Tenets, 1 December 1994, part 1

Oh, we shall firstly meditate for a few minutes on going for refuge, we shall meditate on the precious mind of enlightenment. In that sense, there is an equal situation. Therefore, here, one needs to develop the determination thinking myself and may all sentient beings be free of sufferings and the causes of suffering. I pray that myself and all beings be free of suffering and the causes of suffering. And I am prepared prepared to take the responsibility alone by myself to remove my and others sufferings.

So through such way of meditation one then develops compassion together with the superior thinking or universal responsibility. Or in the same way, one then as well needs to develop the determination thinking myself and may all other sentient beings be with happiness, unchanging happiness and the causes or sources of happiness such as perfect behavior and kind thought and other wholesome thoughts. I pray that myself and all sentient beings be with happiness and the causes of happiness. I take the responsibility or in other words I’m prepared to take responsibility alone on my self to actually accomplish that. Such way of determination then becomes loving kindness especially combined with superior thinking or universal responsibility, in that way it becomes superior thinking, loving kindness.

In order to accomplish that, I must, at any rate, be freed of all my mental shortcomings and attain all perfections of the mind, the state of enlightenment, Buddhahood. Therefore, at any rate, I must attain that state. For that purpose I will here take interest in learning of the essence of Mahāyāna or the great vehicle method of achieving enlightenment. What I have learned I will reflect on their meaning therefore ascertain what is to be adopted and what is to be discarded away. Having ascertained by reflection I would, to the best of my ability, meditatively familiarize with those wholesome directions.

There are two levels of the fourth Buddhist tenet middle way proponents. And the two levels are the Autonomist middle way proponents being lower and Consequentialist reasoners being the higher one. So let’s limit our discussion and study into the first one to that so far. So meaning, we won’t look into it any further. So from this evening onward, we shall look into Consequentialist middle way proponents.

Also then as similar with other tenets to study into this tenet we can break it into major sections such as its definition, its division, etymological explanation and its borderline meaning the standard of what it is and the assertions about the object about subject about the path and the assertions about the two selflessnesses within that part and assertion about result and in brief, in that way of general breakdown, there are seven major topics. Amongst those who follow middle way understanding, Consequentialists are the highest. By that we can look at those who follow that system as not only who understands middle way, but who understand middle way in its best way of perspective. Or as there is the saying ultimately or as there is the saying ultimate rests with the Consequentialists therefore all the other perspectives followed by the other tenets within Buddhism are a means of understanding gradually gradually to finally and ultimately to come to the understanding of consequence reasonings and the reason for the gradual step upward is because beings practitioners have different mental capabilities so the Buddha has taught whatever was necessary in accordance with the different levels of mental capability of various levels of approach to reality and its perspective so forth so one through that way from lower tenets perspective makes progress upward and finally understands as explained in the Prāsaṇgika system.

Regards the practice of behavior goes there is not much difference amongst the four Buddhist tenets because the behavior in one’s practice to not hurt other is basically at the foundation of all four Buddhist tenets. The two lower Buddhist tenets Vaibhāṣikas and Sautrantikas mainly specialize in their behavior to not hurt others, to not harm others and whereas third and fourth Buddhist tenets the mind only and the middle way proponents specialize to not only not hurt others but to help others as their main practice and in that way the two higher tenets which belongs to Mahāyāna or great vehicle part emphasize the behavior to help others on top of not hurting others as the main guideline of behavior. Therefore, if there is any difference where there is if there is any difference and there is difference amongst the four tenets, it has to be from the point of view or their understanding of our reality. How that is so is the understanding of view by the lower tenets are approximate understanding of reality the view and when one makes progress on the level of understanding reality it comes in such a way where when one understood the lowest of view then it helps understand the view of one above it and that helps to understand the view of one above it and finally all the lower ones of perspective view which one has understood helps one to understand the view of the Consequentialist system, the highest Buddhist tenet.

In that way, the four levels can be seen as the four steps on a stairway or ladder where conventionally speaking to get on to the fourth level of a ladder one would need to first go past the first second and third steps of the ladder. We can conclusively say the differences are in matters of understanding reality. So in the in the differences in the view. Of reality, which is here used to word in terms of view amongst Buddhist tenets there is no view above that of Consequentialists. This is of course no doubt talking in the context of perfection vehicle, the common non tantric path.

And yet we can see above trust reasoner when applied with additional method of training to become enlightened there is the method of secret mantra or tantric path which has four levels of tantra but in all four levels of tantra the understanding of view is no different at all and nothing higher or superior to that of the view understood by Consequentialist. If above the view of Consequentialists, there are higher views from the tantric part, the Consequentialists view cannot be called as the highest view because of the very reason there are views above it but in actual fact there isn’t any view higher than Consequentialists, so it is very appropriately said that Consequentialists’ view is the supreme view. Therefore if there is any difference as well when compared to secret tantric path then the difference has to be understood in terms of behavior part of practice. So as you know behavior normally is popularly translated as the conduct aspect but behavior sometimes seems as a better feeling in here in the language. So if there is any difference in secret tantric part it has to be from the point of behavior a part of the practice whereas the view is uniform.

So then we first go through the definition of Consequentialists middle way proponent and the definition says the proponent of the middle way who asserts a consequence reasoning renowned to others and who does not assert even nominally an inherently existing phenomena. Also here in the definition we have the part which says such consequence reasoning renowned to others. As far as what is meant by consequence reasoning to look into that let’s first look at how reasoning is presented by the other tenets within Buddhism apart from Consequentialists. Well the other tenets meaning the three lower tenets saw including in this case the Autonomist. In their case when they establish hidden phenomena such as emptiness, four truths of the superiors, selflessness and so forth, assert that those hidden objects of knowledge can be under can be realized or understood by way of applying reasoning from one’s own side as opposed to consequence reasoning.

So that is how it stands and going into that it needs relevant background clarification. That the way the hidden objects of knowledge are perceived, are to be perceived in progression of two ways, that ultimately they need to be perceived directly but before perceiving them directly one needs to perceive them through valid inference and to perceive or realize something through valid inference one needs to follow reasoning or apply reasoning. So that is how it stands and now the lower tenets they say in order to realize the hidden objects of knowledge through applying reasonings, one can apply one’s own reasoning and by that way self-constructed reasoning or reasoning from one’s own side through that way those hidden objects of knowledge can be inferred or realized. Also, part when put into example, it can go this way for example if we have the body or the aggregates as the topic of investigation the investigative reference then we can put it this way the body is impermanent because it is a product. So in such format of syllogism or logical proof we establish the impermanence of the body by way of applying the reasoning it is a product.

So it is a product is a reasoning. In the reasoning it is a product has the implication that the body is produced by causes and conditions so in that way it is product. So that very part becomes the reasoning. The body is impermanent because it is a product produced by its causes and condition. Also in such way, through such way of applying reasoning and following that reasoning, one realizes afresh the impermanence of our body which is the hidden objects of knowledge.

In that way of explanation, those who don’t follow consequence reasoning but who follow own reasoning they say a valid inference can be produced by way of applying one’s own reasoning. Similarly, other example can be the investigative reference it is not inherently existing because it is a dependent arising phenomena in such format we prove the sprout is not an inherently existing phenomena the very reasoning that it is a dependent arising phenomena. So in essence what we have is the inference of sprout being not inherently existing understood or realized by way of relying on reasoning presented by oneself. Opposed to that is the view of Consequentialists who assert that to realize an object of knowledge, in this case hidden objects of knowledge, one does not necessarily need to rely on reasoning, one’s own reasoning, one can as well realize through consequence reasoning. So there is a clear contrast between what Consequentialists maintain and what the other tenets maintain.

The other tenets say there is no way one can realize hidden objects knowledge through consequence reasoning. One necessarily has to apply reasoning. Consequentialists say through consequence reasoning too, one can apply one can come to realize those hidden objects of knowledge. What it means is, for example, the lower Buddhist tenets, they accept, say, in the case of a sprout being an example of phenomena, then they assert that sprout exists from its own characteristics. Now to such an assertion by the other side the Prāsaṇgika middle way put their consequence reasoning in this way where they put this format.

Let sprout be the investigative reference. It is not produced produced by its causes and conditions because it is existing from its own characteristics. So the very assertion maintained by the opponent is is put as the implied reasoning back the consequence back to the opponent and said in that case you would have to accept that so the format exactly goes let sprout be the investigative reference it is not produced by its own causes and conditions because it is produced or because it exists from its own characteristics. So in that case, there will be question mark at the end, very end, to imply that don’t you accept that instead of making a plain statement. So that’s why there is laughter too in the implication the opponent is made to accept its own assertion back.

So when it is put in the example with reference to flower, then to the other Buddhist tenets, the consequence reasoning reasoners would put this way, or in other words, let it be any other side who maintains the flower existing from its own characteristics. Then in such case, the format put to them is let the flower be the investigative reference or you can have alternatively the investigative reference. Isn’t it not produced by its causes and conditions because it is existing from its own characteristics? So the second part is where the thrust is. Isn’t it produced by its own causes and conditions?

So isn’t it that part seemed to make the opponent realize the contradiction or awkwardness in its own assertion and the reasoning actually applied is the actual thrust where it is put back because it exists from its own characteristic, the flower. So when such a thrust is put back to the other side then in the case of other side who is intelligent one and acceptable and open then it makes the other person wonder from one side I accept that the flower definitely is produced by its own causes and conditions. As well I accept the flower exists from its own characteristics, in other words exists solely or completely from its own side. But there is inner contradiction in accepting the two. So in that way the other side wonders about the inner contradiction and gradually the other side through being intelligent and often realizes if the flower is produced by its own causes and conditions, then it is not possible for it to be existing from its own characteristics or in other words existing completely solely from its side.

So in that way gradually then the other side realizes that the object in this case the flower is really not existing from its own characteristic. To overall remark of such approach we can say the Prāsaṇgika very skillfully in this way make the other side come to realize the reality of what the particular reference is being investigated about. For example, someone who asserts absolute non existence of self saying there is no self, there is no self in the sense absolutely, then the consequence to such person can be put back by saying, well, then isn’t there someone who experiences happiness and suffering? Because there is no self. Absolutely.

Say bracket because there is no self absolutely as you asserted so the thrust the implication is put back to the other side who asserts there is absolutely no self at all but that very contradicts the person’s actual understanding and how things are because happiness and suffering are experienced by a person which is the basis of the self and it is a fact that person does experience that and if the other person says there is no self that would imply there is no one experiencing the two. And then some are in the classical periods who follow mistaken path assert that the self is permanent. Then to such an assertion one then puts the consequence back saying, isn’t the self subject to no birth and death because it is permanent? So the very fact if something is permanent it would be beyond birth and death. So in that way the opponent is made to think the contradiction and virtually makes to shut its mouth.

So in that case, isn’t there the base which I was born as? But when when the trust is put back to the other side who asserts the self as permanent then the consequence that isn’t it not subject to birth and death? Then that makes the other side think in this way, oh, the self is subject to birth and death that it does get born and it does assume death but at the same time I assert the self to be permanent but if something gets born and dies then it can’t be permanent so definitely the self can’t be permanent or it must be impermanent being subject to death, birth and death. Also in this way the other side who holds mistaken view about the self being permanent is very skillfully come to make made to realize this self as impermanent phenomena. Or to someone who asserts the sprout as existing from its own characteristics, then the trust put back to such person is that the sprout be the investigated reference isn’t it existing or isn’t it dependent arising phenomena because it is existing from its own characteristic so please don’t look at this as a complicated thing but like an interesting inspirational view what’s called thing.

So the thrust put back to the person is let’s probably be the investigated isn’t it a dependent arising phenomena because it is existing from its own characteristic so that makes the other person think oh on the one side I know that the sprout does exist by way of dependent arising being produced by causes and conditions and depending on that and on the other hand I assert it as existing from its own characteristic so it cannot be possible. It’s too contradictory thing. So gradually, gradually the person realizes if it is dependent arising which is obvious depending on its causes and condition then it cannot be existing from its own characteristics. In this way through consequence reasoning the Prāsaṇgika presents such understanding to other and make the others come to realize, in this case, this sprout is not existing from its own characteristics. So of course So of course the other side has to have wisdom, good wisdom through which the other side has to realize the inner contradiction one has in one’s assertion and then accept the conclusion but in the case someone who lacks good wisdom then it’s not possible.

The laughter was there, it’s not possible to see the inner contradiction one would be closed in and then wouldn’t accept the conclusion. So that part is important. Also in this way, that is consequence reasoning’s essence point. And then amongst the Consequentialist teachers there are Nāgārjuna, Buddhapālita, and Candrakīrti. They are the great teachers following that line.

Oh, Then the next part is the etymological explanation of the name Consequentialists or little meaning of the name thrust reasoners and that part is because they assert that because they assert that valid inference can be produced in the other side by way of consequence reasoning that’s why they are called trust reasoners because there are certain valid inference can be produced in the other side by way of consequence reasonings, therefore, they are called Consequentialists. And then next part, which is the fourth section, is the assertion about object. And then in that assertion, which is about object, there are two types of object. The manifest object and hidden object.