Bodhisattvacaryavatara, 15 March 1994, part 2

Emptiness can only be directly realized by an unmistaken mind. What would then what would then a mistaken mind realize in the sense perceive? Well, mistaken mind perceives, realizes deceptive phenomena, deceptive things. And because of that, the last line in the verse two reads dualistic awareness or simply awareness is explained to be deceptive, which in meaning means on the mistaken mind, a dualistic mind can only perceive and realize a deceptive truth phenomena. Let’s look at the example of flower.

Flower is an example of a deceptive truth. Now, although it is deceptive truth, flower as well has the a flower as well is a phenomena which is not truly existing. So that not that aspect of the flower not being truly existent is the emptiness, and it is the actual truth part of the flower. This then becomes the fact about the basis meaning the flower that there there then is this fact, this situation. What what is that fact?

What is that situation? Well, it then becomes that the two truths, the deceptive truth and the actual truth, are separate things, are different things, but still they are of one entity. So the two truths become, by way of this example, can be illustrated as being separate, but still they are explained on the basis of one basis. Therefore, it means that they are of one entity. And that is the state or fact about the two truths, that they are of one entity and separate aspect.

What what that is so is we can put the we can put the hypothesis if the two are not separate then there will be then there will be fallacies that it would not be withstandable when analyzed if the two are not separate and again if the two are by nature or by entity not one, again that would be there would be fallacies. So due to that the two truths are separate but still are of one entity. For example, this point about the two truths being of separate aspect but of one entity can be found, explained in the Heart Sūtra where when it says form is emptiness and emptiness is form, the two are being explained as separate, that form or matter. When it says form or matter, form in the sense of matter, is emptiness, it means the form or matter, although may appear to be existing there inherently, but it is not so. It is its nature is emptiness.

And then emptiness is form or emptiness is matter. In that, again, one may fall fall into thinking then there is nothing but that’s not so then out of a very intrinsic nature of emptiness there arise the conventional manifestation as a form or matter. So anyway in brief that two parts explains the separateness of the two truths. But then in the next two phrases, it says, form is no other than emptiness, and emptiness is no other than form. In that, it explains the one entity nature of the two truths.

That form, although it may appear as concretely there, but it is not not separate from emptiness, the non inherent existence. And emptiness itself can be seen as not separate from the form. So form is not other than emptiness, and emptiness is not other than form. And in a way, these four aspect or these four features are explained the four fold emptinesses through which the through which the two truths being one entity and separate aspect implied. You can apply this understanding to yourself, to oneself.

Say, I is emptiness, and emptiness is I. And I is no other than emptiness. And emptiness is not other than I. So it is possible that one else will relate to one’s own I, ego, or self. In this person example, if the I is supposed to be one with emptiness, then there would be the fallacy that one, although being ordinary person, would already have realized emptiness.

Why that is so is because I or one has the notion of oneself. That already knows even in normal ordinary being situation. One knows the I or oneself well. Now if the I and emptiness are one, then it would mean that because one knows I, it would imply that one as well must know emptiness. So there will be that fallacy in that if it is to be like that that the I and emptiness are one.

So because of such fallacy, it is understandable that the two cannot be meaning, one even in aspect. So from that point. Well, if the two are not one, then there must be way the two exist. Because although the two are not one, there must be the way they exist. And with regards to existence, there is either the existence as one by oneself or as a separate.

And from that point we would imply that the two must be separate because the two are not one. And due to that, the emptiness and the present example, I, becomes separate. They are separate. Yeah. If the I if the I is separate from its emptiness, which is the I being not truly existent, then that would mean that I is and must be truly existent.

So that would be the implications. Yeah. I will repeat. If the I and the emptiness of I, which is the not truly existing state of it. If the two are separate then if the two are separate then it would mean that the I is truly existent because it is separate from non true existence.

So from that point. But still but still there is no, what’s called, I separate from the non inherent existence of the I. And due to that due to that, the I and the non inherent existence of the I synonymous with not truly existing, non true existence are of one entity or of one entity. And regarding how something regarding how two things can be of one entity, this concept can be understood by this example. Say, let’s say, a flower.

In Australia, you would call it flower. In Tibetan, it would be called. Now, it is referred to the same object, but called differently. But still, when it is called flower, the understanding what it is being referred to is same. And as well, when it is called metok, the understanding what it is is still being referred to is still the same.

And in that example, we will find that flower is not separate from metok, and metok is not separate from flower. The two are of one entity and separate aspect. And in that way, we can look at how the two truths can be of one entity, but still separate aspect. If the two are separate entity, then by the time the flower is taken away there should still be metok remaining there and by the time the metok is taken away the flower should still be there on the premises, the two separate entity. But that’s not so.

In this way, the two truths are of one entity and separate aspect. As far as the true understanding and knowing of the two truth is concerned, we see it is necessary to know them because if one does not know the two truths then there’s no way one can make the journey to liberation. It is not possible. So one must know the two truths. If one has not realized the deceptive truth then there’s no way one would realize the actual truth.

In that way the realization to be understood as a meaning understanding. The realization or understanding of deceptive truth is a means through which one is led to the understanding or realization of the actual truth. So in in that way, we can see that to know and understand the two truths would eventually lead one to realization of emptiness because emptiness refers to the actual truth. The two can be seen as steps on the ladder where if one does not rely on the lower steps, one would not be able to make it up to the upper steps of the ladder. And to give it a descriptive expression, we would say the first is like the means, and the second is like means product, or a product produced from means.

Therefore means product. And we can therefore see that the lower is definitely an aid to reach to the top. The great teacher Candrakīrti makes the point that if one does not understand if one does not understand the deceptive truth as the means the actual truth as the means product, then one would be gone straight to the wrong path. If one goes straight onto wrong path then one would receive unwanted results, one would meet with outcome one did not wish to have. And therefore that point is made on the basis that one must understand the deceptive truth in order to understand the actual truth.

So it’s about time up. We’ll leave for the evening, stop here for the evening. Any questions? Yeah. Okay.

Shay, is conventional truth solely a creation by worldly beings? So by creation, would you mean With regards to the creation by mind, conceptual creation, if one thinks that it is in the way of by the time one thinks and wishes the things are actually produced then that’s not the meaning. Meaning Meaning that conventional truth is creation of worldly being must not be seen as worldly beings through their mental power wishing something and the things happening there, that’s not the meaning. But if you think if you are thinking that the creation through conceptual process or by in terms of karma, then it is acceptable because all the beings engage in virtuous and non virtuous actions which are karma and they in turn produces results and then whatever experiences and things they come in contact are happening can be seen as their karmic products. Yes, so it is okay to think in that term.

If we just wish something to happen and if it is going to happen, that’s not the point. It’s not going to be right because then it will mean by the time we wish something, things should be there. Probably the same question, but put differently. Is there a conventional reality without being’s If one is thinking, is there any conventional things or truth phenomena existing without any being being conscious? Or, well, if we are talking generally, then we can say there isn’t any because there cannot be thing or phenomena which is not subject to consciousness or awareness of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.

To paraphrase it other way around, because Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are always aware of everything in the sense of Bodhisattvas on high level, almost the tenth, then there is not anything which is lying there, not subject to any awareness or consciousness. But if you say, ordinary people not being conscious and still the deceptive truth phenomena existing, yeah, there can be things. Understanding of conventional or the other way, deceptive is of two kinds, the approximate level and the subtle or closed level, what is normally termed the gross level and subtle level. And the subtle level understanding understanding of of deceptive truth or conventional truth needs comes comes only after realization of emptiness or to paraphrase it would mean only when one realizes emptiness then one would realize the subtle deceptive truths, not the gross ones. Now is the understanding of dependent arising an understanding of conventional truth?

Or you can say it is, in the sense it is understanding of gross or approximate conventional truth. Is that alright? For example, let’s say let’s put the thesis, the body is not truly existent because it is dependent arising. So in that thesis, one understands the emptiness or the not truly existing nature of the body through the reasoning of dependent arising. And this would mean that understanding dependent arising is the understanding of the deceptive truth which helps to come to the understanding of the actual truth.

The relation of the two can be seen in the gross way such as the gross meaning gross in the sense approximate, just very rough, very approximate understanding of our dependent arising means things arise by being dependent on causes and conditions. That’s a gross or approximate understanding of dependent arising. In that sense, dependent arising can be seen as in as related with karma because karma also is subject to causes and conditions. The whole everything that happens through karma, it’s it’s a is a process of course and conditions producing things. And also in also in essence, everything that is inclusive within an within environmental universes and the resident universes are subject to karma because they’re all, whether it is residential environmental universe or the inhabitant resident universe, they’re all subject and subject to karma produced by karma.

In that sense, they are karma as well as dependent arising. In that way, you can see the two are perhaps covering same meaning and related in that way.