Tenets, 24 November 1994, part 1

I must place myself and all sentient beings to excellent happiness free of all sufferings. For that purpose, at at any rate, I must attain the enlightenment, the state free of all mental shortcomings and complete with all excellent qualities. The determination wishing to attain enlightenment in that way becomes what is admired as the precious mind of enlightenment. In order to attain enlightenment one first needs to know what is to be adopted and what is to be discarded away which can be done by way of firstly engaging in learning the hearing part and then whatever one has understood by way of one’s learning one ascertains it through profound contemplation or reflection by that way whatever is ascertained one then meditatively familiarize with those wholesome attributes through which enlightenment can be attained. Accordingly here then one makes the wish and determination that I must very well engage in these three spheres of practice, learning, reflection, and meditative familiarization.

Whatever appears is just this only and apart from conventional truth is the otherwise. In brief here we are presently in the mind only tenets inquiry into nature of things where according to the Svatāntrika and middle way there are two types of perspective about phenomena. Firstly there is a sensory consciousness, secondly there is mental consciousness whatever appears to sensory consciousness if it is perceived well then the sensory consciousness is unmistaken and the mental consciousness whatever its object or apprehension is if it is unmistaken in relation to that then it is unmistaken mental consciousness. In brief in relation to such way of have the of of sense the consciousness are called the deceptive truth phenomena. And whatever is not based on the perspective in relative to the thought to which they appear instead from their side, although they appear they don’t have that nature is called ultimate truth.

So that’s the two truths in perspective of the Autonomist Middle Way tenet. According to this middle way tenant, the Autonomist, it is maintained. All phenomena exist by their own characteristics. All phenomena exist from their own sight, and all phenomena exist inherently. And these all descriptions are supposed to be the same meaning.

Existent validly existing existing in its very meaning and true existence are considered of same meaning and therefore they maintain phenomena don’t exist in that way or in another word this last part to paraphrase means the own reasoner tenet does not assert phenomena exist validly nor they exist in the very suchness manner nor they exist truly. Anyway, what these two parts of description about Svatāntrika’s perspective when explained in reference to example means is, let’s say, with the phenomena or object flower. Firstly, they have this middle way in it, the Autonomist there maintains that there must be some portion from the part of flower itself to exist and therefore appear to the consciousness, the eye consciousness looking at it. So by the very fact that there must be some portion which becomes the basis for the flower to appear and therefore exist, it is is explained that flower exist from its own characteristics or in another word, it the flower exist from its own side. Now as flower from its own side exist proportionally just slightly along with that there is the mind, the eye consciousness which perceive it and along with which there is the mind which which grasp or labeled at it as flower.

The mind which labeled at it as flower. So there are this dual combination of the flower existing from its own side and a thought labeling at the flower, and that’s how it is explained according to this tenet, the existence of this object is in that way. Also, according to this tenant, there is the assertion that phenomena from their part to exist must have some proportional basis of existence therefore there is existence from their side as phenomena which becomes the basis upon which then the label is given and this applies to just about any phenomena, a house, table, book and so forth and the manner how that is explained is in their case that there is slight bit of base by which their existence is there validly or in the sense that there is existence from their side. So that very becomes the assertion that phenomena exist from their own characteristics from their own side. But as they exist from their side there has to be a thought which labels towards them as whatever specific phenomenon being existent and being looked at is about.

So they would say not only there is from their side existence and by that way of existence from their own characteristics by being labeled. So in that way it would mean on the book, the table, and the whole lot of whole phenomena are labeled from one’s own thought side towards them and this very dual combination way of existence of phenomena is considered to be perfect by this the only the only reasoner middle way tenet. The example given by Autonomist Middle Way tenet to illustrate the dual combination existence is the is the example of a magician or illusion producer. Magician or the illusion producer who chants through spell certain substances, be it a twig or a pebble. And having chanted it, the magician throws it onto the arena ground of the spectacle.

When after that when the spectators look at the substances their eyes get stained. In other words their eyes get charmed and by that way of being charmed their eyes their appears to the spectators the illusory horses, elephants, humans or whatever the illusion producer charms with a spell to produce horse horses then there would appear horses. If it is charm with a spell to produce elephants then there would appear elephants. So in that way to start with firstly there is that way of appearance by way of the spectator’s eyes being stained by the charm. Now how in the case of the present example there is the parallel of the dual combination is in this way where the twig or the pebble which has been cast and thus charmed from its side has the basis of appearing as illusory horses and illusory elephants.

Along with that, on the other hand there are spectators concept or conceptual thought thinking oh that is illusory horse in the sense that is a horse or that is an elephant so there is a labeling by concept or thought from the part of spectators who watches the illusions so in that way there are the dual combination in which manner the illusory horses and elephants exist. Oh, now when in the case of such illusion being produced where illusory horses and illusory elephants are appearing to the eye consciousness of the spectators then if it is that’s what’s happening. Now if it is asked where about do the illusory illusory horses and the illusory elephants actually lie? Well the fact about that is it they actually are there upon the charmed twig and charmed pebble that being the illusory horse appears appears on the basis of there being upon the pebble and the twig and as well illusory elephant appears while being on the basis. So we can say to the eye consciousness two appearances arises if say the illusion being produced are of two types.

On one hand the horses appearing and the other hand elephants appearing. So the precise by way of description we might say that the basis upon which if there is an illusory horse and illusory elephants to be existing, then they would have to exist upon the substances which are charmed. So in that way there has to be some portion from the part of the phenomenon themselves of their existence and to interpret this of course still is according to Middle Way tenet. So there has to be some part from the parts of the phenomena to exist and then there is the combined labeling of the concept and then the two exist. Otherwise if it is solely if otherwise phenomena exists solely without being from their side but solely being labeled by concept then we might say on the distant horizon upon the hill if certain rocks are piled upon one on top of another and when someone looks from here from distance that might appear as a human and in that case there isn’t any human from the part of the rocks part but if the otherwise according to own reason there is if there there isn’t human from the part of the pebble, so that’s where the part if there isn’t a human from the part of the sorry rocks, then merely labeling does not make there to be a human there.

There has to be some part of a human there if just labeling alone does the job. So in the present example, just being appearing as a human and being labeled by one’s concept as a human does not become enough grounds for that thing to actually exist as a human. Instead, not only there has to be labeling from here here towards the phenomena as a human from the part of the phenomena or in this case the rocks, the stones from their side as well, there has to be some portion of human to appear and exist exist and thus appear and when the two combine then there would actually be a human existing as being labeled and it appears. So that’s how then this tenet explains applies to all 10, all phenomena and it says this tenet says it would be very good perspective to look that it is only by way of dual combination of the two the phenomena exists. Also, because there is this assertion that things exist from their own characteristic, their own side and therefore so because there’s this assertion that because things exist slightly from their side that is how one then would understand Svatāntrika’s theory saying everything exist by their own characteristics and everything exist from their own side.

But when this is being explained by Svatāntrika, one might think that there is contradiction of Svatāntrika asserting phenomena exist truly due to very point that one might might think they are saying the own reasoners, one might think that own reasoners are saying phenomena exist from their side slightly. If they are saying that then how can they still maintain things don’t truly exist because that would have to be no different to saying things truly exist. If that’s so one might as well relate the doubt further by thinking how can then Svatāntrika be a middle way proponent tenet who asserts things not existing truly even nominally. So it is possible, firstly, that someone might come up with such doubt regarding that. Now own reasoner tenet is one of the two-fold divisions of middle way proponents and by definition we already are clear that this cannot apply to them if that’s the case because by definition a middle way proponent or a tenet, a person following the middle way tenet is defined as a proponent of the great vehicle tenant who does not accept true existence even nominally.

Anyway, to counter that doubt, the Svatāntrika Middle Way tenet explains that exist with dual combination of being slightly existing from their side as well-being labeled from here by concept or the conceptual thought labeling it. They they start by saying that this is further explained in that way things appear to the eye consciousness if it’s the eye consciousness perceiving them then things appear to the eye consciousness and as it appears there is a concept labeling that that is such and such phenomena. Not only that are things or phenomena appear as existing from their own characteristic and accordingly the concept labeling at it as well labels that they exist on their own characteristic. In the case if we give into, say example, say flower table, in those cases, the dual combination is where there is a concept labeling such and such phenomena towards them and from their side the phenomena do appear and there is slight existence from their part. Now that is how it is explained things stand and to justify their stand they then say if phenomena exist from their own side completely without any need to label by concept toward them then that would mean the phenomenon exist truly.

If there is such phenomenon which does not depend on being labeled instead exist from its own side completely then it is acceptable to say that that phenomena is truly existing but such phenomenon don’t exist at all and therefore we meaning the Svatāntrika continues to say that we therefore maintain that no phenomena exist truly. This justification is very correspondingly similar and relatable to the example of magician producing illusory horses and illusory elephants because in the case of illusory horses and illusory elephants in the classical times when magician would produce such then in their case from the part of the trick or a pebble whatever the charm basis the substance is from their side there is slightly an illusory horse or an illusory elephant existing. Along with that, the magician as well labels by his or her concept or thought that this that this is illusory horse and this is illusory elephant. And with the dual combination from the two side that there is the existence of illusory horse and illusory elephant. Now if without being labeled by the magician towards the charmed substance if there is independently the word used is if there is characteristically if there is characteristically an illusory horse or an illusory elephant existing and completely appearing from the part of the substances then that would mean that there is a truly existent horse or an elephant there and therefore that would mean that there is an independently existing horse or elephant apart from being labeled by concept so in that way this gives this example actually is considered very good which gives us the perspective how this particular tenet presents its theory about phenomena’s existence.

Now let’s say if the session of magician session of illusion being produced by magician goes for an hour say from 01:00 until 02:00 then that is the expiry time the spell charm would work. So for that duration there would be appearing of illusory horse and illusory elephant upon the charm substance, a twig or a pebble along with the stained stained eyes labeling from the part of the magician and the spectators. Now let’s say if there is a characteristically existing horse horse or elephant from their side, meaning a truly existing elephant or horse from their side, that would mean a person who that would mean after 02:00, say 03:00, the horse and elephant should still appear upon the substances, the twig or pebble, but that doesn’t happen in the times when such magic illusions were being produced. As well whoever from outside comes after 02:00 say 03:00 and who are not charmed at all by such spell, when they come and look at the spectacle, they don’t they don’t either see elephant or horse there at all. So that would mean that there isn’t any characteristically or true existing elephant or horse from their part at all.

Not only not only that it would mean the magician would become a very rich person because he or she would just produce 100 elephants or 100 horses and can just about keep on multiplying on the on the basis if there are actually truly existent horses, elephant being produced by that way. Not only so it would mean the magician would become very rich, but mostly when we look at magicians, they really beggars or most of them. And so the the implied laughter in that was that normally when we look at them, they’re mostly beggars and poor and not rich, but the word has connotation as if normally we just see them busking in the street. So from the part of phenomenon, there is slight existence from their side and then there is the dual combination of being labeled by concept otherwise no phenomena would appear if it is not labeled either. By the same token no phenomena would exist from their side independently if there is no need for labeling.

That there is need for labeling is the that they cannot exist from their own site characteristically, completely. So that is one point. Similarly, in the case of the reference example, say flower from its side, there is appearing as flower along with which there is the need of being labeled by concept towards it as flower and then with the dual combination that is how it appears and exists. Now if it is a case where the flower exists independently without being dependent at all on being labeled then that would mean it had to exist independently or independently in all its sense that it does not depend on causes and conditions and parts and portions so forth that it should exist from its side completely. If that happens then that would mean it becomes a truly existent phenomenon.

So here in this tenet, the object negation or what or that which is to be negated the true existence is explained in this way by its definition that which is not presented by being labeled by mind and appearing to mind but which exists from its own side which exists from its own side distinctively and by its own manner of manner of existence. So that that is the that which is to be negated, the true existence. But this way of explaining that which is to be negated when compared to Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka’s viewpoint there is already difference in correctness or approximation and correctness of understanding because in the case of Consequentialist Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka they would assert that things absolutely don’t exist at all from their side. Instead, all phenomena exist in the fashion of being merely labeled by concept or other thought that they don’t exist from their own side. If that is their explanation about that which is to be negated or the way how things then to assert contrary to that to assert that things slightly exist from their part is very gross understanding about the nature of things and in terms of that which is to be negated.

So in that way we then can compare and find that the own reasoners understanding of that which is to be negated is quite gross. Therefore, the emptiness of phenomena presented not because of appearing to the thought but existing distinctly from their side with their uncommon manner of existence is what is called the emptiness here in this tenet and that is what is to be negated here in this tenet in the Autonomist. So in another word the very emptiness of things independently existing from their side without being labeled is what emptiness is explained to be in this tenet. So the devoid of such way of existence, which means devoid of existence from their side characteristically is what