are not concerned about our future lives now, we will find ourselves in very unfavourable circumstances later.

Student: What came first, the flower or the seed?
Rinpoche: I have heard this question stated, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" I have never found an answer to this question in any of the many books I have read. One thing is certain, though, chickens have been born from eggs and have laid eggs for a very long time now, and flowers have grown from seeds and have given rise to seeds for more than many years, too. Samsara is infinite, without a beginning and consequently there is no beginning to any successive appearance in time. No matter which phenomenon is taken into consideration, a cause will be found that arose from another cause. No matter what we examine, we will always find an unending series of causes and effects. There is no first cause. Let us again look at a seed of rice: The seed came from a plant that came from a seed that came from a plant that came from a seed - an unending succession stretching back over a very, very long period of time. If we burn the seed, its potential to produce a plant is destroyed.
An end of samsara depends upon our point of view. Seen from ordinary experiences, it is impossible to fathom an end to samsara. For samsara to end totally, we would have to bring all sentient beings to perfect realization, a very difficult task. As to ourselves, there is the potential for samsara to end for us through realization of Buddhahood.


Student: Isn't there some problem of duality, with a mind that goes on and on and a body that stops?
Rinpoche: It's not really a problem because when the body disintegrates then only the connection between the body and mind has been dissevered. The mind continues to a future lifetime and the physical body is left behind as matter, if burned as ashes that can be scattered on the ground to continue as a physical phenomenon.
Question: Mind and body are different categories?
Rinpoche: Yes, the body can be perceived with the physical sensory organs, whereas the mind cannot be touched, or heard, or seen, and the like. Right now body and mind occur simultaneously, but they are quite distinct.
Question: How and when does the mind go from a dead body to a new one? Is it at the moment of conception?
Rinpoche: What usually happens is that the body is afflicted with a disease, so that the mind no longer remains attached to it. Then the mind leaves the body, death occurs, and the body deteriorates. After either a short or longer period of time, the mind perceives another body, identifies with it as, "This is my body," and feels attached to it. The relationship that sets in when attachment arises is the time that mind and body become connected. According to the scriptures, semen cannot enter an ovum unless an attaching mind is present, so a mind is a necessary condition for conception to occur. Therefore it is logical that the moment of conception takes place when the mind becomes attached to the physical form of the semen entering the ovum, and a being is alive from the moment of conception.
Question: It sounds as though the mind chooses the body.
Rinpoche: In fact, there is no choice. When the mind is separated from its body at death, visions appear to that mind, and these visions are very disturbing and erratic. In that state, the mind actually has no possibility to choose.

Student: Since one mind goes with one body and the world population is increasing, does this mean that certain animals with good karma are taking a higher birth or beings from other planets or world systems are taking rebirth in our plane of existence?
Rinpoche: My opinion on the matter is that nowadays - compared with the past - the objects of desire are increasing, and yet the general level of happiness seems to be decreasing rapidly. Seeing that happiness is sinking in modern times, in karmic terms it is therefore much easier to be reborn in our world. Although there were less objects of desire in ancient times, it is said that beings were happy. It is conclusive that if circumstances have become more favourable and demanding, it would be harder to be reborn here and there would be less human beings. But this is not the case. In fact, when people were happier in ancient times there were less people on earth. Now people are unhappy and there are more of them.

Student: So, where do the Tulkus come from?
Rinpoche: Do you think they are new ones?
Sentient beings go from one birth to the next, from one realm to another. Some humans die and are reborn as animals or in a distant realm; some animals are reborn as humans. If you watch a fly trapped in a closed jar, you will notice that it will not stop flying from the top to the bottom of the jar, around in the middle, and back to the top and bottom again, never resting, always on the move. Just so, sentient beings wander from one realm to another, from the highest to the lowest, but as long as they are caught in samsara, they never stop moving around. Buddha Shakyamuni referred to sentient beings as "movers," because they go from one condition to the other, never remaining the same - they just keep on moving.
Student: But the Buddha taught that the highest form of rebirth we can take is as a man or woman because we can only reach liberation in the human state. So it would seem that more and more beings have accumulated the good merit to be born as men and women in our world.
Rinpoche: Buddha Shakyamuni referred to the "precious human rebirth" as the most favourable state of incarnation. Just having a human body does not fulfil the definition "precious." The extremely favourable and precious rebirth as a human being that Lord Buddha meant was a human body endowed with the potential and ability to practice the Dharma. It is just this potential to practice the Dharma that is so difficult to obtain and that is so very precious. There are so many human beings who have no connection and do not even have the inclination to practice the precious Dharma. The increasing population is not evidence for positive merit that is needed in order to attain a precious life.
Student: But more and more Lamas are coming to the West and more and more people are practicing the Dharma.
Rinpoche: It is possible that a general interest in the Dharma is increasing, but realization of Dharma is certainly not increasing. In the small area where he was, 500 Arhats ("realized practitioners of the Hinayana, the noble beings who had eliminated the klesha of obscurations") surrounded Lord Buddha. Find one noble Arhat in any area nowadays.

Question: Is family planning right or wrong from a spiritual point of view?
Rinpoche: I have no fixed opinion on this matter. Only a Buddha can see the karma of other living beings. Personally, I see no fault in preventing conception, but, of course, once conception has occurred, it would be a great non-virtuous act to kill the foetus or embryo of a living being.
Student: But wouldn't family planning prevent a mind from taking rebirth?
Rinpoche: Is it unvirtuous to be a nun, then? Would it be unvirtuous for a woman who could have given birth to five children to become a nun and have no children as a result?
Student: Maybe that is why the Buddha hesitated to allow ordination of women and said that the Dharma would disappear 500 years earlier due to the order of the nuns.
Rinpoche: Lord Buddha said that if women did not take ordination the Dharma would last longer, but if women were ordained, although the Dharma would not last long, it would be much more widespread. This should not be taken to mean that women cannot achieve enlightenment to the same degree as men. In fact, reaching enlightenment only depends upon having a mind and making the effort to practice the Dharma. There is absolutely no difference in this regard between women and men.

Thank you very much.

Instructions on chapter 6 of "mKhas pa'i tshul la 'jug pa'i sgo - The Gateway to Knowledge" by Mipham Rinpoche, presented at the Namo Buddha Seminar in Kathmandu, Nepal, 1978, translated from Tibetan by Shakya Dorje. Revised excerpt from Venerable Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, An Open Door to Emptiness. Translated by Shakya Dorje, edited by Michael L. Lewis, Clark Johnson, Ph.D., & Jean Johnson, 3rd ed., Namo Buddha Publications, Crestone, Co., 1997, pages 33-52. (First ed. published by Lhungdrub Teng, Kathmandu, 2nd ed. published by Tara Publishing, Manila.) Revised by Gaby Hollmann, 2006,


Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche

Examining Results
-- the Second Analysis of Madhyamaka to Explain Shunyata*


Introduction

In the article entitled, "Four Diamond Slivers," we discussed the first analysis of "The Five Reasonings of Nagarjuna" that were introduced in the 2nd century C.E. by the great Mahasiddha Nagarjuna, who founded the Middle Way School, meaning the middle way between assumptions about eternalism and nihilism. It was the most influential school of Indian Buddhism and has come to be known by its Sanskrit name Madhyamaka. The middle view of Madhyamaka is sometimes referred to as Prajnaparamita, which means "Mother of all Buddhas" since it is the basis for realization. Only with perfect insight into the transcendent nature of Prajnaparamita - the Sanskrit term that was translated into Tibetan as Shes-rab-kyi-pa-rol-tu-phyin-pa ("Perfection of Wisdom" in English) - can freedom from samsara be attained and nirvana be realized. The mother of all Buddhas, i.e., the middle view and perfection of wisdom, is the cause for realization of Buddhahood. Correctly understanding the first and second analyses that Nagarjuna presented enhances a deeper appreciation for the truth of shunyata, which was so concisely explained in the Madhyamaka school of thought.
In general, we should not feel that by gaining insight of emptiness we will fall into a state of nothingness, in which there is no karma, no appearance, nothing at all. Nothingness does not exist. Rather, Madhyamaka philosophy teaches us to understand and differentiate between the conventional way things appear and function, the way things appear, and the ultimate nature of all things, the way things are. Should we only understand the first and not the latter, we could mistakenly cling to the false belief that existents possess an inherent self-essence and are permanent. On the other hand, should we only understand the ultimate truth of emptiness and deny conventional appearances and experiences, we could mistakenly cling to the false belief in non-existence, e.g., the notion that vice and virtue are meaningless. Such an attitude leads an individual to turn his or her back on respecting the integral nature of conditioned existence.
To analyse the true essence of all that is, Nagarjuna presented reasons that validly prove why sameness and difference of entity are mutually exclusive. He showed that the true essence of all outer and inner phenomena is emptiness by proving that all things are

- devoid of a cause,
- devoid of a result,
- devoid of both cause and result, and
- that everything manifests as the mere appearance of interdependent arising, rten-brel in Tibetan.

The first verse of "The Five Reasonings of Nagarjuna" is a summary of the four verses that follow, opening the gateway to knowledge, prajna in Sanskrit, shes-rab in Tibetan, for us. It describes the essence of all that is in the lines,

Since it is beyond the nature of being one or many,
Suffering has no inherent essence,
Like the suffering in a dream, for example.
The suffering in bardo is also like this. -- Nagarjuna

In the 7th century, the great Mahasiddha Chandrakirti explained Nagarjuna's texts and wrote the Madhyamakavatara in order to clarify the four logical reasons that Nagarjuna composed about the fact that the essence of all things is beyond being one and many, i.e., neither single or multiple In the last century, Mipham Rinpoche wrote The Gateway to Knowledge and in the chapter on "The Four Analyses" brought together the essential points of the many statements that explain the first verse and that need to be studied so that we understand the selflessness of both apprehending subject and apprehended objects. We need to know that if there were an independent self, then liberation would be impossible, the reason why these instructions on emptiness, shunyata, are so precious indeed.
In the first article on refuting inherent existence, we examined the cause by looking at the four diamond slivers and examined the four propositions that can be made and are described in the verse,

Since it does not arise from itself, other,
Both of them, or without a cause,
Suffering does not arise.
Present suffering is also like this. -- Nagarjuna

We will now approach this topic by examining the result and will investigate whether existents and non-existents are empty of arising. We will discover that while phenomena certainly function according to a respective, successive pattern, one condition arising out of another, nonetheless the actual arising itself can never be found, i.e., in the ultimate sense there is no solid entity that can arise. In a third and fourth article, we will look at the last two reasonings that explain emptiness from another angle, fulfilling yet another purpose in our studies. Before we do, though, it would be very beneficial to understand the second analysis of Madhyamaka, which is decisive when learning to appreciate karma, the "infallible law of cause and effect."

Examining the Result by
Looking at Arising from Existents and Arising from Non-Existents

Since the result does not arise
From existing at the time of the cause,
From not existing, from both, or neither,
Suffering therefore does not arise. - Nagarjuna
As mentioned, the second verse of reasoning that was composed by Nagarjuna is decisive when aspiring to understand karma, because if there were a solid reality to phenomena and not emptiness, then karma could not be. Should a result arbitrarily or suddenly arise from a cause, there could be no future lives, therefore the principle of karma confirms the truth of emptiness. By gaining insight into the fundamental nature, we do not abandon karma but gain a great deal of trust.
Can there ever be a self-existing cause that produces a self-existing result? Let us take the example of a reflection in a mirror to understand that the image we see in the mirror did not enter the mirror in order to be reflected, rather, given conditions are present, a reflection in a mirror arises without a substantial connection between the image and its reflection, i.e., there is no substantial existent between cause and effect. Due to the empty nature of a cause, secondary conditions, and an effect, it is reasonable that karma created in this lifetime affects the future, our future lifetimes too. Let us examine results according to the fourfold reasoning Nagarjuna described in the verse above.

1. Does a result exist at the time of a cause?

It is obvious that results cannot exist at the time of a cause, and thinking causes and results arise simultaneously contradicts even the most ordinary observations and experiences. I presented many examples in the article "Four Diamond Slivers." Let us take the rice plant and its seed as an example again: If it had inherent existence, a mature head of rice would have had to have been present before it came to fruition, i.e., it must have been present before it arose. Furthermore, if what existed simply recurs and repeats itself, then any existent would be a repetition of itself and that would be it, again and again. Since both possibilities are not the case and certainly not the way we perceive and experience things as we do, we can easily accept that results cannot exist before they arise and do not repeat themselves when they appear.

2. Is a result non-existent when a cause arises?

If results are non-existent before they arise, thinking that they exist at that time would be like stating sky-flowers or horns of a rabbit exist. Non-existent things never can be, just like a son of a barren woman and horns of a rabbit do not occur. If results are non-existent when they arise, they will have been non-existent before they arose. Arguing that prior to the arising of a result there was non-existence which transformed into something that arose is invalid due to the mutual exclusion of existence and non-existence, the mutual exclusion of existence and nothingness. It is impossible for something to suddenly spring into existence since nothing happens without a cause, nothing arises out of nothingness, rather all things arise in reliance upon former causes and conditions. Thinking that what did not exist suddenly exists is a speculation and leads nowhere. For example, claiming wheat had grown for no reason after what seemed like a fallow season is not proof that things arise out of nothing since there must have been seeds or roots in the soil for wheat or plants to have grown. The observation of a consistent time sequence to events is ignored if one insists that the full field or green meadow today are the same as they were when bare some time ago; such an idea is merely a subjective imputation of situations with no actual connection between the two observations. Similarly, it is impossible for something that exists to simply dissolve into nothingness. Both notions that existents arise from nothing and become nothing when they cease are fallacious because the time sequence, for instance in the cases just described, is not taken into consideration at all. So such statements are only limited imputations. Seen from the surface, it seems as though things can arise and dissolve into nothing again and supposing this to be true is a mistaken supposition. In truth, existents cannot become nothing nor can nothing suddenly exist.
I am now forty-five years old.* In ordinary terms, I have the feeling that I am the same person who was born forty-five years ago. However, if I examine the situation with reference to when I was five, it seems absurd thinking that I am the same person today. Forty years ago that person was very small - I am much bigger now and I certainly looked, acted, and thought differently then. In fact, there is no noticeable identity I can find between that young boy and me today. If we want to connect such dissimilar instances, we can just as well connect all of samsara and insist that everything is the same, that all is just one, which is not the case.
Again, any notion that things arise out of nothing and pass into nothingness again is just a post factum judgement. Discovering something we haven't noticed before does not mean it did not exist while we were not watching. Likewise, not seeing something we had noticed before does not mean it vanished into thin air while we looked away. Such notions are mere suppositions and lack any sense for reality. Phenomena do not arise and don't not arise, nor do they abide and don't not abide. All appearances and experiences have no self-existing nature; everything that arises is a mere appearance with no own essence at all. In a final analysis, no ultimate statement can really be made about phenomena since everything is subject to change. We cannot really point to an arising or to a ceasing; there is no coming and going, no increasing and no decreasing. We cannot really speak of recognition or obscuration in ultimate terms. Everything is mere appearance and lacks identifiable characteristics from its own side.
If someone argues that if results do not already exist when arising occurs or if non-existent results cannot arise, then there would be no appearances at all, but this is not so. All appearances are illusory and have no nature of their own either; they are based upon previous conditions that are just as illusory and have no nature of their own either. The continuum of arising phenomena is unerring insofar as nothing ever arises from anything else, except the illusory sequence of associated causes and conditions. If we examine the details of conditions, we will find that they have no solid reality that we can ever point to and isolate as an independent entity, no matter how hard we try.

3. Does a result exist both at the time of a cause and not at the time of a cause?

If results that do not exist or results that do exist do not arise, then conditions that both exist and do not exist could not arise. This subject was discussed above.

4. Does a result neither exist nor not exist when a cause arises?

Arguing that a result neither exists nor does not exist when a cause arises is an absurd alternative proposition since there is no existent that can said to neither exist nor not to exist when a cause arises. It is only another mistaken assumption that can be verbally formulated but is not based on anything that is actually real or true. Every appearance and experience that arises is beyond conceptual imputations and is free of being restricted by intellectual descriptions from its own side.

Conclusion

It may seem that this kind of analysis, which refutes any conceptual proposition or imputation about ultimate existence, non-existence, both, and neither of a result is itself an alternative proposition in which being and nothingness are denied all in one, i.e., denial turning into another proposition, but this is not so. These instructions were presented to enhance an intellectual appreciation of emptiness. They were presented so that students know that firstly, since many people may think that results already exist when causes arise, the analysis proving that there is no existence until appearances arise were given. Secondly, since many people may think that these arguments prove that results do not exist when phenomena do arise, their total non-existence was refuted. Thirdly, since these arguments may lead students to think that conditions neither exist nor do not exist when they arise, the argument that refutes such a mistaken assumption is presented. Finally, many students may think that cause and effect neither exist nor do not exist, so the fourth argument is presented to refute such a wrong view.
The first and second analyses carried out in the Madhyamaka School that we have looked at so far are important in that they help us gain an intellectual appreciation of emptiness and learn to understand that emptiness is not a void. These instructions are presented so that we do not meditate wrongly. We practice meditation so that we realize the unconditioned mind, but the present mind must first be pacified through tranquillity meditation practice, called shamata in Sanskrit, so that our true nature can easefully unfold and appear. Through correct practice of shamata and vipassana, "insight of the true," non-discriminating wisdom arises as brilliant clarity in which the real nature of experiences and appearances is recognized.* Correct practice transmutes our normal mode of apprehension that drives us to live in opposition to the world and ourselves by mistakenly thinking that there is a true subject that truly apprehends a true object, all factors different and distinct. Through correct practice based upon the right view, realization of the undivided state can directly be realized and seen.




* Instructions on chapter 6 of "mKhas pa'i tshul la 'jug pa'i sgo - The Gateway to Knowledge" by Mipham Rinpoche, presented at the Namo Buddha Seminar in Kathmandu, Nepal, 1978, translated from Tibetan by Shakya Dorje. Revised excerpt from Venerable Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, An Open Door to Emptiness. Translated by Shakya Dorje, edited by Michael L. Lewis, Clark Johnson, Ph.D., & Jean Johnson, 3rd ed., Namo Buddha Publications, Crestone, Co., 1997, pages 53-58. (First ed. published by Lhungdrub Teng, Kathmandu; 2nd ed. published by Tara Publishing, Manila.) Revised by Gaby Hollmann for Thar Lam, publ. Aug. 2007.
* Venerable Thrangu Rinpoche is now 74 years old, which means he presented these precious teachings 29 years ago.
* See specifically Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, The Practice of Tranquillity and Insight. Translated by Peter Roberts, Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, N.Y., 1993.

Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche


Examining Both Cause & Result, the "Four Limits"
-- the Third Analysis of Madhyamaka to Explain Shunyata*


Introduction

We went through the first and second analyses of what has come to be known as "The Five Reasonings of Nagarjuna" that were written in the 2nd century C.E. by the excellent Mahasiddha Nagarjuna, who founded the Madhyamaka School, the Middle Way School, meaning the middle way between assumptions that are either a fabricated superimposition or a denial.1
The middle view of Madhyamaka is sometimes referred to as Prajnaparamita, which means "Mother of all Buddhas" since it is the basis for realization. Only with perfect insight into the transcendent nature of Prajnaparamita - the Sanskrit term that was translated into Tibetan as Shes-rab-kyi-pa-rol-tu-phyin-pa ("Perfection of Wisdom") - can freedom from samsara be attained and nirvana be realized. The Mother of all Buddhas, i.e., the middle view and perfection of wisdom, is the cause for realization of Buddhahood. Correctly understanding "The Five Reasonings of Nagarjuna" enhances a deeper appreciation and understanding of shunyata, translated as "emptiness," which is never outside the world of ordinary appearances and experiences.
We need not fear that insight of emptiness could cause us to fall into a state of nothingness, in which there is no karma, no appearance, nothing at all. Such nothingness does not exist. Rather, Madhyamaka philosophy teaches us to understand and differentiate between the conventional way things appear and function, the way things appear, and the ultimate nature of all things, the way things are. Should we only understand the first and not the other, we could mistakenly cling to the false beliefs that superimpositions always entail. On the other hand, should we only understand the ultimate truth of emptiness and deny conventional appearances and experiences, we could mistakenly cling to the false beliefs that denial always entails, e.g., the notion that vice and virtue are meaningless. Such an attitude causes people to turn away from respecting the integral nature of conditioned existence and from taking on any responsibilities.
To analyse the essence of all that is, Nagarjuna presented reasons that validly prove why sameness and difference of entity are mutually exclusive and therefore any superimpositions and denials are conventional approaches to life and do not describe the ultimate truth. He showed that the intrinsic nature of all outer and inner phenomena is emptiness by proving that all things are

- devoid of a cause,
- devoid of a result,
- devoid of both cause and result, and
- that everything manifests as the appearance of interdependent arising.

Other than these four ways that things are, there seems to be no conceivable way that something can possibly be.
The first verse of "The Five Reasonings of Nagarjuna" is a summary of the four verses that follow, opening the gateway to knowledge for us. It describes the true essence of all that can be imagined to exist in the lines,
Since it is beyond the nature of being one or many,
Suffering has no inherent essence,
Like the suffering in a dream, for example.
The suffering in bardo is also like this. -- Nagarjuna
In the 7th century, the great Mahasiddha Chandrakirti explained Nagarjuna's texts and wrote the Madhyamakavatara in order to clarify the four logical reasons that Nagarjuna composed about the fact that the essence of all things is beyond one and many.2 In the last century, Mipham Rinpoche wrote The Gateway to Knowledge and in the chapter on "The Four Analyses" brought together the most important points of the many texts that explain shunyata and that need to be studied if we hope to correctly understand the selflessness of both an apprehending subject and apprehended objects. We need to know that if there were a self, then liberation would be impossible, the reason why these instructions on emptiness, shunyata, are so very precious.3
In the first article on refuting inherent existence, we examined the cause by looking at the "Four Diamond Slivers" and learned why the four refutations that point to the essence are true,
Since it does not arise from itself, other,
Both of them, or without a cause,
Suffering does not arise.
Present suffering is also like this. -- Nagarjuna
In the second article that confirms emptiness, we approached this most difficult topic by examining the result and investigated whether existents and non-existents are empty of arising. We discovered that while phenomena certainly function and influence each other according to a respective and successive pattern, one condition arising out of another, nonetheless the actual arising itself can never be found, i.e., in the ultimate sense there is no solid entity that can ever arise. It would be very beneficial to understand the second analysis of Madhyamaka, which is decisive when learning to appreciate karma, "the infallible law of cause and effect" that incessantly is the nature of relative reality. The second instructions Nagarjuna summarized in a verse are,
Since the result does not arise
From existing at the time of the cause,
From not existing, from both, or neither,
Suffering therefore does not arise. -- Nagarjuna

Before discussing the third mode of analysis that Mahasiddha Nagarjuna gave us according to the instructions that Bodhisattva Shantarakshita also elucidated so carefully, I do wish to briefly speak about Shantarakshita, who realized these instructions so perfectly and handed them down to us so that we can easily understand this difficult theme.
Bodhisattva Shantarakshita was the great Indian abbot, scholar, and yogi who, through his practice, is said to have attained the ability not to age very fast and therefore lived 999 years. He composed many commentaries on Buddhist philosophy and especially on the Sutrayana instructions that Lord Buddha conveyed in Deer Park in Sarnath, India. Shantarakshita's most influential work is The Ornament of the Middle Way, in which he explained Madhyamaka precisely. The teachings of Tantrayana that Lord Buddha taught were introduced to Tibet by Padmasambhava, but the Sutrayana was disseminated in Tibet mainly by Shantarakshita. He arrived in Tibet a little earlier than Padmasambhava and ordained the first seven monks at Samye Monastery in Central Tibet.4 We will look at the third analysis of Nagarjuna, referred to as the "Four Limits," in reliance upon the exposition written by Shantarakshita in order to discover the intrinsic nature of all that is and can be.

An Explanation of Both Cause & Result, the "Four Limits"
From one cause, neither one nor many results arise.
From many causes, neither one nor many results arise.
Therefore, all things are without arising.
Suffering, too, is like a dream. -- Nagarjuna
There is only one kind of knowledge we wish to gain and that is prajna that recognizes emptiness. Prajna is a Sanskrit term and was translated into Tibetan as shes-rab, shes meaning "knowledge," rab meaning "the very best," so prajna is "very best knowledge." Bodhisattva Shantarakshita presented easiest explanations on the best knowledge so that we can understand emptiness and showed that there is only one thing we need to discover: the indescribable essence. By understanding the indescribable essence, it is not necessary to study each of the four limitations separately here since emptiness can be understood from that one perspective. Emptiness of mind, emptiness of phenomena, emptiness of the relationship between the mind and phenomena can all be understood from the perspective of the emptiness of both cause and result.
When Mipham Rinpoche, the great Nyingma scholar, wrote a commentary to The Ornament of the Middle Way, he compared Shantarakshita's summary of all viewpoints, that he put into one, to a thunderbolt of Indra, who is said to be able to hurl his thunderbolt from his heavenly abode down on the earth and destroy entire cities. Bodhisattva Shantarakshita turned his attention to one question only in order to clarify Nagarjunas's third verse that refutes both cause and result. By clarifying a single question already addressed by Nagarjuna in the introductory verse, he gave us the possibility to understand emptiness, the ultimate truth of existents. Shantarakshita asked,

Is the essence one or many?

If phenomena have an intrinsic essence, it would have to consist of one or many indivisible parts since nothing can be "one" and "many" - gcig and du-ma in Tibetan - at the same time. Arguing whether an independent essence consists of neither one nor many parts would be denying the superimposition made, namely that an essence exists to begin with; such assertions are obviously self-contradictory. Those people arguing in the name of materialism would state that an intrinsic essence consists of either "one" or "many" parts, even if they cannot find it.
Many people invest a great deal of energy to find an answer to the question whether phenomena possess a self-existing essence and, since they assume that it exists, whether that supposed essence consists of one or many parts. They are discovering with microscopic precision that even tiniest particles consist of many parts and therefore are multiple. It is logical that something composed of many parts does not consist of one thing. A number of things always consist of a number of parts, i.e., without one there cannot be many. So let us examine whether or not there can be an essence that can be known to exist as an inherently existing entity that is free of consisting of "one" or "many."
In general, experiences consist of subjective perceptions of appearances that are bound by contexts or frames of reference. First, we can see that no appearance is made up of a single entity because it appears within a context. Taking the example of a hill: It looks like it is an independently existing object but actually it consists of a summit, sides, trees, shrubs, and so on, i.e., it is composed of many factors in order to match the conventional designation of being a hill. Taking the example of a vase: It looks like it is one thing, but it has a base, a neck, a top, i.e., it consists of many parts, just like the hill we just looked at. Defining such objects as "one" is merely an intellectual superimposition. Actually there is nothing to the hill or to the vase that we can ever point to as being "one." Taking the example of an elephant: We can speak of an elephant in general terms, but when we look closely, we actually see its parts - its feet, its trunk, torso, and so on - and we designate all parts we perceive as though it were one object, an elephant in this case. No part of the elephant would stand the test of being the elephant we are referring to when we do, yet we formulate all our perceptions and use a single term to describe the collection of all its parts we mistakenly perceived as being a non-compounded object, i.e., as existing from its own side. In fact, everything that appears to us, everything we falsely apprehend as an inherently existing object is in truth comprised of many parts and therefore does not live up to the definition of being "one." Looking at my watch, it seems to be one thing; if I cover half of it with the sleeve of my robe, then I see for myself that what I now see is half of my watch. In the same way, nothing we call "one" ever is because non-compounded objects that would be identified as "one" do not exist. Our own bodies also consist of many parts. In short, we can see that all conceivable phenomena are compounded; nothing is unconditioned nor lacks parts. The designation "one," "unconditioned," "indivisible particle" are abstract names we use for the sake of convenience, i.e., we point to a collection of many parts or particles that we perceive and wrongly take them to be "one." This discussion proves emptiness, i.e., the lack of independent, solid, intrinsic existence of large objects and gross forms. Let us investigate smallest objects now.
Even if someone examines what they may think is a tiniest existing particle, they will never find an entity that does not consist of many parts and is fit to be called "one." In the Compendium of Knowledge, Vasubandhu wrote that since compounded objects, whether large or small, consist of tiniest particles, then such tiniest particles must connect or relate with other tiniest particles to make a whole.5 In order to connect, such small particles must have sides, i.e., each particle said to be the tiniest must have an eastern side, a western side, a northern side, and a southern side, a top, and a bottom in order to connect with something else that needs to have similar features in order to be able to relate or connect. Anything that has sides has dimensions, which are always more than one; a phenomenon that could connect would necessarily also need to be an entity consisting of dimensions and therefore would not be an indivisible particle. We see for ourselves that stating that tiniest, indivisible particles are building blocks of the world only leads astray.
Supposing a part-less particle that has no sides exists and converges with another part-less particle; in that case the part-less particle would have to penetrate the other precisely in order to pass the test of being an indivisible particle, i.e., independent of parts and therefore unconditioned. If the original, indivisible particle did not penetrate or pervade another indivisible particle exactly and precisely, both particles would necessarily have to be compounded since one would be larger than the other. A third particle would also have to perfectly pervade the particle deemed the original in order to pass the test that tiniest, indivisible particles make up the world. In such a case, everything would have to be contained in one particle; that particle would have to contain all others without ever becoming bigger. Such notions do not prove multiplicity, "many," in the least. By examining subtle and gross phenomena in this way, we do learn that no self-existing essence really exists although appearances arise, and the fact that no inherent essence can ever be found for whatever arises is the truth of shunyata, "emptiness."
As to the nature of the mind, we all feel that we have an inherently existing mind that continuously perceives and recognizes things. If we examine closely, though, we can see that it is not possible to point to an indivisible entity we usually think of as "mind." Consciousness, too, consists of many factors, e.g., the visual consciousness identifies objects - forms, colours, and shapes - that it perceives with the respective sensory organ, the eyes. There is awareness of sound, awareness of tactile sensations, of smells, and of tastes. There is also the mental consciousness that distinguishes sensations and feelings. All these factors are mental events of what we consider an indivisible entity and call "the mind." But there are more mental events than I just mentioned, so the mind is certainly not an independent, inherent existent since it consists of many factors and mental events, and therefore the mind is dependent.
The texts and expositions that elucidate Madhyamaka speak of eight types of consciousness: the five sensory consciousnesses, the sixth mental consciousness, the afflicted consciousness (klesha consciousness), and the ground consciousness (alaya in Sanskrit). The mental factors arise upon perceiving an object that can be perceived. Some people say that the klesha consciousness and the alaya consciousness together are the indivisible essence.6 For the benefit of the instructions I am presenting here, it is easier just taking the first six into consideration in order to refute the view that the mind is independent.7
We can see that the visual consciousness, to take it as an example for all others, has the potential to perceive objects that are appropriate to be seen. If we look at a yellow cloth, we designate the colour of the cloth with the term we have agreed to use and call it "yellow," and if we look at a snow-capped mountain, we say it is "white." Furthermore, we see things successively and extremely fast, i.e., first we notice one aspect of an object and then another, and so on, the first perception having ceased before the next arises, in an ongoing process of many perceptions occurring in what seems all at once or suddenly. The visual consciousness is not an independent perception. Some people may think that each "flash" of awareness, each moment of consciousness, is the one instant in time that they are seeking to define as the shortest instant of time and therefore the essence, just like some people try to prove the intrinsic existence of a tiniest particle that they are not able to find, no matter how hard they try. Should someone attempt to find a shortest instant in time, they would eventually learn that such an instant would only occur in reliance upon an ongoing consciousness in order to give up such a futile pursuit. Awareness is never static, rather every moment of awareness depends upon a previous moment and influences the next moment, so a moment of awareness is not an independent fraction of time, rather it is determined by three factors: a previous moment, a present moment, and a future moment. It is evident that there is no independent instant in time that can ever be called "one," i.e., that does not consist of fractions and can rightfully be considered an independent existent and therefore a self-existing essence - neither in the external world (that arises and appears) nor in the inner realm of our mind (that also arises and appears).
Furthermore, there is no reality to activities either. If we decide to travel to Kathmandu, for example, we might think that actually going is an independent reality. We might think that, although rain consists of many raindrops, there is a reality to "raining." However, this is not so since "raining" depends upon raindrops. It is evident that going to Kathmandu depends upon the individual who is going and "raining" depends upon rain. The actions or functions illustrated in these examples point to changes that incessantly occur, so actions and functions cannot be isolated from their context and are therefore not what is referred to as "one."
Another supposition may come to mind, namely, that a non-compounded entity like space has an intrinsic essence. But, actually, there is no such thing as a non-compounded entity that exists in and of itself, the definition of "inherent." For example, we are free to draw a square in open space with our finger and can speak of "square space," but there is no detectable "square space" that can ever be found. If we claim there is, then we simply forgot our finger and the motion we made and merely speak of the idea we had of "square space." Furthermore, space is not a thing in itself; rather space is simply the absence of appearances. Similarly, space in a room is only the absence of objects. We also define the space in a room in dependence upon the walls, which are compounded, so there is no self-existing entity consisting of "one" that can ever be found for space since our perception and therefore our conception of space arise in reliance upon references.

Conclusion

We can deduce from these instructions that there isn't anything that can possibly ever be one non-compounded entity and that there isn't a self-existing entity that can possibly ever consist of many since many, as we know, always consists of more than one, or two, or three, or more things. If an entity inherently exists of and through its own accord, how can it consist of many? "One" or "many" being the only possibilities for anything to be, we readily see that all appearances, all dharmas, all things that arise and that can be perceived and identified have no self-existing, solid, independent, inherently existing essence. And that is why these instructions were presented - to understand the "Four Limits" summarized in the verse,
From one cause, neither one nor many results arise.
From many causes, neither one nor many results arise.
Therefore, all things are without arising.
Suffering, too, is like a dream. -- Nagarjuna
In the fourth article on the reasoning of Madhyamaka we will learn that all things that arise are mere appearances of interdependent origination, rten-brel in Tibetan, and that no phenomenon possesses an own, self-existing essence.

Thank you very much.


* Instructions on chapter 6 of "mKhas pa'i tshul la 'jug pa'i sgo - The Gateway to Knowledge" by Mipham Rinpoche, presented at the Namo Buddha Seminar in Kathmandu, Nepal, 1978, translated from Tibetan by Shakya Dorje. Revised excerpt from Venerable Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, An Open Door to Emptiness. Translated by Shakya Dorje, edited by Michael L. Lewis, Clark Johnson, Ph.D. & Jean Johnson, 3rd ed., Namo Buddha Publications, Crestone, Co., 1997, pages 59-64. (First ed. published by Lhungdrub Teng, Kathmandu; 2nd ed. published by Tara Publishing, Manila.) Revised by Gaby Hollmann. for Thar Lam, forthc. Dec. 2007.
1 Legend reports that Nagarjuna, who lived some time between 150 and 250 C.E., was preordained by Buddha Shakyamuni to recover and explain the Prajnaparamitasutra. Nagas are said to have informed him of texts hidden in their kingdom, so he travelled there and returned with Sutras to India.
2 The great master Chandrakirti (approx. 550-600 A.D.) was an Indian Buddhist scholar of the Madhyamaka School and is best known for founding the Prasangika sub-school. He offered proof why nothing has an inherent existence and was one of the most influential commentators of Nagarjuna.
3 See Ven. Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, The Middle-Way Meditation Instructions of Mipham Rinpoche, Namo Buddha Publications, Crestone, & Zhyisil Chokyi Ghatsal Publications, Auckland, 2000. In this book the great Tibetan scholar, Mipham Rinpoche, who actually stayed a while with the previous Thrangu Rinpoche in his monastery, describes how one develops compassion, then expands this to Bodhicitta, and eventually develops prajna. Also known as Mipham Jamyang Gyatso, Lama Mipham lived from 1846 until 1912.
4 King Trisong Detsen (742-798 A.D.) contributed greatly to establishing Buddhism in Tibet. He invited the Indian Pandit and Bodhisattva Abbot of Nalanda University, Shantarakshita to Tibet to speak about dependent origination and the ten virtuous actions and to build the first monastery at Samye near Mt. Hepori in Central Tibet. Shantarakshita was the founder of the philosophical school combining Madhyamaka and Yogacara. There was a smallpox epidemic at that time. The conservative faction in the court blamed Shantarakshita and deported him from the land. On the abbot's advice, the king invited Padmasambhava from Swat to drive out the spirits who had caused the smallpox. The emperor later asked Shantarakshita to return, which he gladly did. - Padmasambhava (also Padmakara or Padma Raja, Tibetan Padma Jungne), in Sanskrit meaning "Lotus Born," founded the Tantric school of Buddhism in the 8th century. In Bhutan and Tibet he is known as Guru Rinpoche, "Precious Master," where especially followers of the Nyingma School honour him as the Second Buddha. Both Padmasambhava and Shantarakshita built Samye Gompa, the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet. At that time, Samye was called Nechen, which means "the great location." One of the most accomplished of the "seven examined men" first ordained at Samye Gompa was Bodhisattva Vairocana.

5 Vasubandhu was the 4th century Indian scholar who wrote the Abhidharmakosha, which is an analysis of phenomena and serves as a commentarial tradition to the Buddhist teachings.
6 The klesha consciousness is the afflicted consciousness that clings to the idea of a self and calls it "I." The alaya consciousness is the consciousness that stores expressions and impressions that naturally flow into it through the first six consciousnesses and via the seventh consciousness.
7 For a detailed and meticulous discussion of the eight consciousnesses, see Ven. Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, Transcending Ego: Distinguishing Consciousness from Wisdom. A Treatise of the Third Karmapa. Translated from Tibetan by Peter Roberts, Namo Buddha Publications, Crestone, & Zhyisil Chokyi Ghatsal Publications, Auckland, 2001.


Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche

Interdependent Origination, rten-'brel
-- the Fourth Discussion of Madhyamaka to Explain Shunyata*


Introduction

We discussed the first three analyses of "The Five Reasonings" that were written in the 2nd century C.E. by the extraordinary Mahasiddha Nagarjuna to show that no phenomenon possesses a self-existing essence.1 Nagarjuna founded the Madhyamaka School, the Middle Way School, meaning the middle way between assumptions that are either a superimposition or a denial.
The middle view of Madhyamaka is sometimes referred to as Prajnaparamita, which means "Mother of all Buddhas" since it is the basis for realization. Only with perfect insight into the transcendent nature of Prajnaparamita - the Sanskrit term that was translated into Tibetan as Shes-rab-kyi-pa-rol-tu-phyin-pa ("Perfection of Wisdom") - can freedom from samsara be attained and nirvana be realized. The Mother of all Buddhas, i.e., the middle view and perfection of wisdom, is the cause for realization of Buddhahood. Correctly understanding "The Five Reasonings" renders a deep understanding of the ultimate truth of shunyata, the Sanskrit term for "emptiness."
In general, fearing that insight of emptiness could cause us to fall into a state of nothingness, in which there is no appearance, nothing at all, is unfounded. Madhyamaka philosophy teaches us to understand and differentiate between the conventional way things appear and function, the way things appear, and the ultimate nature of all things, the way things are. Should we only understand the first and not the other, we could mistakenly cling to the false beliefs that superimpositions always entail, for instance that things exist forever. On the other hand, should we only understand the ultimate truth of emptiness and deny conventional appearances and experiences, we could mistakenly cling to the false beliefs that denial always entails, e.g., the belief that karma as well as vice and virtue are meaningless. Such an attitude leads an individual to turn away from acknowledging the interdependent nature of conditioned existence and from taking on responsibilities.
To show the essence of all that appears and that is not fit to depend upon causes and conditions, Nagarjuna presented reasons that validly prove why any abstract superimpositions and denials are merely conventional approaches to life and are ultimately not real. He showed that the essence of all outer and inner phenomena is emptiness, shunyata in Sanskrit, by proving that all things are

- devoid of a cause,
- devoid of a result,
- devoid of both cause and result, and
- that everything manifests as interdependence.

Other than these four ways that things are, there seems to be no conceivable way that something can possibly be.
The opening verse of "The Five Reasonings of Nagarjuna" is a summary of the four verses that follow and opens the gateway to knowledge for us. He described the ultimate nature in the lines,

Since it is beyond the nature of being one or many,
Suffering has no inherent essence,
Like the suffering in a dream, for example.
The suffering in bardo is also like this.

In the 7th century, the great Mahasiddha Chandrakirti explained Nagarjuna's texts and wrote the Madhyamakavatara in order to clarify the four logical reasons that Nagarjuna composed about the fact that the true essence of all things is beyond one and many.2 In the last century, Mipham Rinpoche wrote The Gateway to Knowledge and in the chapter on "The Four Analyses" brought together the essential points of the many texts explaining shunyata that need to be studied if we hope to correctly understand the selflessness of both apprehending subject and apprehended objects. We need to know that if there were a solid self, then liberation could not be, the reason why these instructions on emptiness are so very precious indeed.3
In the first article on refuting inherent existence to prove emptiness we looked at the "Four Diamond Slivers" and learned why, ultimately, a result does not arise because whatever arises ultimately must always exist and then causes would not be. The verse is,

Since it (the essence) does not arise from itself, other,
Both of them, or without a cause,
Suffering does not arise.
Present suffering is also like this.

In the second article that proves emptiness we examined the result and discovered that existents and non-existents are empty of arising. We saw that while phenomena certainly function and influence each other according to a respective and successive pattern, one condition arising out of another, nonetheless a result itself can never be found. Should a non-existing result be produced, the horns of a rabbit could also arise. It would be very beneficial to reflect the second analysis of Madhyamaka well since it is decisive when learning to appreciate karma, "the infallible law of cause and effect" that unremittingly functions. Nagarjuna summarized the second instructions in the verse,

Since the result does not arise
From existing at the time of the cause,
From not existing, from both, or neither,
Suffering therefore does not arise.

In the third article that proves emptiness we examined both cause and result together, this reasoning known as "The Four Limits." We discovered that a result, which is both existent and non-existent never arises because there is no such thing as an existent and non-existent result; nothing possesses contradictory features. Nagarjuna summarized the four abstract limitations and wrote,

From one cause, neither one nor many results arise.
From many causes, neither one nor many results arise.
Therefore, all things are without arising.
Suffering, too, is like a dream.

We will now look at the fourth verse of "The Five Reasonings of Nagarjuna" according to Mipham Rinpoche's instructions and come to discover that conventionally phenomena appear due to interdependent origination and emptiness, while a self-essence can never be ascribed to any appearance or experience that arises.


Interdependent Origination, rten-'brel

Since like a moon in water, a rainbow, and a movie,
It is the mere appearance of interdependent arising,
No phenomenon exists through possessing an essence.
The extremes of samsara and nirvana,
of permanence and extinction are transcended. -- Nargarjuna

We saw that all dharmas, "phenomena," that arise are devoid of inherent existence, that all dharmas merely appear in dependence upon causes and conditions and not arbitrarily. We also saw that every outer and inner phenomenon arises, abides, and ceases again without disclosing a true essence that, upon careful investigation, cannot be found. Yet phenomena appear and they do so through interdependent origination, rten-'brel in Tibetan.4 Nothing is eternal, nothing is in vain, there is no coming and no going, rather due to the truth of interdependent origination and emptiness, things appear when causes and conditions prevail and influence each other, while, in truth, they are like a reflection in a mirror. Taking the example of a statue of Buddha Vajradhara reflected in a mirror: The reflection is not real and yet it appears. If we turn the mirror around, then the image of Vajradhara has not vanished since it never had a self-existing, own, solid essence anyway. The reflection arose in dependence upon causes and conditions and cannot be said to be eternal or to have not been - such statements are only conceptual formulations and never describe the true essence.
In an unending succession of time without number, phenomena arise, abide, and cease again in a structured fashion when causes and conditions prevail, while only the indescribable essence - that is not fit to depend upon causes and conditions - is true. Ultimately, all phenomena are devoid of a cause, devoid of a result, devoid of both cause and result, and merely manifest as interdependent existents that influence each other, the relative truth. No moment can ever be found to verify independent, ultimate self-existence since all things exist in dependence upon causes and conditions that incessantly appear due to shunyata, "emptiness," which never impedes conditioned existents to arise when conditions are appropriate.
Lord Buddha pointed to the truth of suffering and to the truth of the source of suffering, and the logical reasoning that Madhyamaka offers explains in great detail why, ultimately, suffering, walking, eating, sleeping, and other worldly activities take place conventionally and do so only and just because they are devoid of a self-essence, i.e., they are devoid of solidity. Things can only arise, take place, and appear because shunyata is the fundamental nature of all that is. If appearances and experiences inherently existed and if shunyata were beyond the reaches of conditioned existence, nothing could arise or take place. Emptiness is not outside the ordinary world of experiences nor ever divorced from the Noble Truths and the precious path to freedom from suffering.
In the previous articles that explained the first three analyses of "The Five Reasonings of Nargjuna,"5 we saw that no manifestations of conditioned existents possess an ultimate reality, and yet things seem to exist inherently, i.e., of their own accord - like the elephant we observed in our dream.6 If we examine relative causes and results and hope to be able to prove that they arise of their own accord and are self-existent, we will eventually and definitely see that nothing has a reality of its own, that all things arise in dependence upon causes and conditions. This topic was explained precisely by Mahasiddha Nagarjuna in his book, dBu-ma-rtsa-ba-bshes-rab-shes-bya-wa, "The Treatise on the Middle Way."
Just like a prisoner who is locked behind bars has no way to be set free reliably other than by walking through the door, we too are caught in the world of samsara and have no way to reliably become free other than by realizing the fundamental nature of all that is. Realization of the essence is attained through what is called "the three liberating factors."

They are:
- realizing that no source can ever be found,
- realizing that causes and results have no true nature of their own,
- and realizing the essence of all appearances and manifestations.

By ascertaining the three liberating factors, we do attain freedom from contrived ways. Yet, it is necessary to use the key, prajna, in order to open the door to freedom from samsara, which is marked by suffering and always will be. Realizing the supreme view of emptiness won through prajna, "best knowledge," opens the gateway that unifies the conventional truth with the ultimate truth inseparably.7
Realization of the indivisibility of the relative and ultimate truth of being - called dharmadhatu in Sanskrit, "vast expanse of phenomena" - is the Mother of all Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, Prajnaparamita. Just as a mother gives birth to a child, wisdom of the true nature has brought forth all enlightened beings born in the present and in the past, and it will bring forth all future Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, most definitely. The unity of conventional reality and ultimate reality is like the centre of the cloudless sky. 8
By showing what it is not, we tried to explain emptiness, which is the essence. Emptiness is ineffable and transcends all imputations or descriptions we resort to when trying to describe it. If we are able to abide in meditative awareness that is free of abstract conceptions and narrow-minded limitations or boundaries, then we will be able to recognize that all dharmas are like an illusion, like a dream, like a reflection in a mirror or on the surface of a settled river or lake. Then we will be able to ascertain the pure view, Prajnaparamita, which gives birth to transcendent knowledge, jnana that is the actual unity of the relative and ultimate truths.
Let us look at an example to appreciate the key we hold in our hands and can freely use to open the door to liberation that is replete with supreme and immeasurable values of being. If we want to travel to Kathmandu, we must first inquire about the direction to take. Having received correct information, we can start our journey and even help those who also wish to go - or we could take them along. Likewise, if we realize emptiness, the essence of all that appears and is, then we will be able to show it to others. Should prajna not be integrated with all that arises and appears, then it would be impossible to reach out to others and to show them the teachings that are so beneficial and true. Gaining only an intellectual understanding does not suffice and certainly will not empower or endow us with the ability to display wisdom that is replete with illuminating qualities since those wonderful qualities will not have unfolded from within us in the first place. Only direct insight into the true essence enables the immaculate potential abiding within to arise and shine brilliantly for others to appreciate, ask about, and wish to attain too. This is the reason why realization of emptiness is the source and the way of the Great Vehicle, Mahayana, which is an expression of not just emptiness but also the richness of love and compassion unified inseparably - the genuine mind.


Conclusion

It has been an exceptional opportunity for me to teach the "Five Reasonings of Nagarjuna" according to the four analyses written by Mipham Rinpoche in The Gateway to Knowledge. He compiled the vast collection of classical Sanskrit texts that were written on this subject by many great Mahasiddhas to explain and elucidate Madhyamaka Philosophy in a single book, making it so much easier for us.
In general, we understand the teachings through three methods:

- direct perception,
- inference, and/or
- authoritative transmission.

Buddhist practitioners should not resort to insincere sources when studying the teachings Lord Buddha shared with us but only rely on authentic teachers who unequivocally possess outstanding qualities and realization.
In order to gain direct insight into the fundamental nature of reality, we must first listen to the teachings and study the great expositions that have been handed down to us so abundantly. In order to directly perceive the true nature through the practice of Mahamudra, we first need to have gained correct understanding. Studying the profound books that are available on Mahamudra is an invaluable support for our appreciation and practice, which certainly leads to direct insight into the true nature of reality.

Thank you very much.


* Instructions on chapter 6 of "mKhas pa'i tshul la 'jug pa'i sgo - The Gateway to Knowledge" by Mipham Rinpoche, presented at the Namo Buddha Seminar in Kathmandu, Nepal, 1978, translated from Tibetan by Shakya Dorje. Revised excerpt from Venerable Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, An Open Door to Emptiness. Translated by Shakya Dorje, edited by Michael L. Lewis, Clark Johnson, Ph.D. & Jean Johnson, 3rd ed., Namo Buddha Publications, Crestone, Co., 1997, pages 65-68. (First ed. published by Lhungdrub Teng, Kathmandu; 2nd ed. published by Tara Publishing, Manila.) Revised by Gaby Hollmann for Thar Lam, forthc. April 2008.
1 Legend reports that Nagarjuna, who lived some time between 150 and 250 C.E., was preordained by Buddha Shakyamuni to recover and explain the Prajnaparamitasutra. Nagas are said to have informed him of texts hidden in their kingdom, so he travelled there and returned with Sutras to India.
2 The great master Chandrakirti (approx. 550-600 A.D.) was an Indian Buddhist scholar of the Madhyamaka School and is best known for founding the Prasangika sub-school. He offered proof why nothing has an inherent existence and was one of the most influential commentators of Nagarjuna.
3 See Ven. Thrangu Rinpoche, The Middle-Way Meditation Instructions of Mipham Rinpoche, Namo Buddha Publications, Crestone, & Zhyisil Chokyi Ghatsal Publications, Auckland, 2000. In this book the great Tibetan scholar, Mipham Rinpoche, who actually stayed a while with the previous Thrangu Rinpoche in his monastery, describes how one develops compassion, then expands this to Bodhicitta, and eventually develops prajna. Also known as Mipham Jamyang Gyatso, Lama Mipham lived from 1846 until 1912. Mipham Rinpoche was a "student of Jamgon Kongtrul, Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo and Paltrul Rinpoche. Blessed by Manjushri, he became one of the greatest scholars of his time; his collected works fill more than 30 volumes. His chief disciple was Shechen Gyaltsab Pema Namgyal, the root guru of Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche." Eric Pema Kunsang & Marcia Binder Schmidt, Blazing Splendour. The Memoirs of Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, Rangjung Yeshe Publications, Boudhanath, 2005, p. 416.
4 See specifically Ven. Thrangu Rinpoche, The Twelve Links of Interdependent Origination, Namo Buddha Publications, Crestone, & Zhyisil Chokyi Ghatsal Publications, Auckland, 2001.
5 The present article is on the fourth reasoning, which deals with interdependent origination. Please see Ven. Thrangu Rinpoche, The Twelve Links of Interdependent Origination for a detailed discussion of how we actually create our world. See also His Eminence Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche, Arising of Phenomena. How and Why the World Exists, in: Thar Lam, August 2005, pages 2-17.
6 See the first analysis of Madhyamaka that describes the illusory nature of the appearance of an elephant in a dream in the article, Examination of Cause, the "Diamond Slivers," in: Thar Lam.
7 Kung-rzob-den-pa and don-dam-den-pa are the Tibetan terms for "relative, conventional truth" and "ultimate truth." Conventional truth means that all things arise and manifest through interdependent arising; ultimate truth means that all things are free of inherent existence. Appearances and experiences remain valid as appearances and experiences, but there is no intrinsic essence to them other than the emptiness of the very appearance and experience.
8 Dharmadhatu is "the suchness in which emptiness and dependent origination are inseparable; nature of mind that lies beyond arising, dwelling and ceasing." Eric Pema Kunsang & Marcia Binder Schmidt, Blazing Splendour, p. 402. Ven. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche wrote, "In general, we can know that, of all the phenomena that cause samsara and nirvana, not one of them moves from the expanse of the dharmadhatu. The essential nature of samsara and nirvana is nothing other than the dharmadhatu. Yet, it is the case that we do not realize that; we do not realize the genuine nature of reality. Therefore, we have the confused appearances, the mental afflictions and the suffering that constitute samsara. Because of our ignorance of the dharmadhatu, we go around in samsara." Ven. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, The Dharmadhatu, in: Bodhi, issue 4, 1999.