Dharma - Merit - Meditation - Nectar - Liberation - Emptiness - Process - Awakening

Studies
in Buddhadharma

 Table of Contents

 5 Designation & Conceptual Knowledge.

5.1 Definition of Mind.

In Western philosophy, the mind or mental events and their properties are associated with consciousness and intentionality. The former are subjective, private states possessing a qualitative character, telling "what it is like". As consciousness seems always to be consciousness of something, it seems linked with intentionality, the directedness of mind as manifest through various cognitive, affective & volitional states, positing a realm of personal meaning circumambulating an empirical ego or "self". Mind is then a compounded phenomenon, involving consciousness (intent), volitions (actions, behaviours, deeds), affects (emotions & feeling) and cognitive acts (thoughts in various modes of expression, ranging from myth to nondual cognition - cf. supra).

In Buddhism, all these states are incorporated under the rubric of one word : "citta" (Sanskrit) or "sem" (Tibetan). The former is often translated as "consciousness", but the meaning intended is larger. Mind is that which has an object, and so mind can be said to be an object-possessor. The standard definition of "citta", taking the word as a verbal noun with an object and not as a qualitative noun referring to a measurable thing, is mere clarity & awareness :

• clarity : refers to the occurrence of the act of (a) being clear about something or (b) making something clear. Clarity itself implies something arises, with no implication of passivity. Clarity gives rise to something, however without mind being an agent. So "mind" is only a label given to the occurrence of the subjective event of giving rise to something. The latter is not necessarily something with visual focus or conceptual understanding, it may be a blur or a confused event, both "arisings" ;
• awareness : this is not necessarily a conscious act of will, but (a) being aware of something or (b) making something an object of relation or cognitive engagement. The latter can be conscious or unconscious ;
• merely : on the one hand, this adjective underlines in order for "mind" to operate, there is no need for strong attentiveness to the contents of an experience, nor a solid object "out there" & subject of experience "in here". On the other hand, it does not take away the actual experience occurring nor it being individual.

Mind is therefore the mere arising and cognitive engaging with the contents of experience. Viewed as a continuum, defined by subsequent moments, the ideas of "mind-stream" or "mental continuum" emerge. Insofar we are conscious of our mind-stream, it becomes a "stream of consciousness". This never-ceasing moment-to-moment arising & engaging is "experience". This is merely seeing, merely hearing, merely touching, merely smelling, merely tasting sensate objects and merely apprehending mental objects (of thought, affect & volition).

5.2 The Designator : Mind, Labeling & Consensus.

In the Prâsangika-Mâdhyamaka, distinction is made between :

• the base of designation : (a) the receptor organs stimulated by what they perceive (chemicals, ions, air pressures, radiation) and (b) that what merely appears to the mind ;
• the designator : (a) the conceptualizing mind : designating what is perceived (turning it into sensate objects) and what mentally appears and (b) the conventional labeling & consensus on that labeling ;
• the designated : the final appearance of sensate and/or mental objects to the apprehending mind. This third element is the combination of the first two. There is a perception and/or a mere mental appearance, then there is a conceptual designation (a naming), and finally a full-blown sensate and/or mental object can be identified.

These distinctions are intended to bring the interpretative, designating nature of conceptual thought to the fore, i.e. acts of cognition done in the proto-rational, formal, critical & creative modes of thought (cf. supra). Because of this, all sensate & mental objects are imputed, i.e. attributed by or credited to conceptual activity, not to the objects themselves. The labels or names given are conventional and objects of agreement. These are not the things in themselves, for these have no labels per se, i.e. inherently.

5.3 The Base of Designation : Perception, Sensate & Mental Objects.

There are three sources of knowledge : perceptions, sensate appearances or sensate objects & mental appearances or mental objects.

1. perceptions :

For Kant, the engine of reason or the transcendental categories take their "fuel" from the sensitive surfaces of the five senses. As a Newtonian foundationalist, he seeks  a certain  ground for his science of reason. But to guarantee his transcendental categories are not leading him to ontological idealism, he incorporates physical, empirical reality as a valid source of knowledge and discards intellectual perception (if allowed, the "I Think" always leads to "I Am"). All comes from the senses, is processed & known by the categories and finally regulated by the ideas of reason. There is no instance higher.

Kant needed a strong link between the fuel and the engine. Without one, so he thought, the very supply of his "real" fuel could be in danger. How to justify these sophisticated transcendental categories, the very architecture or theory of the act of cognition, can produce synthetic propositions a priori, i.e. statements about objects which are always true for everybody ?

The senses should not be ontologizing, for this cripples criticism, locking it in the "box" of ontological realism, while only a loose methodological realism (devoid of substantialist claims) is justified in a reasonable characterization of the validity of human knowledge, in this case of conventional, commonsense reality appearing as sensate & mental objects to our minds. Neither should we overestimate reason. In conventional, nominal, formal cognition, we must consider facts as manifestations of external objects (or methodological realism). This while we seek but do not find them as "on their own", "cut off" or separate from others in any substantial, static, permanent "essential" way. On the contrary, when seeking and negating their substantial independence and their subsequent illusionary, deceiving, concealing appearance, their mutual interdependence comes center-stage.

In a conventional sense, accepting both methodological realism & methodological idealism, all empirico-formal (conventional) knowledge is computed by (subjective) categories on the basis of a temporal sequence beginning with the moment these surfaces are objectively, physically stirred and ending when the relayed data-stream or "code" (information), after much conceptualizing, discursive cognitive processing & interpretation, is given to the mind as sensate objects. There must be a relationship between the "real" datum "out there" a moment before it elicits an electric potential (before it stirs) and the actual, neutral reception of the stimulus before its categorial processing. This actual reception (open & neutral to anything for unprocessed) cannot be named or labeled, it is not yet conscious or attributed to a subject. As a potential pre-epistemic mental object of reification (the bed-rock of "sense-data"), it must be criticized, for the pre-conceptual or post-conceptual can not be conceptualized. To produce such  conventional truth, common sapience or "wisdom of the dual", the reality of conventional facts must be accepted, but though only "as if", not as an independent, static substance.

Neurophilosophy concurs, for there are tiny physical intervals between the moment stimuli physically excite a sense and the moment of actual thalamic projection into the neocortex, as well as between the moment of entry into the primary/secondary sensory areas and computation in the tertiary association areas, as between the moment of conceptual binding processed in the angular gyrus (naming) and prefrontal identification & objectification ...

In a non-foundationalist, normative epistemology, knowledge needs (a) not to be rooted in deep, made solid, anchored in a concrete rock-bottom, moored to a stable pole  or sufficient ground "out there", nor (b) carved in some eternal identity or symbol "in here", but in the mere "groundless ground" of the ever- present fact of the interrelated ongoingness of this cognitive activity itself (cf. Kant's "Factum Rationis"). So the act of cognition harbors the natural light of the mind no rationalist denies.

In the Prâsangika-Mâdhyamaka, attention goes to sufficiently eliminate or thoroughly negate, without affirming anything else, the correct object of negation. For Tsongkhapa, there is no other way to the correct view. The latter steers between conflicting and contradictory positions & options, each with a decent, invalid set of arguments constituting a closed mental system. Both systems trespass the rules of formal thought and must, by prolonged criticism, be brought within reasonable bounds.

To take away too much leads to nihilism, negating compassion, affirming nothingness and so all appearances as void of themselves & others. Affirm too much leads to eternalism, to a hierarchy of true substances, absolute ideas existing in an ultimate sense (cf. Plato's substantial "Ideas", the "universalia" in Scholasticism). Facing impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & transitoriness, eternalism claims nothing changes and things truly exist as their "own", self-powered, self-sufficient and eternal being (cf. Spinoza). The correct view, as given by Tsongkhapa, takes a Middle Way. It non-affirmatively, completely negates phenomena to be in any possible way self-powered, i.e. inherently existing, while at the same time affirming all phenomena, Buddhahood included, to be interdependent arisings. There are no independent phenomena whatsoever. From the correct conventional view, there are only phenomena and functional relationships. Strict nominalism rules.

The extremes of nihilism & eternalism have the basic error of "samsâra" in common, namely affirming something exists from its own side, namely as a static entity, independent & separated from other entities. Transcendental analysis proves nothing of this can be found. So the understanding dawns that while objects cannot be found to exist as substances or monads, no phenomenon can be found as unrelated or unconnected. Emptiness and dependent arising are complementary and constitute the unity of the Two Truths. This realization empowers introducing the correct object of negation : inherent existence, or anything existing by way of its own character, essence, substance, fundamental, self-sufficient nature.

By finding this object, Tsongkhapa did for Buddhist philosophy what Kant did for Western philosophy : (a) drawing the line between how objects deceivingly appear to us and how their truly are and (b) distinguishing between, on the one hand, an epistemology undelving the conditions of knowledge by thoroughly negating reification and, on the other hand, all forms of substantialist theory of knowledge, ontologizing the possibility of knowledge as a "Real" and/or an "Ideal" outside or not part of cognition and its modes.

2. sensate objects :

As soon as the thalamus projects its data into the cerebrum, the coded relay of perception becomes liable to cortical processing. This is not yet conscious and so objects are not yet established before the mind's eye. The received contents is processed & integrated by sensory areas, association areas, and many more interdependent & interrelated neocortical constellations. At some point, naming and conscious recognition happen and only then are sensate objects established. Then and only then can we way : "I observe the light, sound, smell, touch and/or taste of this and not that object."

These sensate objects are a crucial source of knowledge, for without them it is impossible to constitute conventional knowledge, i.e. articulate empirico-formal propositions of fact, as science requires. These objects, so we must think, are backed by the direct perception of stimuli independent from the observing system, and so crucial to the theory-independent side of the fact. Without them, we cannot be sure unicorns or horns on a horse have no conventional existence, even despite lengthy discussions and splendid argumentations. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting !

Clearly, in order to produce unimpaired information about the sensoric environment, the sensory apparatus must be working properly. Of the whole electromagnetic spectrum, ranging from wavelengths in meters between 10^-12 or Gamma rays, to 10⁴, or Radio waves, the human eye only sees 4.10^-7 to 7.10^-7 ! Co-relative limitations are at hand in the case of the other four senses. Dogs have more than 100 times more receptors in each square centimeter of the olfactory epithelium, which may be over 170 cm². Of course, our senses can be exercised. A trained pianist can distinguish between two tones of 1000 Hz and 1001 Hz, or the detection of a difference of only 1 μsec in the wavelengths ! Some experiments suggest the human retina can perceive the emission of a single photon ...

So given the fact the sensitive surfaces of the senses have been evolutionary programmed to perceive only a small fraction of Nature, functional senses are the conditio sine qua non validating empirical reports. Anyway, due to these limitations, our direct conventional knowledge only covers a very small band. Using mental objects (theories) and sophisticated artificial sensory apparatus, broader indirect conventional sensate objects may be established.

Again, let me repeat the basic formula for sensate objects :

3. mental objects :

Logical and mathematical objects are established without sensate objects. The fact a triangle has three angles is a logical necessity (a tautology), and needs no empirical verification. The same goes for the empty set of married bachelors ! Likewise, a whole world of mental objects can be created and/or discovered with its own kind of objectivity in which the subject of experience participates. As every advanced mathematician will explain, these mental objects have a life of their own and behave quite distinct from the conscious intentions of the subject of knowledge. They posit themselves or appear before the mind's eye in quite similar ways as sensate objects do.

The origin of these objects is under discussion. They are either inventions & discoveries reflecting the inner, implicit logical, linguistic & mathematical architecture, both static & dynamic, of the knowing subject (like Kant's transcendental structure) and its sensate objects or they "exist" in a Platonic world of sorts of their own. The latter option leads to a doubtful idealist reification ...

Objects of our imagination are also established without sensate objects. They appear before the mind's eye as a result of volitional activity. We posit them by engaging in a very special mental act, one creating images, forms, pictures, icons, etc. The extent of this imagination is vast. Buddhist mandalas prove this faculty can be trained to produce very complex imaginal objects indeed. As image-building links with the limbic system, emotionally charged images are more easily created & manipulated.

Using this imaginal activity allows us to reassemble, combine & recombine all known sensate & mental objects. With this faculty of mind, new mental objects may be created. Although, as merely internal objects, they cannot be shared, they, like lucid dreams, do "exist" from the side of the subject of experience, who is able to manipulate them in various ways. Imagination can be used in science to foresee options & possibilities, as in the so-called "thought-experiment". They can be made manifest through art.

In a scientific context, theoretical connotations & theories are crucial mental objects. They contain information about various conditions and lawful connections between events (determinations) and help the elaboration of our knowledge. If we would forget them, we would never learn anything.

Valid theories establish the scientific paradigm, the set of empirico-formal propositions considered for the time being as true, i.e. valid conventional representations of the cosmos, life & sentience. A such, the scientific paradigm is nothing else than conventional truth.

5.4 The Object of Designation : Logical Identity, Functional Imputation & Ontological Reification.

To conceptually designate an object in the formal mode of cognition, two steps are necessary :

• logical : the principles of identity, contradiction & excluded third make it possible to designate an object logically, involving naming & labeling ;
• functional : the functional relationships between the logically designated object and its environment give way to a description of the conditions and persistent, regulated, tenacious connections or determinations made. These are impermanent, strictly nominalist and part of the universal process-like nature of conventional things ;

In formal conceptual thought, a third faulty step is added :

• substantialist : the logically & functionally designated object is considered to be more than merely other-powered, i.e. more than just arising, spatio-temporarily persisting and eventually ceasing, giving way to new dependent arisings. It is deemed essentially, substantially identical with itself, not only logically. Ontologizing the principle of identity causes things to appear as self-powered, like seeing a snake when there is only a rope. Upon the logical identity, inherent existence (not just logical and functional existence) is superimposed, resulting in a conventional falsehood : the deceiving, illusionary appearance of an empirico-formal substance. It is this third step transcendental analysis (or ultimate analysis) aims to identify & thoroughly eradicate. This eradication is nothing less than the radical cognitive restructuring lying at the heart of the Buddhadharma !

Let us look at these three steps in more detail.

Suppose an entity, event or phenomenon named "A". A is posited by way of identity (A = A) & contradiction (A ≠ B). Here, B is not necessarily another entity, but everything A is not. By identifying "A", everything A is not has been affirmed. At this point, we may add that besides A and B, there is no third, for any position between A and B necessarily belongs to B. Identity, contradiction & excluded third are the formal-logical characterization of A

In the proto-rational mode of cognition (cf. supra), these three formal-logical features were not fully realized, for the cognitive act always happened in a given, implicit context and so no generalizations or theories were available. Distinguishing A from B happened by using a "silent" C, acting as a remnant of pre-rational psychomorphism and mythical irrationalism. For example, in an Ancient Egyptian theological text, the word "nTr" (pronounced "netjer"), to be translated as "the god", did not refer to "god" in any general way, but to the deity of the temple issuing the text (in Memphis this would be Ptah, in Abydos it is Osiris, in Hermopolis Thoth is intended, in Heliopolis Re and in Thebes Amun). Decontextualized, abstract logical characterization is therefore the first step in the abstract process of theory-formation, making it possible to identify the primitive logical terms accommodating the symbolization of axiomatics & general definitions.

Next, A is related to another entity, say C, or C = f(A), meaning C is a function of A. Given A, then C can be derived. If A is a cup, then C, pouring liquid into A, is possible. Without the "cup-like" property of the cup, liquid could not be kept in it. But breaking the cup destroys the cup-like property. Hence,  this property is also a function of something else, or : A = f(A'), A' = f(A''), etc. This second step is a series of functional designations or dependent arisings ("pratîtya-samutpâda"), pointing to the extended networks of interrelationships and interdependencies conventionally characterizing A. These networks prove A is other-powered, defined by external causes & conditions. Here, A, A', A", B, C and so forth are functional, nominal entities, not yet substances or things with a fixed, enduring core. Functionalism brings in process and does not attribute, impute or designate underlying thingness to any entity. C = f(A) purports purposefulness and utility, and this is the pervading note, nothing else. Functionalism adheres to strict nominalism.

The third step brings in a substantialist ontology, the "logic" of the essential nature, "being" or "is-ness" of entities A, A', A", B, C etc. As C depends on A, A is deemed "foundational", for without A no C, while A exists without C. Or in a general way : A^n-1 grounds Aⁿ. The infinite regression is stopped ad hoc by positing a sufficient ground A_s for every A.

So what is a mere functional relationship between two logically identified phenomena, sticking temporarily together in a working relation by a tenacious repetition, is transformed into a substantial relationship implying necessity, constancy and independence ! The complete functional series  A = f(A'), A' = f(A''), etc. defining A thus is deemed to find its sufficient ground in A_s, the true, inherent nature of A.

• necessity : A & C are necessarily linked because of A_s ;
• constancy : A & C were, are and will be linked because A_s is permanent ;
• independence : A & C are linked independently from other factors, like B.

Turning A into a hypostasis or substance, i.e. into something with an essential nature or an underlying reality, is attributing own-power to A, designating to A "substantial", "essential", "eidetic" nature, being or sufficient ground, A_s.

This core remains self-identical and is deemed to represent the "true nature" or "ultimate existence" of A. In this very wrong view, the "essence" of A must always remain the "essence" of A, for otherwise A could not substantially remain A, but may become A', while, by virtue of the principle of identity, A' ≠ A ! While in this system substantial change is deemed possible (A_s changing into A_s'), it is not clear how this can be the case without A = B, ending correct logic (every entity cannot be every other entity) and sound function (all entities cannot function with all other entities). To maintain the validity of conventional truth, logic & function need to remain intact. By moving beyond both, namely by adding A_s, the inherent nature of A, both are however lost.

For Tsongkhapa & Kant, "existence" is a word only instantiating, designating or positing a concept, nothing more. So when the "existence" of something or someone A is posited, the totality of known predicates of A is affirmed, adding nothing to this logical set. When this existence is denied, the whole set of predicates vanishes and the referent with it. An object is what can be ascribed to it, nothing more. To affirm A "exists" is to instantiate (posit) its concept, but does not instantiate the richer concept "inherently existing A". Every statement of existence  ("there is", or "there are"), says about a concept it is instantiated, rather than it inherently exists. Any legitimate existential statement must be built out of propositions of the form : "There is an A.", where "A" stands for a determining predicate, not a substance like A_s.

So the core axiom of substantialist thought to be avoided is the logical identity between a predicative and an ontological use of the copula "being" or "is". When using the copula only a predicative use is indicated. Science and its conventional truth, using synthetical propositions, affirm there is such a thing as A or : Эy (y = A), i.e. empirico-formal knowledge articulates a mere connection between an object and a predicate (or "esse"). Now determining object A has the property of existence, i.e. the affirmation of inherent existence ("existit"), or "E!x", is unwarranted and adds nothing to our knowledge of A. Conventional truth is limited to the set of determining predicates, of which "inherent existence" is not part. Saying "A exist." is asserting something instantiates the concept of A, nothing more. It does not suggest the richer concept "inherently existing A", for existence does not add a property, nor a quality.

In this Fregean approach avant la lettre, the Platonic-Augustinian intuition of "being" as "some thing" is completely replaced by an affirmation of instantiation by some observer. Here the Copernican Revolution is complete : there is no conceptualization of being as such possible, for only appearances are left.

Summary of these three steps :

Ultimate analysis intends to show how this third step creates logical & functional problems and so is at fault. Realizing this conceptually, after having eliminated coarse self-cherishing (cf. supra), brings about a direct "seeing" of the ultimate nature of all phenomena. At this point, Tsongkhapa leaves Kant behind ...

 6 Objective & Subjective Conditions of Conventional Truth.

Let us, before bringing down the sword of wisdom on self-grasping, firmly establish the conditions of conventional truth : testability & arguability. For a comprehensive presentation, consult Clearings, 2006.

In pre-Kantian philosophy, true, valid knowledge was always certain knowledge, anchored in a sufficient ground stabilizing the truth-claim. Hence, valid or true knowledge was perennial. Truth was eternalized, and so only ultimate truth was worthy of being called truth at all. Conventional truth was mere "opinion" ("doxa"). Pre-critical epistemology, seeking to make this postulate of foundation explicit, sought this sufficient ground outside knowledge, either as a "real" world "out there", objectively (Plato's "world of being") or an "ideal" idea "in here", subjectively (Aristotle's "intellectus agens"). The "real", independent world was the rock-bottom of ontological realism and considered to be separated from the subject. The independent "ideal" idea rooted ontological idealism and deemed to exist as a separate, ideal subject constituting its object.

In Greek metaphysics, this so-called concept-realism dominated and rooted the possibility of knowledge in a world of being (Plato) or in the abstraction of the essence of things observed by an active intellect (Aristotle). In Scholastic thought, the distinction between this (Platonic & Peripatetic) concept-realism and (moderate & strict) nominalism emerged, to be replaced in modern thought by a new version of concept-realism : realist empirism (only the senses provide reliable knowledge) and idealist rationalism (only the mind yields certain knowledge). All these efforts were pointless. Both rationalism and its ontological idealism as well as empirism and its ontological realism, could each be argued relatively successfully from their own side, but, taken together, constituted a contradiction.

We had to wait for Kant and neo-Kantianism to eliminate the need for a sufficient ground. As a result, conventional knowledge is no longer eternal & perennial, but fallible, historical, relative & conventional. Conventional truth (validation by way of the senses & reason) and ultimate truth (the state of things as they are) are distinguished. Valid conventional truth is not certain in an absolute, permanent way.

• fallible : a theory can always be replaced by a better one ;
• historical : theories are not independent from the culture producing them ;
• relative : theories do not stand alone, but part of a network of theories ;
• conventional : theories are formulated in terms agreed upon by convention by all involved sign-interpreters.

In a critical theory of conventional truth, seeking to find reasons to accept a theory as if it were true or valid (but not absolutely certain), the following categories emerge :

• the subject of knowledge / the one thinking with others / intersubjective discourse (consensus, dissensus, argumentation, consensus etc. about mental objects) / consensus omnium regulated by the idea of the Ideal ;

• the object of knowledge / what is thought / monologous testing (experimental setup, observation of sensate objects, tests) / adequatio intellectus ad rem regulated by the idea of the Real.

On the one hand, absolute certainty is lost to conventional truth, but, on the other hand, the ideas of the Real & the Ideal, so is discovered, must be at work in every proposition corroborated by facts, because, in a normative setting, this must be the case if knowledge is to be considered as possible ! The Real is not a quasi-cause of perceptions (as in realism), for, as explained by contemporary psychology, sensation and patterns of expectation coincide in every fact. The Ideal does not constitute objects (as in idealism), but in every cognitive act mental objects are at work and cannot be divorced from it. Both are mere regulative Ideas of reason guaranteeing the unity & expansion of knowledge. They define the "essential tension" or "concordia discors" of conventional thought ; the continuous confrontation of object & subject of knowledge.

6.1 The Object of Knowledge & Correspondence.

On the side of the object of knowledge, given normative epistemology, we must think "reality-as-such" as knowable without being conceptually equipped to know whether this is the case or not. Facts are both intra-linguistic, and so co-determined by the mental objects of the subject of knowledge (like notions, theoretical connotations, conjectures, hypothesis, theories, etc.), and -so must we think- extra-linguistic, i.e. the authentic messengers of "reality-as-such". Hence, they somehow correspond, so we must assume, with this reality-as-such. Again, in a normative setting we have no knowledge of whether this is truly the case or not, for conventionally, we cannot find an Archimedic point outside knowledge to ascertain or describe this. Thinking they found such a static point entangled the pre-critical substantialist in the ontological illusions of realism (the real inherently exists-as-such) or idealism (the ideal inherently exists-as-such). We must think facts to possess a theory-independent side, for otherwise conventional knowledge would be impossible. Indeed, in that case conventional knowledge would not be valid knowledge about some object, but merely an intersubjective, linguistic phenomenon.

To notice the illusion of substantialism on the side of "reality" and the object of knowledge, the use of the idea of the Real has to be restricted to three different contexts :

• reality-for-me : the irreducible perspective of the First Person Perspective, the whole area covered by intentionality, intimacy, secrecy, privacy and the inner world of each and every single conscious observer or subject of knowledge ;

• reality-for-us : factual, scientific object-knowledge produced, within a conventional framework, by, on the one hand, testing, experimentation, systematic observation, etc. and, on the other hand, discussion & consensus ;

• reality-as-such : limit-concept of formal & critical cognition, representing, so must we think, the extra-mental, extra-linguistic, theory-independent, absolute reality or the ultimate nature of all.

Realistic answers to the problem of the foundation of knowledge step beyond the boundaries of all possible conceptual knowledge. Then, the idea of a "reality devoid of the subject of knowledge" (i.e. reality-as-such or Kant's "Ding-an-sich"), becomes the foundation of epistemology, making facts entirely coincide with this reality, eclipsing the role of the subject of knowledge, becoming passive & secondary.

By shaping the unconditionality of the object of knowledge, the idea of the Real (reality-as-such) guarantees the unity & the expansion of the monologous, object-oriented conceptual knowledge.

Conventionally, the object of knowledge is known through facts established by observing sensate objects by way of experiment & testing. The latter presuppose theory-independent facts entertaining a  monologous relation with Nature, responding, so we must assume, by way of its own tale (devoid of ours). As sensate objects cannot be established without theories or mental objects, all facts constituting empirico-formal propositions are hybrids, characterized by a theory-independent and a theory-dependent side.

In the onto-realistic theory of truth, propositions are true, justified or valid when they correspond with facts lacking interpretation ("adequatio intellectus ad rem" or "veritas est adequatio rei et intellectus"). Given the theory-dependence of facts, this proves to be impossible. Of course, correspondence still remains a valid tool in methodological idealism.

6.2 The Subject of Knowledge & Consensus.

On the side of the subject of knowledge, we must think "ideality-as-such" as knowable (without being conceptually equipped to know whether this is the case or not). We have to think the "consensus omnium" as possible (without us, in any given discourse, ever reaching it). In this way ensues the distinction between "my" consensus (with myself), "our" consensus here & now (i.e. the agreement between all the users of the same language-game) and the "consensus omnium", the mere regulative idea on the side of the subject of knowledge.

To note the illusion of substantialism on the side of "ideality" and the subject of knowledge, restrict the use of the idea of the Ideal :

• ideality-for-me : the irreducible inner language-game of the first person, the whole area covered by conscious meaning, thoughts, imaginations and volitions, i.e. inner mental objects giving form to signs as signals, icons and symbols ;

• ideality-for-us : the intersubjective object-knowledge produced by discourse and the art of argumentation about the interpretation of ourselves and reality-for-us ;

• ideality-as-such : limit-concept of formal cognition representing the Ideal idea of an absolute system of concepts encompassing all possible (inter)subjectivity, the "ideal of ideals", the sheer absolute ideality or the ultimate mind knowing all.

Idealistic answers ground the possibility of knowledge in the idea of an "ideal, object-constituting subject" (reality becomes secondary). Both are in conflict with the necessary conditions of the possibility of knowledge, for in such an idealist epistemology, knowledge is never about something outside language.

By shaping the unconditionality of the intersubjectivity of knowledge, the idea "ideality" (the ideal-as-such) guarantees the unity & the expansion of the dialogal, subject-oriented conceptual knowledge.

Conventionally, the subject of knowledge is known through mental objects established by way of conjectures, argumentations and conclusions or discourses. The latter presuppose theory-dependent mental objects entertaining an intersubjective dialogue between sign-interpreters, positing hypothesis, arguing and rejecting statements. These theoretical connotations then co-define how concrete facts or sensate objects are identified & treated.

In the onto-idealist theory of truth, factual propositions are true, justified or valid when they elicit or call fort a general agreement constituting the object of knowledge ("leges cogitandi sunt leges essendi"). Given the theory-independent side of facts, this cannot be correct. Of course, consensus is still a valid tool in methodological idealism.  

6.3 Conventional Truth & Coherence.

Distinguish between :

• on the side of the object of knowledge :

theory / facts / REALITY = regulative REAL OBJECT
methodological criterion of truth : correspondence with the extra-linguistic

• on the side of the subject of knowledge :

"my" opinion / "our" discourse / IDEALITY = regulative IDEAL SUBJECT
methodological criterion of truth : consensus omnium between subjects

Successful experiments & testing bring an extra-linguistic something to the fore. Theoretical thinking names that something. At the point where the stuff of tests is symbolized, an empirico-formal proposition is formulated. The extra-linguistic factor must not be exorcised (as in idealism) and so "coherency" does not imply "truth" to be mainly an intersubjective decision or agreement. Likewise, the truth-value of an scientific proposition must not solely depend on correspondence with reality (as in realism), for facts are facts-for-us and although, so must we conventionally think, they do are the heralds of the real thing "out there", they are also theory-dependent !

Coherency strikes the balance between these two vectors of conventional truth, the two leading ideas of the critical theory of truth : discourse & consensus versus experiment & correspondence. A "true" theory is one corroborated by repeated testing and approved after elaborate discussions. It is "true" because the force-fields of both vectors have been allowed to play out and contribute to object-knowledge and its empirico-formal propositions and theories.

The imaginal, heuristic point of intersection between the idea of the Real and the idea of the Ideal is a knowledge-leading & knowledge-regulating fiction which guarantees the progress of conventional knowledge without ever constituting conventional knowledge itself. If it does, then it misleads, thus curtailing the unity & progress of conventional truth by introducing ontological illusions (the illusion facts are only theory-independent or real, the illusion facts are only theory-dependent or constituted by the ideal).

Insofar as arguable theories are not put to the test, they do not yet belong to science proper. A scientific theory X belongs to strict science if, and only if, X is corroborated and consensual. For a logically well-formed theory to be strict science, it needs to be factual and trigger the approval of all involved. Hence, strict science is the outcome of an application of both vectors and adjacent regulations.

The progress of knowledge is guaranteed if we never allow its expanding movement to stop. Science is halted when, after having considered "truth" as eternal, we fixate our conceptual knowledge and replace its temporary status with a dogmatic closure, identifying sensate objects with reality-as-such and/or mental objects with ideality-as-such. In the conventional realm, the absolute, ultimate knowledge-horizon cannot be attained. Conventional knowledge is allowed to progress for ever, for its horizon ever escapes us.

To deeternalize truth in epistemology does not exclude ultimate truth, things as they truly are. Speculating about the limit-concepts of transcendental thought, like truth, beauty and goodness, we use these heuristically (as in the immanent metaphysics of creative cognition). In transcendent metaphysics, a direct, ineffable radical experience of them is at hand, as elucidated by nondual cognition. This highest mode of cognition is the one Buddha seeks to re-initiate or reboot the entire mental system, eradicating ignorance thoroughly.

6.4 Methodological Realism versus Methodological Idealism.

Methodology transposes the necessities of experiment and communication to the local research-cell in general and to the practical opportunistic logic of its specific scientific studies in particular. This causes a variety of local, a posteriori coordinations of scientific activity. This is more casus-oriented than statute-oriented, seeking to answer the question Quid factis ? rather than the question Quid Iuris ?

In physics, experiments will be at the core of research. But, unassisted by a constant dialogue enabling refinements, novel interpretations and alternative theoretical views, testing is rather futile, often off-mark and reduced to a standardized confirmation of established points of view.

In human sciences, methodology turns into hermeneutics (the interpretation of signs) and participant observation. But, if this interpretation of signals, icons and symbols is not balanced by a practical, open and honest real experience of a variety of intersubjective communities, then a fossilization takes place, and the institutions of knowledge are an easy prey for the media money, propaganda & power. As such, they cannot guarantee free study and, as authorities ex cathedra, will eventually see their ideal monolith crumble under the weight of novel facts.

So to avoid conventional falsehoods, the production of knowledge is protected against the extremes of mere subjectification & mere objectification.

In the practice of knowledge, scientists, supposed to be aware of the issues raised by theoretical epistemology, suspend the distinctions between test-results and reality-as-such, as well as between the actual consensus and the ideal discourse & its consensus omnium. The game of conventional truth is played as if it were possible to gaze how things truly are in the face and directly derive true knowledge from this.

Act as if objects of knowledge "exist", but leave room for a discussion about the experimental results, leading to better testing (methodological realism). Act as if subjects of knowledge "think the truth", but leave room for new experiments, leading to richer, less redundant discussions (methodological idealism). In this conventional truth-game of coherency, the final term (the unity of existence & thinking) is permanently suspended.

The two regulators (experiment and discourse) assist each other. If we consider, for the sake of methodology, our test-results as real, we need to discuss whether there are no alternative interpretations. If we consider our theory as ideal, we need to test to observe whether novel facts emerge. Lack of this, will eventually slow down the manufacture of knowledge. The conventional game has to be played without final terms. Then, the ongoing production of knowledge can be in no way halted.

6.5 Scientific, Conventional Truth & Metaphysical Speculation.

"Testability" & "arguability" are predicates which both must be ascribable to every scientific theory, or set of empirico-formal propositions designating conventional facts. Relative to the status of a theory, three subdomains of scientific endeavor ensue :

• proto-science or conventional conjectures : not tested but arguable ; example : there is extraterrestrial life watching over humanity ;
• strict science or conventional truths : corroborated and in agreement ; example : macroscopic physical objects m₁ & m₂ obey Newton's law F = G.m₁.m₂/r² ;
• semi-science or conventional falsehoods : falsified and/or in disagreement ; for example ; phlogiston is the cause of fire, the eye is the cause of light or the heart is the cause of thoughts, etc.

If a rational (arguable) theory does not refuse testing, it already belongs to the domain of science. As a proto-science, it reflects the order-book of science, its tasks ahead. In particular, the specific activities planned by each research-cell. These are conventional conjectures which may or may not be true. If corroborated and approved by others, it becomes strict science, the body of conventional truths furnishing the current paradigm. If falsified by new experiments or disagreement about it prevails or both, it becomes part of the large storehouse of outdated (semi-) scientific theories. The latter are conventional falsehoods. These are statements which can be argued, can be tested, were tested and found not factual and/or in contradiction with better theories.

If a semi-scientific theory or conventional falsehood can no longer be tested, it becomes metaphysical. Likewise, all theories refusing or somehow escaping testing are metaphysical. In this case, only arguability is left. Hence, metaphysics is untestable, speculative & theoretical knowledge on being (ontology), the cosmos (philosophical cosmology), life (philosophical biology), the human (philosophical anthropology) & the Divine (philosophical Divinity).

Metaphysics can be divided in :

• valid metaphysics : arguable ; for example : angels protect all life ;
• invalid metaphysics : unarguable ; for example : unicorns can fly ;
• irrational metaphysics : logically too unsound of form to argue about and so a priori unarguable ; for example : life is at the same time meaningful and pointless.

Two lines of demarcation stand out : on the one hand, between science & metaphysics, in other words as a function of the testability of done statements and, on the other hand, between valid & invalid metaphysics, in other words, as a function of the arguability of done statements.

Science and metaphysics have arguability in common and differ in terms of testability. Both can be checked using logic. But testability is the crucial demarcation between both. Science is all about intelligent experimentation. But a priori metaphysical statements are untestable. Given the vast domain of metaphysics, covering all logically correct speculations and all former scientific theories, a second demarcation is introduced between valid an invalid metaphysics.

Valid metaphysics is arguable. As an immanent metaphysics, it must be able to argue a comprehensive rational, arguable picture of the metaphysical horizon. Insofar as transcendent metaphysics, being nondual, cannot be verbalized, all efforts to stretch beyond immanence must be deemed futile and, at best, of exemplaric poetic value only, inviting direct experience. Can validation have meaning in nondual terms ? As authenticity perhaps ? This issue is of great importance in Dzogchen.

 7 The Second Turning I :
Optimalizing Mind through Great Compassion.

In his Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma at Vulture Peak Mountain in Râjagriha, Bihar, Śâkyamuni focused on compassion ("karunâ") & emptiness ("śûnyatâ"). The former is the Via Regia to ending self-cherishing and the coarse forms of self-grasping based on the assimilation of wrong views. These are indispensable to accumulate merit and prepare the mind for the experience of ultimate truth, the wisdom-mind realizing emptiness.

This realization is two-stepped :

• liberation : the identitylessness of persons entering a personal "nirvâna". The mind focuses on one's own salvation, placing equanimity before compassion. Bodhicitta is not generated ;
• Buddhahood : the identitylessness of all phenomena and the elimination of all the causes of acquired & innate self-grasping. The mind prepares by generating the mind of enlightenment for all sentient beings, helping all escape cyclic existence. Compassion is placed before all other Immeasurables (joy, love & equanimity) and because of aspiring, engaging & ultimate Bodhicitta, great & perfect compassion is generated. This force propels one with relentless force, entering final "nirvâna" swiftly.

7.1 The Mind of Self-Cherishing.

Let us recall the problems commonly facing our fellow human beings.

Once the ego is conceived as inherently existing, it solidifies and becomes a static center, creating a "real" separation or schism between the subject and its objects, in particular other humans. This gulf between "me" and "the other" conveys to me a sense of specialness, and its distinguishing mark is the erroneous conception of me being split off from my own experience, somehow suspended above all events, much like a distant witness, not a participator. This allows the conventional, empirical ego to claim : "I am a thinker, possessing a mind and a body". This I-ness, although in reality only functionally imputed on the five aggregates, is turned into a static substance, causing the ego to consider itself as permanent and endowed by enduring properties making up its "essence" or "core being". The latter is of course unique, special and not shared by others ! Likewise, other egos are usually considered to be permanent too, possessing different combinations of properties than myself. These people cannot inherently be like "me", for "I am" this unique, self-powered individual, one of a kind. Although it is conventionally true for the aggregates to form a unique combination of functional characteristics, it eludes the self-cherishing ego these aggregates of body & mind are constantly changing. Hence, the ego cannot ever remain the same. The sense of enduring selfhood is not what it seems, but this conventional truth is not witnessed by our deluded, self-cherishing egos.

Identifying with the fiction or hallucination of this false solid sense of "me", conceptual elaboration then brings conceptually reified categories to life in which the solid "I" plays the puppeteer. Substantialist thinking makes the illusionary self stand stronger, causing self-affirmation and self-aggrandizement. Attachment to worldly concerns (material things, praise, fame, sensual pleasure) increases. However, these projections and the cravings they engender, being false, cause the ego not to be adequate to them, eventually (after much play & folly) generating a sense of insufficiency. Emotionally and intellectually, the static ego aches due to being confronted with its own fundamental incompleteness. To soothe the pain of this inner lack and given the need to regularly boost the power of the hallucination, requires constant fulfillment. But when, to compensate for the ever-returning insufficiency no new toys or playmates can be found, the lurking suspicion of an ultimate lack of authenticity and genuineness dawns. Accommodating this realization, not willing to give up, turns the static ego to cynicism & loneliness, or worse, to self-willed degeneration and virulent self-destruction. Too much & too long attached to this false reified vision of oneself, makes one turn away from possible cures, fearing to go cold turkey, refusing to quit the addiction.

The substance-ego, being a fake, must deceive all it associates with. The end result of this is chronic disquietude and anxiety. These close the circle, for both are expressed in a compulsion to build and fortify the illusionary ego even more, getting rid of everything and everybody endangering the illusion with the sobriety of the ultimate truth : the ego does not exist as it appears.

Fortification of the fictional ego gives birth to a relentless craving for worldly things. In vain these are considered valid means to satisfy the need for self-security. Nothing less is true. Their pursuit causes hatred, selfishness and violence, and these, creating "the war of all against all" undermine the ego even more. In this way, the agent becomes the victim of its own fundamental ignorance and misconception about itself ! Once a victim, the majority of one's waking hours are spend in brooding, in mental chatter, in being negative, depressed, unhappy and unhealthy, causing others to feel likewise, polluting young minds with one's garbage-mentality.

Is it not extraordinary and extremely profound the Buddha found the single root-cause of all of this ? What he uncovered is true peace because it is how things ultimately exist, namely lacking substance while being process-bound. The moment we accept a single phenomenon, be it the ego or anything else, to inherently exist as a self-powered entity on its own, we rekindle the fire of ignorant craving & hatred. Eliminate the slightest tendency towards reification, and the fuel is gone in the face of awakening.

7.2 The Three Motivations : Small, Middling, Large.

In view of the above, truly grasping emptiness is the most virtuous cognitive act possible. But is this within the reach of every sentient being ? Clearly not.

Firstly, the Buddhadharma reckons human beings are not the only beings in the universe endowed with Buddha-nature, or the potential for enlightenment. The Sûtras state animals also possess it, explaining Śâkyamuni's injunction not to eat meat, implying killing a potential Buddha. As every living being exists because of physical (space, time, elementary particles, forces), mineral & vegetal processes, the latter may also be included. Nature itself, and even this planet may be considered possessing this potential to awake (cf. the Gaia-hypothesis and the theosophical notion of the "consciousness of the atom"). However, in animals, the Buddha-potential is covered by the massive obscuration of stupidity, making it practically impossible for them to wash away these defilements by their own accord. When the Buddha appears in this world, he carries a book, symbol of wisdom but more precisely of interdependence. Considering animals as part of ourselves, helping them and blessing them is a way to assist them clear away the path to their inner Buddha core.

According to traditional sources, other more "metaphysical" beings exist in this world : hell-beings, hungry ghosts, demi-gods & gods. Together with humans and animals, these elusive beings constitute the world of "samsâra", constantly cycling between these states and participating in the various forms of suffering constituting this vast and beginningless realm. For various reasons explained elsewhere, all sentient beings except the human experience very great difficulty when trying to escape their lot. By the force of "karmic winds" they are driven or pushed around and mostly experience rebirth in the same if not worse conditions. A glimpse of hell is enough to make a good person very compassionate indeed ! Likewise, witnessing the constant distractions of the gods is a very powerful anti-dote against worldly concerns ...

Endowed with a precious human life, lots of human beings lack the opportunity to be touched by the Dharma. They may lack functional senses, be retarded,  live in wild & ignorant places, cherish wrong views etc. (cf. the Eight Freedoms and Ten Endowments). Given the extraordinary opportunity of beings endowed with a precious, free & endowed human life, it is baffling to realize only very few of these very lucky humans take the time to consider spiritual evolution at all. They have no regular practice and, at best, limit themselves to basic humanistic goodness, which, of course, is a spiritual exercise on its own. However, this "category" is not included in the traditional three-tiered analysis of human practitioners in small, middling and large.

Scholars studying the Sûtras or the principles behind the Four Turnings often remark the Buddhadharma contains many contradictions. To this person the Buddha teaches that and to another something entirely different. They may forget his teachings are not intended to put in place a universal philosophy as a Western teacher of philosophy would. His "system" involves addressing the person to whom he is speaking, knowing his or her condition and seeking the proper antidote. Someone convinced he or she ultimately exists, equating his or her soul ("âtman") with the conjectured Creator ("Brahman") cannot be immediately helped by hearing the teachings on emptiness of the Second Turning, but needs to thoroughly consider the First Turning. Likewise, those only working at their personal liberation have no faith in Bodhicitta and may consider it a non-authentic, vain and pretentious pursuit. Great Perfection Bodhisattvas may consider the teachings of the Fourth Turning as degenerated forms amassed by renegade Indian tantrics, etc. To those refusing to accept anything the Buddha has said, Śâkyamuni is a blessing like the Sun shining on good and evil persons alike, but his teachings cannot reach them. They are like music to the deaf. In the non-sectarian, Ri-mé-approach, one always asks for the intent behind this or that teaching.

The disparity between the faculties of spiritual aspirants gives rise to a distinction between three types of students, called "small", "middling" and "great". Those of small capacity have dull faculties, those of middling capacity medium faculties and those of great capacity have acute faculties. It was Atiśa, who, in chapter one of his Bodhipathapadîpa, sets out the hierarchy of the three types as a fundamental structure. Later Tibetan scholars, including Tsongkhapa, also used this tripartite division to structure the graduated path.

Those of the most limited capacity overcome attachment to this life out of concern for their future well-being in this life and the next. They live their lives in accordance with the connection between actions and their effects. They seek the pleasures of "samsâra" for themselves and are concerned with happiness in future lives and practice exclusively to accomplish this. Their practices result in future enjoyment of human and celestial places, bodies & pleasures within cyclic existence.

Those of intermediate capacity are averse to "samsâra" as a whole and seek to personally escape from it by the Three Higher Trainings of morality, meditation & wisdom. They become Lesser Vehicle practitioners and seek liberation. So they hope for a good rebirth not merely because of the pleasures offered by "samsâra".

"Those who, through their personal suffering, truly want to end completely all the suffering of others are persons of supreme capacity."
Atiśa : Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, chapter 1,5.

Those of the highest capacity reject both "samsâra" and personal "nirvâna", seeking peerless true peace to help all sentient beings. They become Greater Vehicle practitioners and the best of them are rare (perhaps only one in a million). Only these successfully practice Highest Yoga Tantra and the suddenist techniques of Dzogchen.

7.3 Calm Abiding.

The Buddha discovered it is not possible to realize wisdom-mind by diligently striving in extreme ways. Instead, through Calm abiding ("śamatha"), joy arises and from joy, insight arises ! When a sense of well-being is established, the mind is able to ride on this wave, while physical misery leads to nothing good. So the first things to do is to achieve serenity, a tranquil state of mind. Without this, insight in the true nature of phenomena is impossible. A calm mind is the fruit of successful tranquility meditation.

The preliminary practices of calmness meditation are mindfulness and analytical meditation. The former duly prepares the mind to be aware of itself and its environment, the latter establishes virtuous objects.

Mindfulness, as taught in the Theravâda tradition, is simply being thoroughly in the present moment and letting awareness to be unbound as possible, devoid of any conceptual overlay, dispensing with judgments, classifications, emotional responses etc. Whatever happens is observed neutrally, without attending to it and without rejecting it, without grasping & without conceptual elaboration. The practice of this preliminary mindfulness meditation involves no elaborate trappings, but is as simple as carefully watching without putting in any effort, except that of bringing the wandering mind back to the present moment. If laxity, complacency or "sinking" happens, one just notices it. No antidote is applied. This is the main difference with mindfulness in Calm Abiding. To distinguish mindfulness meditation, mindfulness, when part of the practice of Calm Abiding, will be called "attention".

Analytical meditation involves remembering and (re)considering the meaning of Dharma teachings heard or read. This is not without effort, presupposing preliminary study (listening and/or reading) and reflection. Impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, pain, absence of static entities, death, the Three Jewels, the Two Truths etc. are common themes. By intently analyzing these and other Dharma teachings, we reach provisional conclusions. These are virtuous states of mind.

If, through studying, reflecting, analytical meditation and mindfulness meditation, certain crucial virtuous object like the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha have become habitual objects of the mind, then they can be taken as objects of placement meditation or Calm Abiding.

• mindfulness meditation : passive awareness training ;
• analytical meditation : reflecting on the Dharma, establishing its objects ;
• placement meditation or Calm Abiding : active tranquility training.

In tranquility meditation, three factors are essential : (a) attentional stability or the capacity to keep one's attention ("smriti") on the object of placement constant & non-compulsive, (b) vividness, or the capacity of the mind to clearly see and maintain interest in the object, and (c) introspection or vigilance ("samprajanya"), or watching carefully to see when attention begins to slip. Focusing the mind and maintaining one's attention continuously and clearly without distractions is the way to serenity. In Tibetan Buddhism, Calm Abiding is defined by nine stages. From the beginning of the practice to its culmination certain problems arise addressed by specific antidotes.

There are Six Prerequisites to achieve Calm Abiding. If these are not present, the whole training is rather futile and a waste of good time.

The Six Prerequisites :

1. a suitable environment : a quiet, safe place with few companions ;
2. few desires : cultivating few and simple needs ;
3. contentment : attending to what is given in the moment ;
4. few concerns : a simple lifestyle, dealing with what is present right now ;
5. ethical discipline : recognizing the harmful and not indulging in it ;
6. avoiding compulsive thinking : no mental spiels, glib talks, goofy cravings, in particular about worldly desires.

Before discussing the Nine Stages of Calm Abiding, let's define the Five Faults ("âdînava"), Six Powers ("bala") and Eight Antidotes ("pratipaksha") :

The Five Faults :

As long as one of these faults is present, the object of placement is unstable.

1. laziness ("kausîdya") : the wish to establish the object of placement is not present ;
2. forgetting the precept ("avavâdasammosha") : the object is entirely forgotten ;
3. laxity ("laya") & excitement/excitation ("auddhataya") : implying lethargy or a heaviness of mind & body, laxity is either the absence of a clear mind apprehending the object (coarse) or the absence of an intensity of clarity, i.e. a sense of tightness of mind with respect to the object (subtle) - excitement is a scattering of the mind away from the object to an object of desire, i.e. remembering a pleasant object while trying to focus on the object. Coarse excitement replaces the object of placement with the object of desire, while in subtle excitement only a "corner" of the mind has come under influence of discursiveness while the appearance of the pleasing object is imminent ;
5. non-application ("anabhisamskâra") : the antidotes to laxity & excitement are not applied ;
6. over-application ("abhisamskâra") : the antidotes to laxity and excitement are applied too often.

The Six Powers :

Only by the presence of these power can the object of placement become stable.

1. hearing ("shruta") : refers to clearly listening to the instructions (stage 1) ;
2. thinking ("chintâ") : thinking over what has been heard (stages 2 & 3) ;
3. attention ("smriti") : keeping the object in mind (stages 2 & 3) ;
4. introspection ("samprajanya") : watching attention slip (stages 5 & 6) ;
5. effort ("vîrya") : doing what is needed to practice (stages 7 & 8) ;
6. familiarity ("parichaya") : being familiar with the object (stage 9).

The Eight Antidotes :

By not applying these antidotes, the hindrances to a stable object of placement remain.

Antidotes to laziness :

1. faith ("shraddhâ")
2. aspiration ("chhanda")
3. exertion ("vyâyâma")
4. pliancy ("prashrabdhi")

5. attention ("smriti") : antidote to forgetting the precepts ;
6. introspection ("samprajanya") : antidote to laxity & excitement ;
7. application ("abhisamskâra") : antidote to non-application of antidotes ;
8. equanimity ("upekshâ") : antidote to over-application.

The Four Mental Applications :

Four engagements are necessary on the path to meditative equipoise :

1. forceful engaging : one has to force the mind to remains focused on the object of placement (stage 1 & 2) ;
2. interrupted engaging : our practice is interrupted by thoughts and we have to continually bring it back (stages 3 to 7) ;
3. uninterrupted engaging : the mind no longer wanders and stays with its object without interruptions (stage 8) ;
4. spontaneous engaging : the mind rests in meditative equipoise (stage 9).

The Nine Stages to "Śamatha" :

The primary obstacles to attain the apex of Calm Abiding, called "setting in meditative equipoise" are laxity and excitement. The former diminishes mental clarity and is a kind of inner dullness & heaviness, while excitement is a scattering of the mind by desirously engaging in another object deemed pleasant. Both diminish the ability to concentrate on the object of placement and so prevent Calm Abiding. When they appear, the antidotes counteract them. In a general way, laxity is remedied by brightening or enlarging the object of placement and excitement is counteracted by decreasing the size & brightness of the object, heightening one's concentration on another object (like the breath) or contemplating impermanence & death.

1. Mental Placement :

Setting the mind. The object, like an image or statue of the Buddha or another virtuous object, is found. Concentration is intermittent and random thoughts enter often. The object can only be briefly held. Attention is brief and the object is often lost. There is a lot of mental chatter. Emotional resistances to the training are strong and lead the mind away from its object.

2. Continual Placement :

Continuously setting the mind. Without gross excitation, by an increase of attention, the object can be held for a minute. Mental chatter is present but moves to the background. Resistances fade but are still present. After a small period of placement, the mind is led astray again and the object is lost for some considerable time. Then it is found again.

3. Patched Placement :

Resetting the mind. One stays on the object longer, but due to gross excitation it is occasionally lost, but comes back quickly. It is not yet perfectly clear and background mental chatter is still intermittently present. Attention is never lost for long, but the mind does momentarily slip off into distraction.

4. Close Placement :

Close setting of the mind. The mind is imbued with calmness, and the object is not lost for hours at a time. Attention is stable enough for distraction to get hold. There is enough "ballast" to keep the boat of attention from rocking over into wandering. Gross excitation is temporarily overcome. But when continuity of attention is greater, laxity becomes stronger. Introspection is necessary to watch whether it is rising. One need to get rid of gross laxity, fading vividness. This is done by paying closer attention without putting in too much effort. The lens of attention is focuses more and more finely, seeing greater details. There is no wandering, but some background chatter remains. A split focus is present : one on the object, another on this noise, imagery on the periphery of one's awareness. After some time, a naturally arisen mental image or "sign" ("nimitta") appears in the area of attention, like a web of light surrounding the object of placement. Finally gross excitation is gone, but gross laxity not yet.

5. Taming :

Disciplining the mind. Vividness is enhanced. The advantages of this training emerge and they are delightful. Gross laxity is addressed. The object is not lost and mental chatter is gone. But bright vividness is not yet there, and so this state is not to be confused with "samâdhi". Training attention to details, paying very close attention to the object of placement brings greater "density" of moments of clear attention directed upon the object. Eventually gross laxity stops. But subtle laxity remains.

6. Pacification :

Pacifying the mind. The senses are withdrawn. There is very little sensoric input. All resistance to the training is gone and attention is stable and very tightly woven. Here, subtle excitation happens. Only a "corner" of the mind has come under influence of discursiveness while the appearance of the pleasing object is imminent.

7. Complete Pacification :

Thoroughly pacifying the mind. To overcome subtle laxity, vividness needs to be improved further. The object is clear, but can become even clearer ! Intense vividness is sought. Finally, subtle laxity stops and one focuses on the "sign" of the object of placement.

8. Single-Pointed Placement :

One-pointedness of mind. No laxity or excitation whatsoever arise. The training needs very little effort in the beginning and then goes effortlessly. The mind is cruising. Introspection is no longer necessary. The only thing done is to accustom the mind to this state, creating a deeper and deeper sense of familiarity with it.

9. Balanced Placement :

Setting the mind in meditative equipoise. No effort is needed. Entering meditation is like putting on new clothes. The mind is like a breeze. Transformation is happening on the deepest level possible.

7.4 Insight Meditation.

"If You analytically discern the lack of self in phenomena and You cultivate that very analysis in meditation, this will cause the result, attainment of nirvâna ; there is no peace through any other means."
Buddha Śâkyamuni : King of Concentrations Sûtra.

When meditative equipoise is realized, the yogi can effortlessly enter the concentrations of the Form Realm and the stabilizations of the Formless Realm. The first stabilization is a very deep state of "samâdhi", and is one step beyond balanced placement. Hence, the practice of the Four Immeasurables. These extraordinary states of mind, cherished by various spiritual systems, are however part of "samsâra" ! Even the highest of these, the "Peak of Samsâra" or cosmic consciousness is definitely not the goal sought ! Calm Abiding, in all its various forms, is not a terminus ad quem, only a necessary but not a sufficient condition for enlightenment. The gods too enjoy these trances, as so do yogis who only train to increase their personal samsaric pleasures. According to the Buddha, these states are always transient and so do not lead to true peace, which needs to be lasting. According to the Great Perfection Sûtras, practitioners of the Lesser Vehicle are also trapped in these "personal" kind of liberated states.  Even the great Hindu yogi Patañjali warns us :

"The union of those who have merged with Nature & those who are bodiless is due to their focus on the notion of becoming."
Patañjali : Yoga-sûtra, 1.19.

Calm Abiding is a preliminary training to enhance concentration, and the latter is needed to be able to do Insight Meditation, the crown jewel of Buddhist yoga. Insight Meditation is a special type of analytical meditation, focusing on the ultimate virtuous object : emptiness.

The various analytical processes to realize emptiness conceptually (cf. infra) are not enough to bring about a direct, non-conceptual, non-dualistic experience of the ultimate nature of phenomena. Insight Meditation, using these analytical processes, will not be sufficient either.

The conceptual structures developed through reflection or Insight Meditation need to be refined through placement meditation. Only when body & mind have become pliant, is the serviceable & responsive condition attained to practice without resistance, taking delight in focusing on emptiness. Serenity makes the body feel light & buoyant and the mind equipoise, lacking lateral dominance and ready to engage any object of placement without resistance.

Although one may practice placement meditation before Insight Meditation on emptiness, it is impossible to achieve serenity when alternating between analysis and post-analytical placement meditation. When analyzing, the mind moves from object to object. When serene, it does not move at all.

Once serenity has been attained, one should return (or begin) with the practice of Insight Meditation, working again and again through the Four Essential Points (cf. infra). Tsongkhapa emphasizes it is impossible to develop true insight by realizing emptiness analytically and then practicing serenity by stabilizing the mind on the conclusions. This is an important point !

One sustains one's conceptual understanding of emptiness by repeatedly going over the analysis again and again, following and working through all possible lines of reasoning. Being deeply accustomed to the conceptual framework, the view becomes strong, clear and long-lasting. So after having attained serenity, one works to sustain conceptual insight through continued analysis. This point is stressed by Kamalaśîla, Chandrakîrti, Bhâvaviveka, Śântideva and Tsongkhapa. For Kamalaśîla, Insight Meditation is built upon a foundation of mental calmness. Although one may study and reflect upon emptiness before reaching mental equipoise, the real fruit emerges only if this is repeatedly done after having attained serenity. This is also reflected by the order of the Six Perfections, with concentration preceding wisdom.

Tsongkhapa makes it clear Insight Meditation after mental equipoise is not enough either. One needs to alternate between both, reinforcing both. By Insight Meditation profound certainty is realized that "not even a particle of true existence in any thing or non-thing whatsoever" abides (Great Treatise, Volume 3, Chapter 25, a"). Striking a dynamic balance between two seemingly discordant practices is the task ahead. With too much analysis, the stability of the mind weakens (a flame placed in the wind). With too much serenity, the mind gets too absorbed in the object (a person who is asleep).

At some glorious moment, Insight Meditation (analysis) spontaneously induces the bliss & pliancy of serenity ! This profound meditation is the union of serenity and insight and is called special insight. Only this type of analysis induces mental equipoise. Before this point, Insight Meditation is only an approximation of insight. But when analysis, within the same meditation session, makes serenity fuse with it, true insight is realized.

This "special insight" generates a generic concept of emptiness. The mind is still apprehending and focusing on this image of the lack of inherent existence. Can this lead to a direct realization ?

"Kaśyapa, it is like this. For example, two trees are dragged against each other by wind and from that a fire starts, burning the two trees. In the same way, Kaśyapa, if You have correct analytical discrimination, the power of a noble being's wisdom will emerge. With its emergence, correct analytical discrimination will itself be burned up."
Buddha Śâkyamuni : Kaśyapa Chapter Sûtra.

The following steps persist :

• mindfulness meditation : passive awareness training ;
• analytical meditation : reflecting on the Dharma, establishing an object ;
• placement meditation/Calm Abiding : active serenity training on an object ;
• realizing of meditative equipoise : realizing total absorption of the mind in an object ;
• emptiness meditation : analytical meditation on the object of emptiness ;
• alternate meditation : moving between analysis of emptiness & serenity ;
• "special insight" : natural rising of serenity in emptiness meditation ;
• seeing : non-conceptual, nondual, direct experience of emptiness during meditation.

When the Path of Seeing has been entered, the Bodhisattva becomes a Superior One, enters the first Stage of the Bodhisattva training, has eliminated all self-cherishing and all self-grasping, except innate self-grasping. Eliminating the latter (on the Paths of Meditation and No More Learning) leads directly to Buddhahood.

7.5 Training the Four Immeasurables & Generating Bodhicitta.

Calm Abiding on the Four Immeasurable ("apramâna"), or the "four Divine states of dwelling" ("brahma-vihâra"), namely joy ("muditâ"), love or kindness ("maitrî"), compassion ("karunâ") & equanimity ("upekśâ") remedies the various forms of self-cherishing. Hatred, indifference and self-centeredness have loving kindness as antidote. Grief & cruelty have compassion, frivolity has joy and resentment & hostility have equanimity as their far enemies. They are perfect virtues ("pâramitâs") and are said to bring about rebirth in the heaven of Brahma. They were cherished in Hinduism and can also be found in the three "religions of the book" (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). They represent the fine flowers of spiritual humanism and need no religion to be practiced but are shared by all human beings.

According to the Buddhadharma, these virtues need to be perfected. If not, they are the best way to achieve the highest samsaric realizations, but do not lead to "nirvâna". Calm Abiding on them alone gives no entry. Therefore some practitioners say they are "blind" if not perfected, i.e. empowered by Insight Meditation.

The joyous, the joy and the enjoying lack characteristics from their own side. The lover, the love & the loved are empty of self-power. The compassionate, the compassion and those endowed with it lack substance. The equanimous, the equanimity and those treated equanimously all share the same process-nature, emptiness. These insights perfect the Four Immeasurables.

Besides practicing the Four Immeasurable and the Six Perfections, the Bodhisattva differs from Lesser Vehicle Practitioners by his vow to generate the mind of enlightenment for the sake or benefit of all sentient beings. This is Bodhicitta, and it has two forms : conventional & ultimate. Conventional Bodhicitta is directed to dependent arisings and is either aspiring or engaging. Aspiring Bodhicitta merely wishes all sentient beings to be free from their samsaric chains & traps, while engaging Bodhicitta actualizes this by actually helping & assisting sentient beings gain such liberation or awakening. Teaching the Dharma is the most rewarding way to do this, for it empowers people to put in the effort to counter the severe attachments typical for the human realm. Giving help to sentient beings can be done after explicitly being requested to do so or by blessing all sentient beings irrespective of their condition, just like the Sun shines on all beings in the same way. This is Great Compassion ("mahâkarunâ"), constantly engaging in the activity of bringing Dharma to all possible sentient beings (from hell-beings up to the gods). Finally, ultimate Bodhicitta is directed towards emptiness, realizing the perfection of Bodhicitta is impossible without the wisdom-mind taking emptiness as its object.

All these activities, from quietness training to generating conventional Bodhicitta, intend to end self-cherishing, making the mind supple enough to realize emptiness. Indeed, the unquiet, locked-up mind cannot develop "special insight", and this remains the ultimate target, and should not be forgotten. Although many of the techniques discussed are found in various spiritual traditions, only in the Buddhadharma is the ultimate nature of all phenomena truly addressed, leading to true peace. This is the ultimate peace entered when inherent existence is not attributed to a single atom, nor to a single self.

While some Hindu critics of emptiness claim "śûnyatâ" is a level below cosmic consciousness, they actually turn things around. Cosmic consciousness, or the elimination of all fluctuations of or superimpositions on consciousness merging with the world-ground or "Brahman", remains within "samsâra" and this bliss is not lasting, for the yogi "returns" to his former waking state. Moreover, "Brahman" involves a brontosauric reification of the unity of a sapient ("vidyâ") mega-subject ("âtman") & a mega-object called "God". Brahman, conceptualized as the only "real" substance, exists by its own, very nature, independent from all means, like knowledge. Or in the words of Śankara (788 - 820 ?) :

"... like the effulgence of the sun, Brahman has eternal consciousness by Its very nature, so that It has no dependence on the means of knowledge."
Śankara : Brahma-Sûtra-Bhâsya, I.i.5, my italics.

Enlightenment or awakening is continuously realizing ultimate existence exists conventionally, for all phenomena, Brahman included, lack substance. In in ultimate Buddhist view, both "samsâra" and "nirvâna" are transcended (cf. Dzogchen).

 8 The Second Turning II : Understanding Emptiness.

This paragraph is the heart of this paper. The actual method realizing a conceptual understanding or generic image of emptiness is at hand. Various authors have approached this subject in multiple ways. Three of them will be studied : (a) the Four Essential Points, as given by Tsongkhapa, (b) the Four Profundities, as found in the Heart Sûtra, and (c) the Sevenfold Analysis, as found in Chandrakîrti's Introduction to the Middle Way.

These analytical meditations are all complementary and mostly based on the same type of formal logical reasoning involving sameness & difference. The fundamental preliminary insight involves grasping the difference between A = A (sameness - identity) & A ≠ B (difference). Something is either identical (A = A) or different (^¬ A = B). In classical formal logic, there is no third possibility between A & ^¬ A (tertium non datur) for the "third" is excluded (principium tertii exclusi). The principle of the double negation follows : ^{¬ ¬} A = A or A = ^{¬ ¬} A : negating the negation of A equals A or A is the negation of its own negation. If "This rose is red." is true, then it cannot be true "This rose is not-red." is true !

In the classical calculus, there is nothing identical and different at the same time. Anything ^¬ A is a priori ^¬ A (= B), for if sameness is violated, then the result is per definition difference. In the case of sameness & difference this cannot be otherwise. Buddhist logic is based on the classical system of formal logic. For Russell, in his The Problems of Philosophy, three "Laws of Thought" as more or less "self-evident" or a priori :

1. Law of Identity : "Whatever is, is." or A = A ;
2. Law of Non-Contradiction : "Nothing can both be and not be." or A ≠ ^¬ A ;
3. Law of Excluded Middle : "Everything must either be or not be." or A v ^¬ A, or either "this is red" is true or "this is not red" is true (Principia Mathematica, 2.1).

For example, in the case of A = white and B = black, A ≠ B pertains. But what about C = all shades of gray ? Although C ≠ B ^ C ≠ A, while C is a combination of A & C, nothing except A is identical with white ! So anything not the same as A (black or gray) a forteriori differs from A (white), even if A & B produce C. This is rather clear-cut and this classical formal logic will be used to conceptually identify emptiness, i.e. generate a generic image or idea of it.

In Von Neumann's quantum logic (describing subatomic states in complex Hilbert-spaces working with i = √ -1), A (particle) and ^¬ A (wave) do occur simultaneously and are processed by the calculus accordingly. But once such a complex state is observed, the complex numbers are replaced by squared integer values and either A or ^¬ A pertain.

8.1 Conventional & Ultimate Analysis.

Scientific truth is conventional truth. Empirico-formal propositions convey something about sensate & mental objects. These facts are, for the time being, considered as true conventions, i.e. as valid and authoritative insofar as scientific knowledge goes. They represent what is conventionally known about ourselves, others & the world. Conventional falsehoods are statements about objects in conflict with experimental results and/or true conventional theories. Falsehoods may be due to impaired senses (wrong perceptions), incorrect tests, misuse of instruments and/or wrong discursive processes, like relying on false testimonies, wrong assumptions, invalid logical deductions or asymmetrical conditions of discourse (based on strategic action backed by the media power & money instead of communication), etc.

Epistemological analysis brings to bare the provisional, fallible nature of conventional truth, nevertheless incontrovertible regarding the logical & functional existence of phenomena. Facts do exist logically & functionally, and so are working & effective. To analyze conventional truths, we study testability, experimental backing, formulate hypothesis, argue and develop conventions about theoretical constructs. For Tsongkhapa, these truths have conventional validity and depend on things, not as they are in and of themselves, i.e. ultimately, but as they appear to valid cognizers, i.e. to minds capable of objectifying sensate & mental objects correctly, articulating factual statements about them, conventionally. When a blue sky is observed, the mere existence of it is studied, not its ultimate nature. This leads to statements about light-frequencies and topographic differences between up & down, and these considerations lead to other phenomena interdependent with the blue sky. The appearances studied by conventional truth are therefore always nominalist and taken at face value. The "existence" of these facts is accepted by convention and the entities designated exist because their identity & function have been objectified correctly, i.e. by valid experiments and correct reasoning.

Conventional appearances are objects found by a valid cognizer with regard to which he or she becomes a distinguisher of conventionalities. Facts are nothing more than their conventional label allowing the mind to identify them and the series of functions defining their working status. But to any conventional cognizer, these facts do appear to exist from their own side, as independent entities. That this is an illusion is not ascertained. That facts only appear to exist from their own side while they cannot be found to truly exist in that way, is beyond conventional analysis.

Just like the Sun, in its diurnal arc, appears to rise & set, conventional facts appear to be self-powered. Sensate objects seem "out there" and mental objects appear "in here", seemingly independent from our mental labeling or imputations. Even after having realized it is the rotating movement of the Earth which makes the Sun seem to rise & set, the appearance of the moving Sun abides. Knowing this appearance is deceiving us does stop us from believing the phenomenon at face value, but it does not take away the illusionary fact. It only stops us from being deceived by it. This example clarifies two things : (a) the distinction between how objects merely appear substance-like while ultimately they are process-like and (b) the difference between conceptually realizing the ultimate nature of phenomena and actually seeing it. By way of ultimate analysis, we generate a generic image of the emptiness of an object, halting the deception of its self-powered appearance, but this without piercing through it and having a direct, nondual, non-conceptual knowledge or the wisdom-mind apprehending the actual emptiness of the object.

Ultimate analysis allows the mind to understand facts seem or appear otherwise than they truly are. Instead of merely distinguishing between conventionalities, as in conventional analysis, it poses the fundamental question :

What is exactly & truly there ?

The merit of the Middle Way Consequence School consists in not positing anything regarding this true, ultimate existence. As in the Via Negativa, it merely removes all deceptions. It is thoroughly logical and not metaphysical. Being logical, it invites anybody to posit a metaphysical statement about the ultimate nature of things which can withstand the Sword of Wisdom of its ultimate analysis.

8.2 Other-powered, Imputational & Thoroughly Established Natures.

To clarify its position, the Mind-Only School made a series of interesting distinctions helpful to understand, in the context of the Middle Way Consequence School, the target of ultimate analysis. While logic does not endorse their definition of emptiness (the nonduality of apprehended-object & apprehending-subject), it is nevertheless interesting to use these categories, but then devoid of their substantialist & idealist connotations, reintroducing inherent existence (namely as the absolute consciousness devoid of apprehended-object and apprehending-subject). Moreover, the refutation of the tenets of the Mind-Only School is a very good exercise to clarify the radical and irreversible conclusion of the Consequence School. I shall however refrain from doing so and concentrate on the distinction between three modes of being or three natures : other-powered, imputed & thoroughly established natures, the three modes, so to speak, of every phenomenon.

• other-powered (dependent) nature : all objects under influence of causes (or more generally, determinations) and conditions outside themselves. They exist thanks to something other than themselves. They are impermanent and have no power to stay a single moment without others. They are not self-powered and possess no own-form. Although they seem solid, permanent, independent, etc. they cannot remain a single instance without forces & conditions outside themselves. Other-powered, impermanent natures are the sole objects of cognition. All possible objects of knowledge are other-powered. There are no self-powered natures (as Shentong claims) ;
• imputational nature : a false status imputed to other-powered natures and described as superimpositions entailing the distant and cut off appearance of subject and object. The latter seems "external" through the power of false ideation ("vijñapti") by the former. Due to this false imputation, these natures establish themselves by way of their own character, with attributes & properties falsely appearing to exist from their own side. All conventional truths are other-powered phenomena falsely appearing, under the influence of false ideation, as distance & cut off ;
• thoroughly established (perfect) nature : or the final mode of other-powered natures, given when devoid (or empty) of their imputational nature. This is the final object of the path of purification, i.e. a cognition removing the obstructions built on unfounded, false ideation. As this object does not change moment by moment (as other-powered phenomena), the Mind-Only calls it "permanent". The consciousness or mind devoid of apprehended object and apprehending subject is a thoroughly established (perfect) nature, and thus truly established.

Only the last nature is ultimate, while the two former are conventional.

These three natures, or three aspects of every phenomenon, can be understood as follows : the object itself is the other-powered nature. This is the basis of the false ideation, the imputational nature, as well as the basis of the thoroughly established nature, which is the other-powered nature's lack of that imputational nature.

By superimposing the imputational nature onto other-powered and thoroughly established natures, sentient beings designate the convention that the latter are of the character of the imputational nature, i.e. in accord with false ideation. The conception phenomena exist as entities of nominal, conventional and terminological imputations is not the superimposition of imputation. The conception these conventional objects exist by way of their own character is an assent such referentiality inheres in objects themselves. This is the superimposition the path of purification stops.

8.3 Self-Grasping : the Logic of Reification.

The study of the three natures points the true culprit : inherent existence. Imputation itself cannot be avoided and without it no conventional truth could be established. By itself, attributing names and labels to objects, is not afflictive. This cognizing superimposition is the normal way of worldly wisdom. But as soon as these names given to their identity & function (quantity, quality, relation, modality) are considered to inhere in them, i.e. exist in them from their own side, independent and cut off from other phenomena, ignorant superimposition is at work. Having identified it, analysis intends to put an end to it by proving such substantializing imputation cannot be found.

Self-grasping is precisely that : projecting inherent existence on objects, considering them as distant, cut off, independent and substantial (existing by their own power, i.e. not other-powered).

Let me recapitulate the three steps involved to identify conceptual objects and reify them :

This last reifying designation lies at the heart of all forms of substantialist ontology and is the first cause of all possible suffering. Consider it as the technical definition of ignorance, the delusion to stop in order to realize the radical transformation of mind.

The mere process of conceptualization designates something as being present as an object of mind, instantiating it. This process implies (a) logical identification (naming, labeling) and (b) functional description (working relations with other objects). As soon as we grasp, in dependence upon the this existence of an object, onto the so-called "true existence" of the object, identifying its labels & functions as inhering in the object, we grasp onto a presumed quality, namely inherent existence, adding "true existence" as a predicate. And this "true existence" is more than the existence of an object labeled and functionally described, i.e. it does more than merely instantiate this object. Under its spell, we lose the sense of objects being designated by the force of factual agreement (on their sensate & mental properties). Instead, the conventional truth is compounded by the false ideation the object seems to exist in and of itself ! Applying this to ourselves & others, we establish a false subject (seemingly enduring while transient). Applied to all other objects, we establish a false object (faking stability while impermanent). Both falsehoods (the false subject and the false object) constitute the "self" the doctrine of selflessness annihilates.

This false self is the object apprehended by ignorance.

Organic philosophy, based on process-thinking "has to abandon any approach to the substance-quality notion of actuality. The organic philosophy interprets experience as meaning the 'self-enjoyment of being one among many, and of being one arising out of the composition of many'." (Whitehead, A.N. : Process & Reality, 1929, chapter VI, section I).

8.4 The Four Essential Points.

The Four Essential Points summarize the way Gelugpas, following Tsongkhapa, conceptually analyze & gain understanding of emptiness, i.e. constitute a generic image of it by establishing the correct view. I shall first explain these points in general terms, and then apply them to the substantial identitylessness of  persons & the substantial identitylessness of phenomena.

8.4.1 The Proper Negation : Attending & Attributed Object.

The attending object of a conceptual cognition is the unity of its logical identity (its name or label) and its functional properties (its relationships with other attended objects). This attended object is thus the observed sensate or mental object and the mere observation or apprehension is attending to it.

In dependence upon attending to the object, there arises the sense the object truly exists, i.e. that the observed identity with its properties inhere in it. This sense of a truly existent object, this attribution of substantial existence or "true existence" to the attending object, this moving beyond the mere logical & functional instantiation of an object, is the attributed object. The latter object is the attribute of ignorance, not of wisdom. Conventional truth does not escape the attributed object, as methodological realism & idealism show. Science does accept its objects to be cut off and independent, although, under transcendental analysis, such truly existent properties (like separateness and independence) cannot be found.

The attending object of the conventional mind is the conventional logical identity & its functions, the mind of "worldly wisdom", while its attributed object is the inherent existence of this identity & its functions, i.e. the presence of their true existence or inherent existence. The latter is the mind of ignorance.

The attended object of the mind apprehending the conventional identity & its functions grasps the relative self.

• worldly, scientific truth : attends conventional identity & function ;
• ignorance : attributes inherent existence to objects attended.

The attended object of wisdom-mind is the conventional identity & its functions, while its attributed object is the absence of their true existence and so grasps the absolute self, their emptiness.

• supramundane, ultimate truth : attends logical identity & function as the mere observation of objects ;
• wisdom : attributes emptiness to objects attended.

The First Point consists in understanding what needs to be negated. If too much is negated, like existence as a whole, nihilism ensues. If too little is negated, so inherent existence somehow endures, eternalism pertains. Tsongkhapa identifies the culprit as inherent existence.

Conventional reality or conventional truth is not the agent of ignorance. Logical & functional existence, the mere observation or attending of objects, is not delusional. Conventional truth is valid insofar as worldly truths, namely dependent arisings, goes. So nihilism is avoided, for conventional reality escapes ultimate analysis as a valid means to acquire conventional knowledge (establishing conventional objects by way of label & function).

Ultimate reality or ultimate truth is not some ontologically separate "thing", like a sufficient ground, ultimate true existence or substance. Ultimate truth attends conventional reality without reification, i.e. without attributing inherent existence or adding substantial nature to the sensate & mental objects attended as logical identities with their functions. Hence, no object is attributed as existing on its own. Eternalism is avoided, for ultimate truth exists conventionally, and although establishing a different object (namely the emptiness of the attended object), it does not attribute an eternal nature to it, does not posit its emptiness as an instantiating, inherent quality, nature or property existing from its own side, ontologically separate from the conventionalities.  A_s = E!x does not apply.

Summary of the First Point : identify inherent existence !

8.4.2 Sameness ? Is a truly existing object identical with its parts or with the collection of its parts ? No.

Conventional objects merely exist as transient, functional identities or compounds. Every worldly entity can be subdivided. But, to make sure, we do ask : can, in logic and/or in fact, partless objects be found ?

In logic. Suppose A is a partless object. This implies A cannot be subdivided. Suppose there is such an indivisible, infinitesimal partless material particle A. How can material compound Y consisting of X parts come into existence ? When X parts are joined to partless A to form Y, then A has X parts, and so A is not partless. Suppose these X parts converge to A to form compound Y, but then all compounds would be infinitesimal as A. As compounds have extension, this conclusion is absurd.

In fact. The subject of knowledge, the empirical ego, is imputed upon parts, namely its body, actions, affects, thoughts & consciousness. How can the self be partless if imputed upon parts ? Sensate objects of experience are always physical compounds, ranging from galaxies to the universal quantum field. Per definition, compounds cannot be partless. Mental objects of experience, like the mathematical point, can be partless, but then refer to nothing more than an ideal theoretical beginning in no way to be compared with functional physical objects, or wholes defined by their parts. These ideal constructions are merely necessary to make functions possible.

Lemma : definable & functional objects have parts and so are compounds.

Now suppose an inherently existing object A. Object A is singular, but its parts are multiple. Is A identical with its parts ? As its parts are many and A is inherently, i.e. permanently singular, A cannot be or become identical with its parts, for otherwise there would be as many A's as there are parts. As there is only one, single, inherently existing object A, it follows such an object cannot be identical with its parts.

Suppose A is identified as the singular collection of its parts, then one must reckon there is no such "collection" apart from the parts, i.e. this "collection" is not an entity in its own right, but only the mathematical set or label subsuming certain parts. If we identify A with this set, then this set must be found to substantially exist as A is assumed to exist. However, the set is only a designated gathering of parts and nowhere is this "collection" as such found, but only its parts. Hence, A cannot be the collection of its parts.

Summary of the Second Point : singular, inherently existing objects cannot be the same or identical with their plural parts, nor can they be identical with the collection of their multiple parts.

8.4.3 Difference ? Is a truly existing object different than its parts ? No.

Can this hypothetically truly existing A exist as something distinct from its parts, i.e. utterly unrelated to them ? If this is the case, then this truly existent A, so self-powered it is able to posit itself as distinct from its parts, must be found. However, this is not the case. Only other-powered parts are found. Hence, A is cannot be different than its parts.

Summary of the Third Point : singular, inherently existing objects cannot be distinct from or different than their multiple parts.

8.4.4 Realization ! As a truly existing object is not the same nor distinct from its parts, how to find such an object ? As yet, none have been found.

The word "realization" has been used a lot. In a general way, it refers to something made concrete, or clearly & distinctly understood. In a more specific way though, four mental processes have to be present to denote this important word clearly :

1. to fathom : applying the correct procedures to grasp an object ;
2. to understand : gathering all necessary, valid knowledge about it ;
3. to eliminate uncertainty : sustaining a clear, certain view concerning it ;
4. to intensely experience : living it directly, in a sharp & saturated way.

When the negation of these characteristics is thoroughly overcome, one has truly realized something. Lack of a proper grasp, misunderstanding, abiding uncertainty & fleeting observation are the marks of not realizing an object. Not fathom the object can be due to faulty senses & wrong views. The latter may be due to lack of information, incorrect thinking or attachment. Misunderstanding the object is the result of persistently & consistently applying wrong views. Remaining uncertain is due to not enough study of & reflection on the object. Lacking experience may be due to not enough exposure to or lack of repetitive encounters with the object.

When the First, Second & Third Point are realized, there is only one conclusion left : no inherent existent, substantial object can be found. The Consequentialist does not conclude : "An inherent object does not exist !", for this is positing he has found an path to deduce such a final, complete conclusion. As he has been using the reductio ad absurdum, showing the absurd conclusions resulting from accepting substances hypothetically, the only outcome possible confirms no substances have as yet been found ! This is an "open end" kind of logic. So to his critics, he may ask : "Show me a static object !", "Posit a substance !", etc. As soon as the challenge is taken up, the absurdities can be deduced, dislodging the opponent. When asked to positively prove no substances are to be found anywhere, he can only answer : What is a mere absence cannot be affirmed.

Let us summarize the realization by two analogies.

In logic. Married bachelors.

Searching after inherent existing substances is like someone looking for a married bachelor to be happy. As the latter cannot be unwed because he is married and he cannot be wed because he is a bachelor, the wish to find one is unreasonable and based on a misconception, for the set of married bachelors is a forteriori empty.

Likewise, the concept "inherent existent objects" involves a contradictio in terminis. If these objects are truly inherently existing, then they must be either the same or distinct from their parts. As they are neither the same nor different from their parts, they cannot logically exist at all and so constitute an empty set. Moreover, insofar as they are inherently existing, they cannot change and so cannot perform functions. As all objects are "objects" because of the conceptual designation of their identity and their functions, it follows no conceptually designated objects can inherently exist and so no inherently existing object can be identified & perform functions. The two are mutually exclusive. So the phrases "inherent existence", "married bachelors", "square circles" or "four-angled triangles" are analytically not well-formed. Although they seem to mean something, they don't. They are all examples of analytical fallacies a priori.

In fact. A hippopotamus in the house.

If substances exist, they must be as easy identifiable as any large object, say a hippopotamus. Suppose a house has ten rooms and someone says there is a hippopotamus in the house. If, after having closed all exits, a healthy, reasonable person is placed in each room and asked to search everywhere for the hippopotamus, and if, after having searched thoroughly, all ten willing observers agree on the fact no hippopotamus was found, then the conclusion there is no hippopotamus in the house must be considered as a posteriori valid. If the claim is made again, and the search is repeated a number of times with identical results, then at some point the absurdity of the claim must become obvious to all reasonable persons and no more searches are made or need to be made to ascertain whether there is a hippopotamus in the house. Likewise, if after thinking over all possible arguments positing inherent existence honestly, repeatedly & profoundly, no such object is found, then one may reasonably assume such an object cannot be found. Not wanting to posit unfindability, one merely asks : "Show me a single static object !". "Where is the hippopotamus ?"

Summary of the Fourth Point : an inherently existing objects cannot be found.

The Six Instantiations I

In a general sense, "instantiation" means representing an idea in the form of an instance of it, i.e. as an item of information representative of the idea, clarifying it by giving an example of it. For Kant, a concept has "sense and meaning" ("Sinn und Bedeutung") when it is possible to experience an instantiation of this concept. For him, saying something "exists" merely points to the categorial instantiation, and does not add anything substantial to the object.

"Existent" is not a determining predicate belonging to the set of predicates defining a concept. "Being" cannot be added to the concept of a thing, for it is not a property, nor a quality. Neither does it report any details about it. At times, this verb and its variants behave as predicates, like in : "Unicorns don't exist.", and then seem to report something not done by unicorns, namely "existing". In fact, each time, the verb is only qualified as a grammatical or "logical" copula.

For Kant, "existence" only instantiates, designates or posits the concept. So when the "existence" of something or someone is thus posited, the totality of known predicates of a thing or an individual is affirmed, adding nothing to it. When this existence is denied, the whole set of predicates vanishes and the referent with it. An object is what can be ascribed to it, nothing more. To affirm the set A "exists" is to instantiate (posit) its concept, but does not instantiate the richer concept "existing A". Every statement of existence  ("there is", or "there are"), says about a concept it is instantiated, rather than it exists. Any legitimate existential statement must be built out of propositions of the form : "There is an A.", where "A" stands for a determining predicate.

In an epistemological context, this refers to the fact the word "existence" is an idea to be grasped in terms of various instances, namely specific sensate & mental objects. The latter are identified as logical entities, functions, conventional empirico-formal propositions, substances, ultimate objects or mere existentials.

• logical instantiation : the existence of object A or Эx (x = A) is an instance of it being identifiable in classical logical terms L_A according to the principles of identity (A = A) & non-contradiction (A ≠ ^¬ A), and, classically, excluded third (A v ^¬ A) or ЭL_A ;
• functional instantiation : the existence of object A is logically (L_A) instantiated and identifiable in functional terms F_A according to A = f(B) or B = f(A) or ЭF_A ;
• conventional instantiation  : if the existence of object A is logically (L_A) and functionally (F_A) instantiated, then it is substantially instantiated, or (ЭL_A ^ ЭF_A) »^* (A_s = E!A) ;
• substantial instantiation ("esse", being, true existence or inherent existence) : if object A has properties Z (or A(z)), then -by way of false ideation C_f- the essence of A or A_s "having" these properties necessarily inherently exist, or ЭA(z) ^ C_f » E! Эy (y = A) = A_s = E!A ;
• ultimate instantiation : the existence of object A is logically L_A and functionally F_A instantiated without being -by way of true ideation C_t- substantially instantiated as inherently existing or (ЭL_A ^ ЭF_A) ^ C_t » {^¬ (A_s = E!A)} ;
• mere existential instantiation ("existit" or mere existence) :  the existence of object A is logically (L_A) and functionally (F_A) instantiated and nothing more : ЭA = ЭL_A ^ ЭF_A.

(*) the implication or "if A then B"

The wisdom of the Buddha teaches substantial instantiation to be invalid. Realizing this fully, comprehensively & profoundly, as in ultimate instantiation, is entering "nirvâna". When this has happened, the only way conventional objects appear are as mere existential instantiations, observing their illusion-like emptiness underlying their dependent arising.

8.5 Emptiness of Persons.

First Point : the logical & functional "I" established by mere existential instantiation is not targeted, but the substantial instantiation of the "I" is ;

Second Point : Is the substantial, permanent "I", which is singular, identical with its multiple parts, to wit its "body" and "mind" (volitions, affects, thought, consciousness) ? If so, then there should be a body-I & a mind-I, which runs against the singularity of the "I". Perhaps body & mind are a singular entity, but then designating "I" would be superfluous. There would be no need for the appellation of the word "I", which is again problematic if a substantial I is postulated.

Is the "I" perhaps the collection of both body & mind ? There is no such a "collection", for the collection of body & mind is designated upon the basis of body & mind. If this collection would be truly existent, it would be found under analysis. As body & mind depend upon their components and so change, they cannot, apart or as a "collection" be identical with the substantial, unchanging "I".

Hence, the truly existent "I" is not identical with the aggregates, nor with the mere "collection" of the aggregates. The identity of the "I" with its aggregates cannot be validated. The postulated "I" cannot be found as identical with its aggregates.

Third Point : Is the substantial "I" perhaps distinct from the aggregates of body & mind ? If so, then analytically setting aside the body on one side and the mind on the other, there should be something left over to point to as the truly existent "I". But besides body and mind, nothing is found.

A substantial "I" would have to be independent from the aggregates, but as there is no substantial "I" apart from them, this postulated "I" cannot be found distinct from the aggregates.

Fourth Point : as the substantial "I" is not found to be identical or distinct from the aggregates upon which it is designated, it cannot be found.

8.6 Emptiness of Phenomena.

First Point : the logical & functional objects established by mere existential instantiation are not targeted here, but the substantial instantiation of these object is ;

Second Point : Is the substantial table identical with its parts ? If so, then there are as many tables as there are parts, which is absurd. There is only one table with multiple parts, like a single table-top, three or four legs, nails etc. As soon as the table is broken in pieces, the designation "table" is no longer valid. We can say, "This is a broken table.", but if we split the pieces again and again, at some point the logical instantiation A = table can no longer be made by a new observer of the multiple pieces scattered about.

Perhaps the substantial table is the collection of its parts, but such a "collection" can not be found. We observe the object, and on the basis of the available parts designate "table". We never observe the "collection" as such.

Hence, the table is not identical with its parts nor with the mere collection of the parts.

Third Point : Is the substantial table different from its part ? If it were, we should be able to find the table if we eliminate all its parts. Then we would find the "essence" of the table. However, this "tableness" can not be found, only the parts are logically instantiated.

Hence, the table is not distinct from its parts.

Fourth Point : As the table, instantiated as a substance, cannot be found to be identical or different than its parts, we conclude the substantial table cannot be found.

These arguments can be refined and expanded in many ways, accommodating various counter-positions. But despite their sophistication, these reasoning do not make it possible to find the substantial object without leading to absurdities, inconsistencies and fallacies. Of course, as the Consequent Middle Way approach is not axiomatic, it does not infer emptiness, but invites one to try to find an inherent existent object.

At some point, and this remains subjective, this search is abandoned and the mind relies on the generic image of emptiness realized by these analytical meditations on emptiness. When this happens, the scene is set for the direct, non-conceptual cognition of absence of inherent existence during meditation, in other words, for the process-like, dependent arising nature of all phenomena, ending the Path of Preparation and initiating the formidable turn of mind from an ordinary Bodhisattva to that of a Superior Being who has ended all acquired self-grasping.

8.7 The Four Profundities.

The Four Profundities belong to the Heart Sûtra (Mahâprajñâpâramita-hridaya-sûtra), or "heartpiece of the perfection of wisdom sûtra", one of the shortest & most important sûtras of the Mahâyâna, belonging to the collection of forty sûtras constituting the Prajñâpâramita-sûtra. It formulates, in a very clear and concise way, the teachings on emptiness and was written in the first century CE. It is of major importance in Zen.

8.7.1 The Profundity of the Ultimate.

"Form is Empty."

Under "form" is understood all objects of the five sense consciousnesses. All gross physical objects and a person's body are included. The aggregate of form is taken as the first basis for establishing emptiness. If form would be inherently existing or truly existing, i.e. substance-like, it would exist as it appears and be found from the side of the object itself without depending upon the apprehending consciousness.

Take the physical body as example. If we remove all objects different from our body, then if our body would inherently exist, we would be able to point to this body without pointing to any phenomenon not our body. But when we point to our body, we always point to a certain place, like the chest, the head, an arm, etc. These parts are not our body, for then we would have as many bodies as the body has parts. Suppose we say the collection of its parts is the body. However, if individual parts are not our body, then how can a collection of parts suddenly turn out to be our body ? A mere collection of "non-bodies" cannot magically transform into a body. Moreover, can we point to the "collection" ? Clearly not. If we eliminate all parts of our body the collection does not remain. Hence, our body is not found among its parts nor as the collection of its parts. Likewise, we may analyze each of the parts and find they too lack inherent existence. In fact, everything having parts cannot be found as existing from its own side, self-powered. All phenomena are other-powered, dependent of determinations & conditions outside themselves.

The body and its parts merely exist because they have a suitable basis to impute them, i.e. identify them and their dynamic functions. This is a merely nominalist designation, in no way establishing a static substance. Although a generic image of such a substance exists, it cannot be validated under analysis. While form appears to be static, it cannot be found to be so. The use of this false generic image is the false ideation to be removed.

Ergo, all form is devoid of or lacking inherent existence.

8.7.2 The Profundity of the Conventional.

"Emptiness is Form."

Here, phenomena are seen as manifestations of emptiness. Ultimate truth and emptiness of inherent existence are synonyms. Emptiness is called a "sacred object truth" because its appearance to a non-conceptual direct perceiver is in accordance with its mode of existence. Unlike conventional truths, which do not appear as they ultimately are (they appear static but are in fact dynamic), emptiness does not conceal its true nature. To a wisdom-mind realizing emptiness directly, only emptiness appears and inherent existence does not appear. Conventional truths are true with respect to the conventions of ordinary minds. Although they are deceptive regarding their mode of existence, they are not deceptive insofar as their logical identity & function go. If an object does not function as it appears, then a conventional falsehood is at hand (for example : a hallucination, a fata morgana, etc.). Such objects are "non-existent". Conventional objects are "truths for an obscurer" because self-grasping ignorantly conceives the apparent inherent existence, the substantial instantiation, to be true, which it is not.

The profundity of the conventional aims to make clear the subtle nature of conventional objects. All conventional objects share the same fundamental, ultimate nature, emptiness. Each and every object is therefore not separate from its emptiness, but is an appearance arising out of its emptiness. While objects do not inherently exist (First Profundity), we can establish the mere existence of form by pointing to its base of designation. This is a conventional appearance arising out of the ultimate nature of form, its subtle conventional nature (Second Profundity).

Take for example a gold coin. The underlying nature of the coin is gold, and this gold appears in the form of a coin. The coin appearing to us is not separate from its gold, unable to exist without it. Just as the coin is a manifestation of its gold, objects are a manifestation of their emptiness or lack of inherent existence. Coin A and coin B can be identified as "A" or "B" because of the different generic images or inscriptions & images on them, but the gold is the same. Likewise, objects differ because we designate a different "name" or "label" on their basis of designation, i.e. their conventional identities & functions. However, their subtle conventional nature (their emptiness) is the same.

Ergo, all emptiness is form.

8.7.3 The Profundity of the Two Truths being the Same Entity.

"Emptiness is not other than Form ; ..."

The Two Truths are the same entity but not identical, or one ontic entity with two epistemic isolates.

If two phenomena are identical, they have the same generic image (logical identity & function). If they are not identical, they have a different generic image. If two phenomena are not identical but are the same entity (like fire and its heat, or the body and its shape), this means they do not appear as separate to wisdom-mind, but appear as different to an ordinary conceptual mind. The same entity is at hand, but two different objects are known : the conventional nature or mode of existence is known by the conceptual mind, the ultimate nature is known by wisdom-mind.

Only to a Buddha do form and form's emptiness appear simultaneously. For all others minds, phenomena appear to be inherently existent. Hence, to the deluded mind, form and inherent existence of form seem to be the same entity, rather than form and the emptiness of inherent existence ! When emptiness is explained, the Two Truth appear as two distinct, separate phenomena, like a chariot and the charioteer. The Two Truths appear as different entities. How to understand they are the same entity ? By realizing emptiness of inherent existence is an inseparable characteristic or property of form. Every object has its emptiness. The object and its emptiness are not two entities. There is only one entity, the object, but two different natures or modes of existence can be identified : the conventional nature, the mere existential instantiation, and the ultimate nature, the absence of inherent existence.

Only Buddha minds apprehend the Two Truth simultaneously. Even Superior Bodhisattvas cannot maintain meditative equipoise on the emptiness of an object while performing other actions (of body, speech & mind). When doing so, they relinquish their wisdom-mind and engage in the conventional process, victim of subtle & very subtle substantial instantiation. Hence, only Buddhas "merely" observe objects, i.e. are capable of a perfect mere existential instantiation, i.e. an observation totally & perfectly devoid of substantial instantiation (lacking attributing inherent existence).

Ergo, emptiness is not other than form.

8.7.4 The Profundity of the Two Truths being Nominally Distinct.

"... Form also is not other than Emptiness."

Although the Two Truths are the same entity (Third Profundity), they are not identical. Being designated on the basis of the same form, they are two different epistemic isolates or two different objects of knowledge. The Two Truths can be distinguished on the basis of the difference between the conventional and ultimate nature of every object. The ultimate nature of an object is the object's emptiness of inherent existence established by wisdom-mind. The conventional nature of an object is the object's dependence on all other objects, i.e. it being other-powered. Hence, conventional objects are not independent substances, but interdependent dependent-related phenomena.

In order of increasing subtlety, this dependence of objects on other objects can be analyzed in five ways :

1. dependence on determinations : phenomena depend on laws determining their evolution from initial condition to outcome. These laws may be causal, interactive, teleological, statistical, etc. ;
2. dependence on parts : if phenomena were independent of parts, we would be able to remove the parts and find the phenomenon ;
3. dependence on names : phenomena can only be conceptualized by way of the names & labels given to them. Nameless phenomena cannot be objects of conventional reason ;
4. dependence on a basis of imputation : the names given to phenomena are given to them because some identity & some functions have been grasped. The latter serve as the basis of designation, allowing the conceptual mind to impute or posit the name ;
5. dependence on imputation by conceptualization : phenomena cannot be understood to depend on determinations, parts, names and a basis of imputations without the cognitive process itself allowing the conceptual mind to produce empirico-formal propositions about them.

Emptiness does not oppose conventional reality. The ultimate truth is not in opposition with conventional truth, in fact, the former exists conventionally. But dependent-arising is the direct opposite or direct enemy of inherent existence. Ultimate truth opposes substantial instantiation, nothing more.

Understanding the dynamic, other-powered nature of all possible phenomena opposes the false ideation they have their own static existence within themselves, quite separate from, and independent of, all other phenomena. So realizing the dependent-arising of phenomena actually undermines the false ideation accommodating substantial instantiation.

The Two Truths, although always referring to the same entity are nominally distinct.

Ergo, form also is not other than emptiness.

8.8 The Sevenfold Analysis.

The Sevenfold Analysis is based on the teachings of Chandrakîrti (ca. 600 – 650), as given in his Mâdhyamakâvatâra (Entering the Middle Way).

This analysis is based on two conditional compound statements :

1. if the inherent existence of an object is the case, then this substance of the object would be findable in at least one of seven ways ;
2. if this substance is not findable in any of the seven ways, then the inherent existence of the object is not established.

The seven ways are :

1. the object is not inherently the same as its parts ;
2. the object is not inherently different from its parts ;
3. the object is not inherently dependent upon its parts ;
4. the object is not inherently the substratum upon which its parts depend ;
5. the object is not inherently the possessor of its parts ;
6. the object is not inherently the mere collection of its parts ;
7. the object is not inherently the shape of its parts.

1. The object is not inherently the same as its parts :

If the object has parts, then this singular object has multiple parts. If it were the same as its parts, then there would be as many objects as there are parts. As there is only a singular object, it cannot be the case the object is the same as its parts. Again, accepting parts change, how can an unchanging object be identical with changing parts ? If the object has unchanging parts, then where is such an object to be found ?

2. The object is not inherently different from its parts :

If the object differs from its parts, then it must be possible to apprehend the object without its parts. Strip away the parts and the object should be found. This is however not the case. Where would this partless object be ?

3. The object is not inherently dependent upon its parts :

This is another case of (2). If the inherent object is dependent of its parts, it must be different from these parts. As this is not the case, the object cannot be different than its parts.

4. The object is not inherently the substratum
upon which its parts depend :

This is another case of (2), the object being inherently different from its parts, and similar to (3) with the dependence running in the opposite direction.

5. The object is not inherently the possessor of its parts :

Yet again another case of (2) and (1). Suppose the object possesses its part as "I" possess my hand. This could be the case if "I" am the same entity as my hand (refuted). If the possessor and the possessed are two separate entities, then what links both ? Where is this link ? Nothing is found. An object redundant of its parts cannot inherently exist.

6. The object is not inherently the mere collection of its parts :

The object is not the parts, but posited on the basis of the parts. The collection of parts does not exist as a separate entity, or, if it does, only as a mental object designating an empty set.

7. The object is not inherently the shape of its parts :

If the object is its shape, then a change of shape is impossible, for if it were the case, the inherent object would change, and this cannot be the case for substances, able to persist through changes in the shape of their parts.

Ergo, as an inherently existing substance is not findable in any of the seven ways, the inherent existence of the object is not established. Such an object was be found. If such an possibility is nevertheless claimed, then ask : Point to any static object !

8.9 Ultimate Truth : Absence of Inherent Existence.

Technically, the ultimate nature of phenomena can be conceptualized as the absence of substantial instantiation, ending attributing own-form or existence to objects from their own side. The mere observation of objects, exclusively instantiating their logical & functional properties, i.e. the mere existential instantiation hic et nunc is all that is left to the enlightened wisdom-mind, the direct yogic perceiver.

The latter knows ultimate truth in two ways :

1. as space-like emptiness :

This is the sphere where perception and sensation of objects fades. This is the non-differentiated experience, to be directly and personally experienced by the enlightened mind. It cannot however be conceptually known or linguistically described from the outside. Even a Buddha cannot offer any criterion to describe it. In this sphere, suffering, with its coming, going, stasis, passing away, arising, stance, foundations, support, etc. end. Consistent with the universals & the summit of the Via Negativa of mystical experience, nothing can be conceptualized or said about this "apex" or capstone of nondual cognition. While clearly cognitive, for the object of wisdom-mind is emptiness, it is ineffable. If something is actually uttered concerning this, science nor metaphysics are at hand, only sheer sublime poetry.

2. as illusion-like emptiness :

In this mode of knowing ultimate truth, phenomena are apprehended as relational, interdependent and illusory. Relational because, as substantial instantiation has ceased, there are no independent objects and so all things are related. Interdependent because all objects are other-powered. Illusionary because they only appear as independent to conventional reason, while they are not. Although there is duality, this does not constitute a misconceived duality. When, with right discernment, one sees all phenomena as dependent co-arisings as they are actually present in this moment, one does not run after the past nor the future. The mere presence of duality, as mere existential instantiation is not problematic. Duality by itself causes no delusions, but the reification of its terms always does. Take this away, and the panacea against all suffering has been found !

8.10 Conventional Truth : Co-Relative Functional Interdependence.

Conventional truth involves the instantiation of the logical & functional properties of objects entailing substantial instantiation. This means conventional objects, under the power of this conventional instantiation, always appear different than they ultimately are. Because of the ontological illusion they entertain, making them stand out as independent, self-powered, permanent entities, they are grasped as existing from their own side, independent from the apprehending consciousnesses. In fact, they are interdependent, other-powered, impermanent entities. This false appearance, like a magician conjuring a hallucination, a dream or a fiction, deceives the conventional mind, believing objects are more than mere identified functions, projecting their properties as inherent in them.

Conventional appearance as such is not the target of ultimate analysis, for by mere existential instantiation objects also arise. But this mere existential appearance does not entail substantial instantiation, the false ideation telling us these appearances exist on their own, as inherent existent entities. Hence, conventional truth is not opposed to ultimate truth. The latter only opposes inherent existence. Conventional truth makes objects appear deceivingly, ultimate truth not. The reason why this deception happens, reification, is the direct opposite of dependent arising and its co-relative functional interdependence. Ultimate analysis does not wish to eliminate conventional objects, but only their reification. It wants to end the substantial entailment of conventional instantiation. When this happens, only mere existential instantiation is left, and this is the aim.

8.11 Reality : One Entity with Two Isolates.

For Gorampa, the whole matrix of the conventional world must be eradicated. While for Tsongkhapa, the object of negation is reification, for Gorampa it is conventionality and so cognition as a whole. For him, there can be no mutual supportive relation between conventional conceptuality & the non-conceptual ultimate. Wisdom has no empirical grounding, and gaining ultimate wisdom means operating entirely without reliance on such a ground. He insists on disunity between the Two Truths. For him, they are always single, for truth per se is not divisible into two. Since only mind provides the basis for this division, only ultimate truth, or wisdom, is convincingly satisfying the criterion of truth and so conventional truth, or ignorance, cannot be taken as truth. Both are invariable contradictory, and cannot coexist. Conventional truth has to be eliminated in the ascent to wisdom. Ontologically, epistemologically and soteriologically, ultimate truth is more significant. Tsongkhapa is radically opposed to such a reductive view, leading to unsurmountable problems. He convincingly argues how the Two Truths are the two natures or modes of being of every empirically given phenomenon. Both truths are actual truths, albeit pointing to different cognitive isolates, and both are interlocking. Hence, neither of the two establishes primacy over the other.

When Tsongkhapa analyzes the phrase "seeing with not seeing", describing the activity of Buddhas, "seeing" has the negation of conceptual elaborations ("aprapañca") as its referent, and "not seeing" points to "conceptual categories" ("prapañca"). The seen is the empty mode of being of phenomena (the space-like emptiness), while the "not seen" is the conventional mode (the illusion-like emptiness). For Gorampa, "seeing" refers to ultimate reality, and "not seeing" refers to empirical reality. For him, a Buddha altogether stops witnessing empirical events. One cannot hold Buddhas retain any connection with the conventional world, seen as detrimental to the pursuit of enlightenment. A total separation from the conventional world is needed, for the latter is identified with ignorance.

For Tsongkhapa, who does make the crucial difference between substantial instantiation and mere existential instantiation, only reification is identified with ignorance, and so the conventional world is not separated from ultimate truth, on the contrary. Without both interlocking, the dual-union of the Two Truths is missed and the soteriological significance of the empirical ground cannot be established. Besides making it impossible for Buddhas to actually apprehend anything when enlightened, all soteriological connection between Buddhas and sentient beings is lost. These serious consequences Gorampa never realized and so his monism turns into a static interpretation of the Two Truths, while Tsongkhapa maintains the dynamic equilibrium between wisdom and conventional reality. He only targets substantial instantiation, not conventional instantiation ! Only the former is ignorant, while the latter, although false, is valid in its own sphere, namely distinguishing between conventionalities.

The duality between object & subject, contrary to what the Mind-Only School claims, is not problematic, but necessary to leave the operations of cognition intact. Conventional and ultimate truth are not two distinct ontological realities, the former purely ignorant & invalid and the latter wise & truly true, i.e. nondual in a non-cognitive way. Both are two distinct objects of knowledge or epistemic isolates, the former valid insofar as conventionalities go and ignorant insofar as these conventionalities are reified, the latter wise and ultimately true, i.e. nondual in a non-conceptual way. Tsongkhapa eliminates reification & thus conceptuality, not cognition. Gorampa eliminates conventionality, conceptuality & cognition ! Tsongkhapa brings the "apex" of cognition to the fore, while Gorampa, to climb to the top, eliminates it. Both agree ultimate truth is nondual, but for Gorampa this means totally beyond cognition, while for Tsongkhapa is it merely beyond conceptuality and reification. For the former nondual means the ultimate prevails over the relative (the Two Truths are actually One Truth or 2 = 1), for the latter the nondual is a dual-union between both truths (or 2 = {Ø})! The difference is crucial.

For Tsongkhapa, emptiness is known by wisdom-mind. This a cognitive act ! Gorampa disagrees. Once ultimate truth is realized, there is no cognition left, and so no duality. Object and subject no longer exist. Problem : How to apprehend an object without an apprehender ? Can a Buddha know he or she is a Buddha ? This matter points to the most "ultimate" problem in Gorampa's interpretation : a Buddha cannot truly ascertain the ultimate truth, for the possibility to do so, with the elimination of cognition as such, is gone. For Tsongkhapa this is not the case. Although what is known remains ineffable, from the side of a Buddha, a cognitive act endures, namely fully & profoundly apprehending emptiness through wisdom-mind, while simultaneously attending conventional objects by mere existential instantiation, i.e. absolutely devoid of reification, "seeing" their relational, truth-concealing, interdependent mode of being.

Gorampa's interpretation has another, more "conventional" problem. How can the empirical world of sentient beings be integrated in the wisdom of a Buddha ? If for the latter, conventionality has to be eliminated, how can this Buddha experience compassion for suffering beings ? Moreover, as cognition is eliminated, how can the science of determinations & conditions, i.e. dependent arising, the "king of logics", be conceived ? If this has no bearing on spiritual life, worse, runs against it and should be annihilated to enter "nirvâna", clearly soteriological problems arise. How to help those unable, as yet, to eliminate this ? How to address the many different kinds of sentient beings ? How to deal with the empirical ground in an adequate way ? Because of his breaking way from cognition as such, Gorampa catapults Buddhas so far away from the conventional world, one can no longer conceive why they should bother to help us deluded beings at all.

Tsongkhapa does not face these "ultimate" and "conventional" problems. As ultimate truths are not different ontological isolates, but merely cognitive isolates of the same entity, or, in other words, the ultimate exists conventionally, his pansacral view encompasses both truths and so does not need to cause, as Gorampa does, a Platonic rift between two worlds (an ultimate,  true world and a conventional, ignorant world), for the Two Truths merely point to two cognitive acts establishing two different objects. Here we have the distinction between a relative & an absolute approach of phenomena, nothing more.

The Six Instantiations II

Let us recapitulate what we know in terms of the Six Instantiations :

• logical instantiation : the existence of object A or Эx (x = A) is an instance of it being identifiable in logical terms L_A according to the principles of identity (A = A) & non-contradiction (A ≠ ^¬ A), and, classically, excluded third (A v ^¬ A) or ЭL_A ;

Example : the calculus of computers. They identify objects in terms of "0" or "1" and this binary code follows the classical rules :

(a) 0 = 0 ^ 1 = 1
(b) 0 ≠ 1 ^ 1 ≠ 0
(c) 0 v 1 ^ 1 v 0

This instantiation is not yet an empirico-formal object, but a mere formal or analytical object.

• functional instantiation : the existence of object A is logically (L_A) instantiated and identifiable in functional terms F_A according to A = f(B) or B = f(A) or ЭF_A ;

This instantiation involves recognizing empirical functions and has all the properties of a direct empirico-formal object, i.e. one ostensively ascertained hic et nunc. This comes very close to mere existential instantiations, except for the fact the latter have purified all substantial connotations whatsoever, while logical & functional instantiations lead to conventional instantiation.

• conventional instantiation  : if the existence of object A is logically (L_A) and functionally (F_A) instantiated, then it is substantially instantiated, or (ЭL_A ^ ЭF_A) » (A_s = E!A) ;

For Tsongkhapa, unlike Dolpopa & Gorampa, conventional knowledge is not a priori invalid. While all ordinary consciousnesses are mistaken, Tsongkhapa makes the crucial distinction between their appearing object and their object of operation. All conventional objects appear in a mistaken way. They appear as inherently existing, but are, under analysis, dwindling, or, which is the same, merely designated by impermanent conceptual cognitive activity. However, their object of operation is valid insofar as conventionalities go. For example. An eye consciousness does not conceive or apprehend a patch of blue as inherently existing. It merely sensates a blue object. While this appears as an inherently existing blue object, and so represents its object mistakenly, it nevertheless operates as a valid conventional sensation of a blue object. Mistaken with respect to its appearance, it is not with respect to its operation.

This crucial distinction allows Tsongkhapa to make room for consciousnesses certifying, validating or justifying common phenomena established by valid cognition while being mistaken with respect to their appearance. Doing so allows science an entry. Likewise, in his system, though uneducated common beings do not propound, conceive or apprehend inherent existence or nominal imputation, by way of false ideation C_f, their objects appear to them to be inherently existent.

One may have consciousnesses not engaging in apprehensions of inherent existence, objectifying them without qualifying them as being either nominal or inherent. Nevertheless, with respect to their appearing object they are mistaken, but not necessarily with respect to their object of operation, for they do not necessarily apprehend the object as inherently existing. This explains the possibility of valid conventional cognition (like sensating a blue object), while the appearance of the object of this cognition is mistaken. Allowing this, scientific propositions of fact are not a priori relegated to the category of invalid cognitions. So this leaves open the possibility of designating valid and invalid conventional objects on the basis of conventional rules of establishing conventional knowledge. Both for science & ethics, this is important. For how are the latter possible if conventionality per se is deemed invalid ?

When apprehending, i.e. conceiving objects, direct & indirect empirico-formal propositions of fact are at hand. While theoretical epistemology avoids ontologizing the possibility of knowledge (dismissing an idealist or realist sufficient ground), practical epistemology underlines and does not stop, misled by false ideation C_f, to associate the attribution of inherent "reality" & "ideality" to facts & theories respectively (cf. methodological realism & methodological idealism). In fact, it we consider facts to be exclusively intra-mental and never extra-linguistic, conventional knowledge can no longer be called "knowledge" at all, for in order to be called "knowledge", the latter must be knowledge about something extra-linguistic. Hence, conventional knowledge is always mistaken, but not always invalid.

In conventional knowledge, objects are :

(a) identified logically ;
(b) described functionally and
(c) considered, by way of C_f, to exist cut off & independent from other objects, while the properties of objects are deemed to inhere in them.

This third characteristic is the substantializing ontology, attributing to objects an essential, sufficient ground remaining stable, unchanging & permanent, somehow able to possess the characteristics or accidents of the object despite change and impermanence. For Plato, this was an idea or form existing on another ontological plane (causing a division between two worlds : the world of stable being and the world of unstable becoming). For Aristotle, this was the form realized in the material object (hylemorphism). For both concept-realists, this "form" was enduring, permanent and eternal, the true essence of substantial core of any object ...

This conventional instantiation is the way of conventional truth, valid insofar as distinguishing between conventionalities is at hand. It is a deceptive truth, for objects appear not as they truly are. This deception can however not be grasped as long as one does not try to find this "eidos" or enduring "essence", not realizing it cannot be found. Conventional instantiation is commonsense knowledge and insofar as it has been tested & discussed, triggering "correspondence" and "consensus", it is moreover scientific. As this knowledge does not probe into the deep to find whether there indeed is a substantial core, it is superficial and provisional.

• substantial instantiation ("esse", being, true existence or inherent existence) : if object A has properties Z (or A(z)), then -by way of false ideation C_f- the essence of A or A_s "having" these properties necessarily inherently exist, or ЭA(z) ^ C_f » E! Эy (y = A) = A_s = E!A ;

This instantiation is the automatic result of sentience, for it is not made by computers. When an imperative calculus is computed, the machine does not attribute own-power ("svabhâva") to the binary objects processed. It just executes the algorhythm and that is that. So insofar as the substantial instantiation can be identified, the Turing test will, ex hypothesi, always fail, and this despite the complexity of the machine.

Although theoretically, science is nominalist, scientists are not. An expert on Solar winds does not doubt the properties of these winds inhere in them. The substantial instantiation or false ideation positing these attributes or accidents as inherent in the "real Solar winds" is automatic. This automatism of grasping at an enduring "self" or self-grasping is innate & acquired. Infants, like animals, manifest it and in the course of our education humans are confirmed in attributing independent, self-powered reality to objects attended.

• ultimate instantiation : the existence of object A is logically L_A and functionally F_A instantiated without -by way of true ideation C_t- being substantially instantiated as inherently existing or (ЭL_A ^ ЭF_A) ^ C_t » {^¬ (A_s = E!A)}.

^¬ (A_s = E!A) is a non-affirming negation, i.e. it negates substantial instantiation without positing anything else as in other-emptiness. So it is not empty of itself, for ЭL_A ^ ЭF_A endures. It only negates A_s by way of true ideation C_t.

As under ultimate analysis no enduring "self" or substance can be found or ^¬ (A_s = E!A), the substantial instantiator E!A can be eliminated. When this is done, conventional objects appear together with their lack of inherent existence. This implies they appear as mere existential instantiations or dependent-arisings simultaneously with their lack of inherent existence. Whatever is a dependent arising does not inherently exist because inherent or independent existence is the opposite of dependent arising or E!A = ^¬ {ЭL_A ^ ЭF_A}.

• mere existential instantiation ("existit" or mere existence) : the existence of object A is logically (L_A) and functionally (F_A) instantiated and nothing more : ЭA = ЭL_A ^ ЭF_A.

Insofar as objects, like certain mathematical problems, are processed by computers, they are only logically & functionally instantiated. This mere existential instantiation is all what "appears" to them. As they are not bewitched by any substantial instantiation (because delusion C_f -lacking sentience- is impossible to them), and their processors only compute what "appears" before their executive "clock" hic et nunc (namely the computation presently at hand), these operators with their operations represent a mere existential instantiation, i.e. logic & function, nothing more. Of course, they cannot be aware of any absence, for there never was presence in the first place ! In that sense, like amorph stones or the cilicium they are made off, computers are stupid by default. A priori, their process-like objects appear without any reference to lacking inherent existence.

Sentient, aware beings on the other hand always conceive their objects as logical, functional and, by force of C_f, substantial. Because of their ignorant sentience, they, unlike computers, attribute selfhood to the objects they attend to. Because of this false attribution C_f, they possess the potential to consciously eliminate this and enter wisdom ! This potential to realize wisdom is what is meant by their Buddha-nature. Without the latter, beings, although merely existing, do so devoid of the possibility of enlightenment.

Buddhas perceive the absence of inherent existence, or ultimate instantiation, hand in hand with mere existential instantiation, seeing dependent arisings free of inherent existence. They know ultimate truth as ultimate, or space-like (without any obstruction), and simultaneously as merely existential, or illusion-like. The former is ineffable, the latter a dependent-arising concealing its ultimate nature. Buddhas perceive all phenomena simultaneously as empty and as merely existing hic et nunc.

8.12 The Five Paths.

Kamalaśîla (ca. 700 - 750 CE), integrated the teachings on emptiness in five "paths". These form the basis for the understanding of the Path of the Bodhisattva in Tibetan schools like the Gelugpas. They presuppose the realization of Calm Abiding.

The Ten Stages called "Very Joyful", "Stainless", "Luminous", "Radiant", "Difficult to Overcome", "Approaching", "Gone Afar", "Immovable", "Good Intelligence" & "Cloud of Dharma", underline the epistemological intention at work. Each stage deals with a level of innate self-grasping.

Summary :

When the ordinary Bodhisattva, freed from self-cherishing, attains the "supreme Dharma" of the Path of Preparation, and his mind is nearly mixed with emptiness, all of his or her experiences are felt & conceived as part of the "continuum" of the Dharma. This is due to the realization all phenomena are of the same nature, namely without an independent, substantial, inherent existence, own-power or self-power. Arrived at by ultimate analysis, this fact is clearly conceptualized. This mere idea of emptiness mixes with the mind. Entering the Path of Seeing, this generic image is eliminated. The direct experience of emptiness in meditative equipoise is a powerful, transforming event, transforming the ordinary Bodhisattva into a Superior Bodhisattva.

Ignorance is very vast, and even the tiniest insect is deluded. The latter is however not afflicted by self-grasping formed as the result of conceptual thought & incorrect reasoning. In general, this kind of conceptual self-grasping can be mild or severe. Due to education and the conditioning it implies, a mild form of it is at work in all human beings. It is severe in those adhering to wrong philosophical views. The various tenets are intended to eliminate this conceptually-formed self-grasping step by step. To do so is very difficult, and like a flash of lightning in a bright, open sky, creating terror & fear. This ends the Path of Preparation.

On the Path of Seeing, the First Bodhisattva Ground, all acquired self-grasping ends, but innate self-grasping remains.

The Path of Meditation is intended to deal with innate ignorance, the root of all self-grasping. By attacking innate self-grasping, the root of "samsâra", common to all sentient beings, may be systematically out rooted. Once self-grasping is destroyed, all delusions are gone and with them the obstructions to Buddhahood. This is the panacea of wisdom, the sole remedy for all possible suffering.

8.13 Emptiness in the Diamond Vehicle.

Emptiness meditation targets the elimination of inherent existence, in other words, the end of substantial instantiation. While by itself, this eliminates ignorance, the root of suffering, it is not the total message of the Vajrayâna in general, or the philosophy or view of Tsongkhapa in particular. The point underlying the entire design of the Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment is the continuity between emptiness meditation, belonging to the Great Perfection Vehicle, and Tantrayâna. The latter can only be entered after one has trained in the paths common to both, or renunciation, compassion (Bodhicitta) & emptiness. By entering the Vajrayâna after having realized the Paths of Accumulation & Preparation, we can bring happiness to all sentient beings, making our lives extremely worthwhile.

How does emptiness meditation contribute to this ? Deity Yoga is the core practice or skillful means added by Tantra. By self-generating as a Deity the yogi accelerates his or her spiritual evolution considerably. These Deities are not mega-substances, as in theism at large, but complex, rare and highly functional dependent-arisings. As Emanations from Buddhas, they act as bridges between the physical world of manifestation ("Rûpakâya") and the ultimate truth or "Dharmakâya", the sphere of suchness (or space-like emptiness). Because they are empty, they do not cause any reification to happen. As without emptiness meditation this cannot be apprehended, the practice of Tantra without at least a conceptual realization of emptiness leads to ego-inflation and rebirth as a god of the desire realm.

By self-generating as a Deity, the yogi combines the highly functional (bliss) with the absolutely ultimate (emptiness). This not only allows one to accumulate vast merit (Form Bodies) and wisdom (the Truth Body), but also, in the generation phase, to simulate their simultaneity, actually accomplished in the completion stage. Generation prefigurates the omniscience of Buddhahood while the completion phase rapidly leads to it.

 9 The Third Turning :
 Buddha-nature, the Potential to Buddhahood.

9.1 The Enlightenment Potential of Sentient Beings.

In the Tathâgata Essence Sûtra, the Nirvâna Sûtra, and other works in the same line, Buddha speaks of a permanent, fully developed Buddha existing in the mindstream or consciousness-continuum of each sentient being. This "tathâgatagarbha" embryo, identified at the Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma, runs against the Mâdhyamaka view on "śûnya", self-emptiness & "svabhâva", own-form or own-nature, for it posits an indestructible, permanent and inherently existing core, basis of all samsaric & nirvanic qualities ! This "womb" or "embryo" of the "Tathâgata", the seed of Buddhahood, is uncovered through spiritual practice to shine forth.

Considered by many yogis as the "highest logical truth" ("paramârtha"), the existence of this Tathâgata-embryo is accessible neither to the imagination ("kalpana"), nor to discrimination ("vikalpa"). As the Śri-Mâlâ-Sûtra claims, it can only be understood by faith ! Or meditation ? The embryo is described as the "supreme eternity" ("nitya-pâramitâ"), the "supreme bliss" ("sukha-pâramitâ"), the supreme unity ("âtma-pâramitâ") & the "supreme purity" ("śubha-pâramitâ"). These are not to be understood as specific attributes, qualifying a quintessential hypostasis, but refer to the absolute suchness of the ultimate nature of phenomena ("Tathatâ"), as experienced by the masters of Yoga & Tantra. This, as the Ratnagotra says, cannot be explained, is invisible, unutterable, immutable, unimaginable, indiscriminative & unthinkable ... In no way does this necessarily substantiate non-substantiality, as in other-emptiness, but the temptation to do so is strong ! These qualities are nothing other than translations of the supreme remedial antidote ("pratipaksa") : emptiness ("śûnyatâ"). The profound nondual, non-conceptual cognition into the emptiness of all, occasions the perfect joy of the supreme bliss. The supreme unbounded wholeness apprehended by the wise is the insubstantiality of the dwelling-place of ignorance.

For the Consequentialist, Buddha-nature should not be taken literal. In that case, it gives the "cause" the name of the "effect". In their view, the emptiness of the mind (or "cause") is what gives rise for the radical transformation of a person's mind, and, in the "tathâgatagarbha" doctrine, this emptiness is called "a fully developed Buddha" (or "effect"). However, only the emptiness of the mind is the quality of mind or wisdom-mind allowing for the radical change of ignorance into the wisdom of a Buddha. This is not "a fully developed Buddha", but the "cause" of Buddhahood. Buddha praised this "cause" by calling it a "fully developed Buddha", but this was clearly only a figure of speech leading beings incapable of understanding emptiness correctly.

"... (the Buddhas) declare (the Buddha-essence, etc.) for the sake of those who are attached to self-theories, in order to eliminate their fear of selflessness."
Tsongkhapa : Essence of True Eloquence, chapter VI.

If this teaching were to be taken literally, all beings would already be Buddhas and the practice of the paths would be pointless. For the Consequentialist, Buddha-nature equals the ultimate nature of the mind, its absence of own-form or emptiness. Only in discussion with the proponents of the "tathâgatagarbha" doctrine do the Prâsangikas call the emptiness of the mind the "cause" of Buddhahood, for it is indeed the precondition of change and transformation, the potential to awakening.

Insofar as this doctrine is viewed in substantialist terms, implying the substantial instantiation of an absolute substance, the "tathâgata-garbha" doctrine resembles the Hegelian Absolute Spirit, self-evolving from Substance to Subject. This disclosure of itself to itself, as an integral totality in a self-teleology, compares with the "Dharmakâya" viewed as goal ("telos"), or as our Buddha-nature as a fully self-conscious, self-revelation. The very process culminates in itself ! As the basis is not substantial, but non-substantial, this comparison points to the dangers posed by a reification of the "embryo".

So the Third Turning can be interpreted in two ways ; either one affirms an absolute, inherently existing mind-core covered by defilements (as in Shentong) or one negates the inherent existence of such a self-sufficient ground (as in Rangtong), understanding Buddha-nature as a potential to awakening, actualized by emptiness-meditations on the mind itself.

• The first approach (cherished by Shentong or other-emptiness) comes very close to the Hindu "âtman" doctrine, but cannot survive ultimate analysis. This means such a substantial ground cannot be found, and therefore its substantial instantiation is not valid and so must end.
• The second approach identifies the "tathâgatagarbha" with the ultimate nature of the mind, namely with its emptiness. This  is not "a fully developed Buddha", but a mere potential or precondition. How could awakening ever be obscured, dulled or hidden by anything ? Buddhahood is not a temporal state, but an immortal condition in which body & mind, although impermanent, are similarly and endlessly (re)produced !

The Buddha-nature thus viewed, is a quality naturally abiding in the mindstream of all sentient beings. It is a Buddha-potential. This potential to emptiness is innate. As a capacity for enlightenment, it elicits sentient beings to attain Buddhahood and enter the Buddha lineage or Buddha constituent ("dhâtu"). In sensu stricto, this emptiness of the mind cannot be the "cause" of becoming a Buddha, for this suchness of the mind is (a) permanent (non-disintegrating) and (b) always existent, but not inherently or truly existent, i.e. not as a static substance, but as an exemplary & sublime continuum of dependent arisings ! Because there was never a time this suchness was not, it cannot be caused, for causation implies a temporal sequence between the beginning of the cause and the end of the effect. Take away this time-factor, and causation cannot be thought.

• Buddha-nature is non-disintegrating because, although a predicate or property of the mind, it is not destroyed or produced each moment (as the mind is) ;
• Buddha-nature is always existent, because from beginningless cyclic existence each sentient being's mind has existed and will continue to exist uninterruptedly right through Buddhahood. Always existent and inherently existent should not be confused. The former merely points out the mind is an uninterrupted, dynamical phenomenon. The latter affirms the mind is a static substance, and this cannot be established, while the opposite is backed by valid, indirect argument (cf. the "argumentum ad absurdum" of ultimate analysis).

Buddha-potential is the precondition to Buddhahood. As all sentient beings have, given their sentience or epistemic capacity, the possibility to clear away or stop substantial instantiation, the Buddha-potential, given due effort, may be expected to become actual. This prospect turns it into an enlightenment-potential. Clearly "potential" does not refer to and does not posit an inherently existing capacity, but aims at the mere possibility for coming into actuality. These distinctions are crucial to counter any relapse into the ignorance of attributing self-sufficiency to the mind (as in "âtman = Brahman") or by identifying the "tathâgatagarbha" with the truly existing "âlaya-vijñâna" of the Mind-Only School.

When the emptiness of the mind is realized, i.e. its substantial instantiation totally halted, it becomes the Wisdom Body ("Jñânakâya"), the ultimate true path, and its emptiness becomes the Nature Body ("Svabhâvikakâya"), the ultimate true cessation. These are the two aspects of the Truth Body or "Dharmakâya". Buddha-nature is therefore the mere possibility, precondition or inherent potential of the mind to realize the Dharmakâya. This inherent potential does not inherently exist ! It is not a static sufficient ground, but merely an inherent quality, property, accident, characteristic, predicate of the mind realized as soon as the mind is merely existentially instantiated, i.e. when the emptiness of the mind is realized. The various qualities of Buddhahood do not inherently exist in this Buddha-nature, as it were "released" when this inherent nature is "purified". These qualities are spontaneously generated (like a fish jumping out of the water) when not a single substantial instantiation of any quality or part of the mind is left, i.e. when the mind has fused with its emptiness as water poured into water realizing the "Great Seal" ("Mahâmudrâ").

9.2 Direct Yogic Perceivers :  Non-Conceptual & Nondual.

It seems appropriate to remind us again of the importance of meditation. Without this practice, a calm mind cannot be attained and without tranquility, true insight into the ultimate nature of phenomena is impossible. Once meditative equipoise is established, objects can be contemplated for extended periods and this repeatedly. Meditation cultivates the secondary causes necessary for being able to ascertain the ultimate truth.

Experience teaches how during meditation the mind functions differently. Indeed, discursivity, the continuous jumping from one object to another, is halted. Then and only then can "yogic perceivers" come into play, i.e. mental operators at work as the result of meditative equipoise on objects of placement, with the emptiness of objects as ultimate object. These "perceivers" make it possible to pierce through mere illusionary appearance of inherent existence and delve into the object's ultimate reality, lacking substance and being process-like.

As these yogic perceivers no longer work with or are mediated by concepts, they are called "direct". As they ascertain objects as they are and not as they appear, they are truth-bearing and not truth-concealing (objects apprehended by the mind of ignorance). Hence, direct yogic perceivers are the apprehending faculties of wisdom-mind and their object is not conventional truth, but ultimate truth. They come into play as soon as the Path of Seeing has been established. They are the ultimate source of knowledge of Superior Bodhisattvas on the First Bodhisattva Ground and beyond.

The direct yogic perceivers apprehend phenomena as space-like, i.e. devoid of substantial instantiation, as mere existences. For Tsongkhapa, they are not conceptual, but remain cognitive. Unlike Dzogchen, the idealist Yogâchâra-Mâdhyamikas (like Gorampa) and Shentong, Critical Mâdhyamaka does not, to arrive at the ultimate truth, eliminate the Two Truths, abrogate duality per se or reject the cognitive act. This does not mean ultimate truth is merely "intellectual", for the apex of cognition is an ineffable nondual mode of thought, ascertaining both truths simultaneously. Non-conceptuality and non-cognitive are not the same. Lack of concepts is indicative of myth, pre-rationality & nondual thought, while absence of cognition does away with any kind of object / subject relationship. Negating the transcendental pre-condition of thought itself, it is a no-thought doctrine, by itself a "contradictio in actu exercito".

For Critical Mâdhyamikas, like Tsongkhapa & his Gelugpas, nonduality is therefore not non-cognitive, but a dual-union, i.e. the continuous simultaneity of two epistemic isolates in the singular cognitive act of wisdom-mind apprehending emptiness, or 2 = {Ø}. Neither does this imply there is only One Truth (ultimate truth), or 2 = 1, for in each and every cognitive act of the enlightened mind only emptiness is perceived, but always as the property or characteristic of a conventional object. The ultimate exists conventionally. Finally, the object of negation is not duality, the Two Truths or cognition as such (these are cases of negating too much), but merely substantial instantiation : E!A(z),  nothing more. This leaves conventional truth to be a valid but mistaken non-yogic perceiver, establishing consensual distinctions between conventional objects, justified insofar as empirico-formal cognition is at hand, but misrepresenting its object. Insofar as the ultimate truth of each and every conventional object is also perceived by the direct yogic perceivers of wisdom-mind, the empty nature of objects is apprehended in the same cognitive act.

Direct yogic perceivers are cognitive acts of an extraordinary nature. They have a clarity, concentration, penetration and compass far exceeding the most brilliant ordinary minds. Although various differentiations between direct yogic perceivers can be made, the crucial distinction lies between yogic perceivers establishing inherent existence and those that do not.

In the Mind-Only School, the yogi's perspective is the norm. This is also the case in Shentong. But for Tsongkhapa, and the Critical Mâdhyamikas after him, the perspective of an experienced & highly developed yogi is considered to be an exception. Like Kant, who refused to integrate "intellectual perception" (the experience of the "Ich Denke" of itself) in the architecture of the Kritik der reinen Vernunft, precisely because this faculty "was not given to everybody", Tsongkhapa refuses to make uncontaminated meditative equipoise (the ultimate direct yogic perceiver) the criterion deciding what is truly established, i.e. existing by way its own characteristics, self-powered, independent & substantial. Tsongkhapa does not underestimate the fruit of meditative equipoise, nor the presence of a totally nondual non-conceptual realization. He agrees if something is able to bear ultimate analysis, it must be ultimately existent, truly established and so inherently existing by the own-power of its substantial (self)essence. But the root-difference between Mind-Only, Yogâchâra-Mâdhyamaka & Shentong and Tsongkhapa is obvious : he finds the set of phenomenon bearing ultimate analysis to be empty.

9.3 Emptiness in Dzogchen, the Great Perfection.

In Tibetan, "dzogpa" means (a) something completed, finished, exhausted, and (b) everything is full, perfect & complete. Dzogchen or "mahâsandhi" in Sanskrit, considers itself the "highest truth", a view superior to Mâdhyamaka. For many Mâdhyamikas, Dzogchen is not even Buddhism, but a sort of Chinese Dharma like Ch'an or coming from Advaita Vedânta, Kaśmiri Śaivism, or even Persian religion. This discussion is ongoing. Although Dzogchenpas claim to agree with Mâdhyamaka regarding emptiness, identifying the primordial base of all phenomena with the self-empty "Dharmakâya", the teachings do affirm the natural state of the mind, of the nature of clarity, to be "from the very beginning" inseparable from this base. In doing so, one may ask whether the conditions for substantial instantiation have not been fulfilled, entailing a transcendent metaphysics of unbounded wholeness ? Does this take reason beyond itself ?

What is the view of Dzogchen ?  At the heart of the Great Perfection is the notion of "inseparability", which is not like bringing two different things together (this is unification or coalescence), but the fact these have never been separate. Like water and wetness or fire and heat, the primordial base ("gzhi"), the state of total primordial purity ("ka-dag chen-po") identified with self-emptiness ("śûnyatâ") is characterized by and inseparable from the natural state of mind ("rig-pa") or awareness. While Mâdhyamaka speaks of the objective side of things (emptiness), and does so correctly, Dzogchen speaks of the subjective side of things, the clarity side, the awareness side.

In this view, only one source of enlightenment is recognized, not two. For Tsongkhapa, relative truth allows for the accumulation of merit, realizing the Form Bodies (Sambhogakâya and Nirmânakâya), while absolute truth allows for the accumulation of wisdom, with as fruit the Dharmakâya. For Dzogchen, there is only one base, the Dharmakâya, and so only one source. This must lead to the doctrine all the virtues of the Buddha already exists in the natural state of the mind. Only if secondary causes are present, will these virtues spontaneously manifest.

This is the crucial contradiction between Dzogchen & Mâdhyamaka. Dzogchen affirms the natural state spontaneously contains the Six Perfections, and the "tathâgatagarbha" is nothing other than this natural state. When we enter the natural state, compassion and all the other perfections arise spontaneously and effortlessly. We do not need to produce them artificially by using the conceptual mind. They are there from the very beginning, whole & complete, in this natural state of "rigpa" ! Moreover, this natural state cannot be grasped by the mind, it is beyond thought, i.e. non-cognitive. For Sakya Pandita this is the proof Dzogchen is a Chinese Dharma teaching, preaching suddenist doctrines and affirming "no thought" ("mi rtog-pa"). Dzogchen masters reply "rigpa" is beyond cause and effect, beyond the mind and so beyond thought, which is not the same as "no thought", for the latter is an experience ("nyams"). Dzogchen compares eliminating afflictions by mental processes with washing away the blood on our hands with more blood. They do not think thoughts can eradicate thoughts (like the wood-worm eats his own wood). For them, there is no end to thoughts. Only finding the source of all thoughts, the natural state beyond the mind, is finding the final One Truth.

In this view, emptiness (the objective base) and the natural state of the mind (the subjective awareness) are inseparable, and so there is only One Truth. If only the single and unique natural state is practiced, all the virtues and powers of Buddhahood are contained within it. Practicing this state is practicing self-liberation, letting the watcher and the watched both dissolve at the same time and just leave them as they are. In the base of all ("gzhi"), the natural state of the nature of mind, all qualities, both samsaric & nirvanic, spontaneously manifest, representing the creative potentiality or energy ("rtsal") of the natural state ("rigpa"). All things sentient beings experience are manifestations of the inherent energy of the natural state to which they all return. All appearances exist as spontaneous self-perfection and are empty. Emptiness side and clarity side are inseparable. To realize the natural state is all what is necessary and to do so this state needs to be pointed out by someone who has established it and then cultivated it.

The inseparability of emptiness & clarity cannot be demonstrated, and if this idea is articulated, as Dzogchen does, then it is a dogma, an axiom. It has to be accepted without any arguments. This alone shows Dzogchen not to be the highest truth, for how can something which in truth cannot be expressed in words actually name itself, let be the "One Truth" ! This is again a "contradictio in actu exercito", like drinking out of a cup while saying : "I do not drink out of this cup." or walking in a room while affirming : "I do not enter this room.", etc.

Another hot issue is the tension between accepting objective emptiness as the ontological foundation of phenomena, the natural state of the mind included, and the affirmation the latter contains all the virtues of Buddhahood from the very beginning, whole and complete. How to think this "inherence", this state of being within ? Do these virtues inherently exist in the natural state ? If so, then this awareness cannot be called self-empty but other-empty and Dzogchen is a form of Shentong. If these virtues are not inherently existing in the natural state, then how do they exist, i.e. how can their whole, complete & abiding quality be harmonized with the axiom the objective basis (inseparable from "rigpa") is empty in the way Mâdhyamaka claims ?

For Tsongkhapa, the virtues of Buddhahood arise as the result of clearing away substantial instantiation, for Buddhahood can per definition not be covered up, limited, obscured or devoid of manifestation. The fact such a formidable phenomenon as the manifestation of a Buddha is said to come into manifestation by secondary causes only is also rather strange. Why not accept the causal role of the Two Truths in realizing Buddhahood ? Why, to effectuate the grand, radical transformation the Buddha intended, adhere to such a trivial thing as secondary causes (like a pointing-out instruction by a Dzogchen master) ? Does this not seriously limit the salvic potential of the Buddhahdarma, for without Dzogchen masters nobody can become a Buddha ! Moreover, if all these great powers of Buddhahood indeed merely inhere in the natural state, then how come there are no more Buddhas in manifestation ? Apparently, this is not the case, for to accumulate sufficient merit & wisdom takes time ...

Of course, Dzogchenpas may eliminate these objections by making unfair moves, like affirming pure and impure, virtue and non-virtue are both self-liberating manifestations of the natural state (opening the door to immorality and crazy wisdom) and/or waving away any rational objections against their clarity-dogma by maintaining reason and mind cannot penetrate this and so all objections are vain anyway.

To remain truly authentic, Dzogchen masters must remain totally silent. If not, they are bound to behave like the Baron Von Münchhausen, who tried to get himself out of a swamp by pulling his own hair. In exoteric Dzogchen, the Buddhadharma just seems a formidable, absurd joke.

Critical Mâdhyamaka is the highest because it is the  final view in the arena of views, positing the "ring-pass-not" of the Buddhadharma a priori. One cannot "combine", in terms of "primordial inseparability", emptiness with "clarity" and just affirm inseparability a priori. Although based on valid yogic perceivers, their superstructural interpretation must be false, for if emptiness is the end of all substantial instantiation or the realization of a "pure" ultimate instantiation, then in no way can "subjective awareness", clarity or "nature of mind" ("rigpa") be validly posited as "inseparable" with "emptiness". For such a position always presupposes a ground "outside" emptiness, holding an absolute prerogative in its sleeve, one based on unfindable objects, claiming to "see" this "inseparable" bond between emptiness and "rigpa", this inner clarity confirmed in meditative equipoise on selflessness. The Dzogchen masters are right when they say for them the correct sequence of words no longer matters. But this can hardly be the examples suffering sentient beings need ? As long as the ladder of the doctrine is climbed the ladder is needed. At the lonely top no ladder prevails. Does compassion ?

If emptiness is the objective side, and the logic of the Two Truths is accepted, not rejected and replaced by the One Truth, then claiming a "subjective" side, although phenomenologically & yogically valid in terms of a direct yogic perceiver, must be in accordance with ultimate analysis. If emptiness is the affirmation of the process-like, interdependent, other-powered, inter-related, dependent arisings or events identified & functionally described, then the "subjective" side posited (this "clarity") is already part of the "objects" covered by the objective side, namely in terms of "mental objects". Hence, logically, the subjective side is ineffable, and Dzogchen Masters cannot teach Dharma but only point it out. Moving towards a quasi-eternalism of the natural state of mind, the primordial state of phenomena and their energy, the doctrine stating emptiness is inseparable with clarity cannot, to remove concepts, be "higher" than Critical Mâdhyamaka.

Although all suffering is empty, removing any static contents of mind as well as the substantiality of the mind itself, is not automatic, inherent or "fully there from the very beginning". It is caused by the accumulation of merit & wisdom, allowing one to move beyond a certain threshold to find liberation & Buddhahood. This happens because the whole process interdepends with functional features of the mindstream acquiring the sobriety & mindfulness (renunciation), entering tranquil abiding on Immeasurables (compassion). These "prepare" the mind for insight studies and meditations on emptiness. To "jump" to "emptiness" may lead to misunderstandings creating hindrances. As emptiness is the tool to clear the latter, how is one thus deluded able to do this ?

The continuity of the Buddhayâna, the implicit process-like nature of the Buddhadharma itself, encompasses a path-structure from renunciation, compassion to emptiness. Indeed, renunciation & compassion "prepare" and every mason knows how important that is ! The Dharma is the same in the West as in the East. As emptiness is the panacea, its purest transmission from beginning to end is central. Critical Mâdhyamaka provides this. It never rejects one of the Two Truths and refuses to posit a natural state of mind ("rigpa") inseparable with emptiness ex cathedra. For the rest the questions remains : Where is the static object ? Is there a hippopotamus in the house ?

Although Dzogchen masters stress preparation, their target is only one in a million. Even then, it remains to be repeated, the unsaying cannot be said.

9.4 The Doctrine of Other-Emptiness.

For Shentong (the Jonang school) in general, and Dolpopa (1292 - 1391) in his  Mountain Doctrine and Târanâtha's (1576 - 1634) The Essence of Other-Emptiness & Twenty-one Differences Regarding the Profound Meaning, in particular, the fundamental point within Critical Mâdhyamaka, considering itself the highest possible tenet based on Nâgârjuna, Âryadeva, Buddhapâlita, Chandrakîrti & Śântideva, is the status of meditative equipoise and the meaning of emptiness.

In Shentong, meditative equipoise conveys inherently existing or established phenomena. For Tsongkhapa, they do not. Dolpopa does not distinguish between being found by a mind in meditative equipoise on emptiness and being able to bear ultimate analysis by such a consciousness. In his view, shared by lots of yogis, when an object is found in meditative equipoise, it is deemed a forteriori as truly established. The ultimate can bear analysis by a mind in meditative equipoise because it is not a dependent-arising. Transcending the conventional, the ultimate found is what the Buddha's pristine wisdom realizes, namely the qualities of enlightened body, speech, mind. These are not merely generated, but are all ultimately established, primordial and permanent. They inherently exist and so the ultimate is the basis of emptiness, empty of all other non-enlightened conventionalities, but not empty of itself, i.e. non-empty, but complete & from the very beginning awakened (this view is consistent with a substantialist interpretation of Buddha-nature). For Dolpopa, if emptiness were self-empty, as Tsongkhapa claims, then it would be empty of itself and thus not exist at all ! This nihilism is objected. The ultimate is an affirming negative, it takes away the conventionalities and retains the inherently existing Buddha-nature, in which all enlightened quality already inhere. Compounded phenomena are empty of themselves and thus merely illusionary.

Rangtong replies.

1. Meditative equipoise is not a valid criterion to establish inherent existence. Only ultimate analysis is. If an object is found to be substantially initiated, then it would exist as a substance, not as a process. Tsongkhapa makes a clear distinction between objects found during concentration (direct yogic perceivers) and ultimate analysis finding no inherently existing objects. If the conceptual Path of Preparation is not followed until the generic idea of emptiness has completely fused with every object, then the non-conceptual Path of Seeing cannot be properly entered. For Tsongkhapa, pristine wisdom-mind (subject) and the ultimate, namely emptiness or the absence of inherent existence (object) are mutually exclusive and not equivalent (as in Shentong). As for him the ultimate direct yogic perceivers is non-conceptual, but not also non-cognitive, duality is not the problem at hand. Shentong accommodates a wrong object of negation. But he agrees that in meditative equipoise on emptiness, there is no sensing of their difference, for in this realization of the ultimate only emptiness abides, only endless purity is perceived.
2. No truly established objects can be found, conventionally nor ultimately. All phenomena, wisdom-mind and its object, emptiness itself, are self-empty, i.e. devoid of self-power, or inherent, substantial establishment. All phenomena are dependent-arisings.
3. Compounded phenomena, although devoid of inherent existence, are not empty of themselves, i.e. Rangtong is not nihilist and self-emptiness does not necessitate nihilism. Although conventional objects do not appear as they are, they are not merely illusionary, but exist in terms of their logical, formal & conventional instantiations. They are mistaken (and so illusionary) insofar they entail a substantial instantiation, but valid (and functional) insofar as their logical & functional instantiations go.
4. Tsongkhapa agrees the ultimate, i.e. emptiness as absence of inherent existence, of "self" in sensu lato, is other-empty insofar as it is not a compounded, mistaken conventional object. As even the ultimate is empty of inherent existence (and so cannot be established by ultimate analysis), it is a self-empty emptiness and not a non-empty emptiness of inherent Buddha qualities, as Shentong claims ! Buddha-nature is not inherently endowed with ultimate qualities. Because all phenomena are of the same nature of emptiness, deluded sentience can generate Buddhahood. Given the permanently residing Buddha-potential, joyous effort (diligence) practicing the Buddhadharma, compassion & wisdom are needed to generate all the qualities of Superior Bodhisattvas & Buddhas.

A few pertinent ontological & epistemological differences :

For Shentong, the ultimate existent, the inherently established, own-powered & substantial Buddha-nature, is not a dependent-arising, for permanent and non-deceptive. This refers to a different ontological perspective. The ultimate is a different entity, belonging to another, superior & pure, ontological stratum of the set of all phenomena, one not governed by dependent arising, free from causes & conditions. Like in Plato's system, the world is split up in two worlds. On the one hand, a true ultimate "being" and on the other side, an illusionary false "becoming". In Mind-Only, Yogâchâra-Mâdhyamaka & Shentong, the Two Truths are different entities, like an object and its shadow. In final analysis, ultimate truth must be the "One Truth" and only this truth is truly worthy of the name "truth", while conventional truth is only falsehood & illusion. Because Buddhas are always in meditative equipoise directly realizing the ultimate, they cannot be in any way related to conventionality. But of not, then how can they teach ?

If wisdom-mind is permanent because it is one with ultimate truth, we may ask how Shentong explains the actual apprehension of emptiness by Buddhas ? Without any type of duality, with aduality instead of nonduality, how can there be any cognition, any real apprehension of this substantial Buddha-nature ? When cognition is identified with conceptuality, then it must be eliminated together with all other "compounds". For Shentong, the object of negation is conventionality, cognition included. This undermines its conceptual exposition, running in the same problem as Dzogchen, affirming in the act what is refuted by the words ("contradictio in actu exercito").

In Tsongkhapa's view, not a single phenomenon escapes ultimate instantiation. Like Aristotle, a single world is affirmed. This pan-sacral world, in which the ultimate exists conventionally, offers sensate & mental objects with their subjective, apprehending consciousnesses or minds. There are Two Truth because each entity gives rise to two objects of knowledge, one conventional, one ultimate. In other words, every single entity has two epistemic isolates or two ways of knowing it. The ultimate, nondual direct yogic perceiver is a non-conceptual mode of cognition. Experiencing sensate & mental objects, it apprehends their ultimate natures, emptiness, hand in hand with their conventional natures, dependent arisings. Hence, duality is not considered to be a problem.

Conventional knowledge is deceptive and mistaken insofar as it makes objects appear as if they were substantially initiated, while they are not. Conventional knowledge or empirico-formal propositions of fact are valid insofar entities are logically & functionally distinguished from other objects. While mistaken with respect to its appearing objects, it can be valid with respect to its object of operation. These conventional objects are also perceived by Buddhas as the diversity & interdependence of phenomena (cf. the illusion-like emptiness). Buddhas know both the ultimate & the conventional explicitly (omniscience). While they themselves only perceive endless purity, they also directly, explicitly & simultaneously perceive all other contaminated phenomena, but the latter only as these appear to sentient, deluded beings. So Tsongkhapa agrees with Dolpopa ordinary phenomena do not appear to wisdom-mind. But he disagrees this perfect mind is disconnected or set apart from conventionality and its valid misunderstandings. Doing so gives Tsongkhapa the edge to distinguish between valid & invalid misunderstandings, keeping the Buddhadharma directly connected with science and its progress.

Dzogchen posits inseparability as the first axiom of its view. Thought cannot end thought. Because it adheres to the ultimate as non-cognitive, it may tend to belittle the conceptual force of Mâdhyamaka. Shentong stays within Mâdhyamaka format, reasoning its way. Although the ultimate is also deemed beyond cognition per se, conceptuality is not immediately relinquished, as the doctrine of other-emptiness as non-empty emptiness proves. These two positions face an ultimate criticism : their objects are not established ! Dzogchen's "inseparability" between "base" and "clarity" and Shentong's non-empty emptiness, i.e. inherent Buddha-nature, cannot bear ultimate analysis. They do not pass the conditions of the "Path of Preparation", and so these views both jump too quickly to non-established "absolute" grounds. Although both give vent to what happens during meditative equipoise on emptiness, their philosophy is not to be taken as definitive but as interpretative. Both bring the impact of profound meditative experiences to the fore, but these cannot be "translated" into language, for at the summit is ineffable.

Gorampa's idealist interpretation of Mâdhyamaka should not be confused with Dzogchen's "inseparability" of emptiness & clarity or Shentong's other-emptiness. Although participating in the Mâdhyamaka framework, his "idealism" sways to the yogic Mind-Only view, attributing inherent existence to the ultimate wisdom-mind and rejecting conventionalities as illusionary other-powered entities of sheer untruth. The intricate balance between the Two Truths is lost, and the ultimate "One Truth" remains.  Cognition is aborted for duality is targeted, ultimate truth (as wisdom) is turned against ignorance (as ordinary sentience). Cognition, conceptualization & conventional truth are identified and deemed illusionary, false and worthless. Gorampa negates too much. He negates conventional instantiation itself, while only its substantial instantiation must end, as Tsongkhapa explains. Hence, Gorampa cannot come to the mere existential instantiation of conventional objects, nor make the ascertainment of wisdom-mind clear to explain Buddhahood, nor make the ultimate connect with the conventional. Thus crippled, how to guarantee compassion, based on interdependence.

At the stage of Buddhahood, wisdom-mind is as impermanent or evanescent as all other phenomena, but, for Tsongkhapa, this evanescent, interdependent, process-like Buddha-continuum, because of an awakening generated by meditations on the ultimate nature of the mind, goes on forever and so is dynamically permanent (cf. like a permanent "strange attractor" in a chaotic phase-space).

If rational exposition is deemed necessary, and to teach Buddhadharma it clearly is, then ultimate analysis & the correct object of negation are all what is needed to establish the non-findability of substantial, static objects of knowledge. This means all events are process-like and no event is substance-like. The ultimate nature of all events is therefore their empty nature, or absence of substantial core or "self". Self-emptiness is the universal, fundamental nature of all phenomena, be they relative or absolute. All things share this nature, as all sentient beings share the potential to awakening. Enlightenment is the end of non-empty, substance-like apprehension.

About this absence of "svabhâva" or "own-form", nothing can be affirmed or posited objectively. Under ultimate analysis, no primordial inseparability, not-empty other-emptiness, primordial Buddha-embryo or primordial base can be found. The only things found is the universal absence of own-form (as object of wisdom-mind) and the universal order of the coming and going of interdependent happenings (as object of the conventional mind, driven by the ignorance of substantial instantiation).

If the importance of ultimate analysis is not clearly established, then the door to wild & crazy speculations remains wide open, unchecked. Is the Buddhadharma, besides ultimate, not also scientific & rational ? Moreover, such a rational approach does not a priori negate the ultimate event of awakening, but, instead, is a "vis a tergo", pushing towards this virtuously invoked higher state. For Tsongkhapa, and his school of "virtuous ones" ("Gelugpa"), extremist yogic "expositions" of ultimate truth always wreaks havoc with a rational & compassionate view on the world and the gradual evolution towards liberation and awakening. This yogi-scholar maintains balance by not negating too much or affirming too little. Tsongkhapa only negates substantial instantiation, not conventional instantiation, nor mere existential instantiation. Enough is posited by saying Buddhahood is generated by meditation on the emptiness of the mind itself, i.e. on the mind as a dynamism, as a process.

Given his reasons a priori and the history of religion a posteriori, we must agree mystical elocutions are hardly sound. Authentic mysticism is not defined by concepts but by the sheer moral elevation caused by a direct experience of the "radical other" ("totaliter aliter"). The elocutions of a transcendent metaphysics, unbridled by ultimate instantiation ending substantial instantiation, cannot exceed the interpretation of sublime poetry, display, performance & an epiphany of Divine energies, of sound and lights and rays, pointed out by crystals & mirrors and cultivated by cutting-through & crossing-over ... The sobriety of the Critical Consequence School or Critical Mâdhyamaka, is precisely the marriage of exact negation with respectful silence.

9.5 The Great Seal : Looking at the Mind.

We saw how a subjective, personal, intimate, experiential interpretation of emptiness, the one of the yogis, assumes (a) the non-empty other-emptiness of the Buddha-embryo (Shentong) or (b) the primordial inseparability of emptiness with clarity on the basis of meditative equipoise on emptiness (Dzogchen) or (c) the One Truth beyond cognition (Yogâchâra-Mâdhyamaka) or (d) the absolute consciousness without apprehending subject and apprehended object (Mind-Only), or a combination of views sharing the presence of the substantialist instantiation. Under ultimate analysis, an objective characterization of the subjective pole of every cognitive act, namely of the cognizer, remains possible.

Meditative equipoise on the mind itself brings to light its conceptual (gross) & non-conceptual (subtle) cogitations. Mind-as-perceiver nor the perceived are the chosen objects of placement. Calm Abiding is exclusively applied on the mind-as-perceiving, i.e. on the objective features of the cognitive act of actually perceiving the perceived, leading up to the perception of each actual moment of consciousness. When, due to "special seeing", the substantial instantiation of each and every cogitation or "state of mind" has been irreversibly halted, then the emptiness of the coarse & subtle layers of the mind are realized, prompting the deepest level, the very subtle mind of Clear Light, the natural state ("rigpa"), to spontaneously & effortlessly rise. Placing the "Great Seal" happens when this direct experience of the self-emptiness of mind "seals" every moment of consciousness nunc ipsum. Then the "winds" enter the central channel triggering awakening. So far the concise view on the Tantra of the "Great Seal".

Historically, the "Great Seal" or "mahâmudrâ" is one of the highest teachings of the Vajrayâna, especially in the Kagyu school (Tilopa, Nâropa, Marpa, Milarepa, Gampopa). It is unique to this Adamantine Vehicle. It entered Tibet as late as the 12th century, but was already practiced by Nâgârjuna and revealed to the "mahâsiddhas". Tradition says Buddha spoke of it in the Mahâmudrâ Subtle Drop Tantra, the Glorious Unblemished Tantra and the Thoroughly Abiding Tantra, texts part of the Mahâyâna and probably written between the first and the fifth century CE.

Because it deals with the transformation of the mind, it is a "Tantra", but of all possible Tantras or "continua" it is the highest. Mahâmudrâ is taught in all four Tantra sets (Action, Performance, Yoga & Highest Yoga), but particularly in the highest set. It is elaborated in the Kâlachakra Tantra. As the "Great Seal", this Tantra is also called "Dharmamudrâ" and associated with the very subtle "drop" in the heart-wheel, the "supreme unchanging bliss" of the wisdom-mind of Clear Light realizing the ultimate nature of the mind, apprehending its emptiness or ultimate instantiation.

In the Tibetan lineages, the Great Seal is described as the realization of emptiness, freedom from cyclic existence and the inseparability of these two. The teaching itself is divided in three parts : (a) the view : insight in the true nature of the mind ; (b) the path : direct, effortless experience of the ultimate nature of the mind by way of "Vajra Yoga" and (c) the fruit : the spiritual freedom leaving behind all defilements of the mind. In the Kagyu lineages, the view of the Great Seal is also defined as recognizing the mind as the unity of emptiness and luminosity (the clarity of awareness). When thus approached, the difference between Mahâmudrâ and Dzogchen is not fundamental, and only depends on the lineages and the method. Indeed, many Kagyupa masters identify both. But from the perspective of the Critical Mâdhyamaka, the Kagyu view, like Dzogchen, assumes too much. Likewise, the Gelugpas will criticize the Jonang school for positing too much, like identifying the "Great Seal" with our inherently perfect Buddha-nature, deemed to possess its qualities "from the very beginning". In the Kagyu view, this association with the Tathâgata-embryo is also made. But all agree Mahâmudrâ allows one to realize awakening in one lifetime !

All phenomena are imputed by the mind. All sensate & mental objects are apprehended by subjects of experience and "exist" relative to them. Śântideva refers to the mind as the hub of our existence, holding all parts together. About this essential point both Kagyupas and Gelugpas are in full agreement. They also share the view Calm Abiding on a coarse (Buddha statue) & subtle (breath) object must already have been achieved before Mahâmudrâ meditation should be initiated. For only then can the mind take itself as a stable object of placement. Again, if the mind is seen as a lantern, then the object of placement is not the objects illuminated by it (the perceived), nor the lantern itself (the perceiver), but only the light emitted (the act of perceiving). With this in mind, the reifying tendencies are identified and reversed. In this way, both coarse & subtle minds are eventually experienced as empty. This is the goal of the Great Seal.

The important difference between Gelug and Kagyu approaches of the Great Seal involves the luminosity of the mind. While both agree the mind is empty of inherent existence, i.e. not substantially instantiated, the Kagyu affirm the capacity of the mind to understand & reflect, or its "clarity", is inseparable from its emptiness. Gelugpas do not see this inseparability as part of the objective view, but only as part of the subjective fruit. Because of extensive analytical meditations & tranquility meditations on the mind itself, the Clear Light of the mind is generated or caused. As this Clear Light cannot be found under ultimate analysis, it cannot be posited beforehand and so should not be conceptually anticipated and be made part of the view. However, when the "Great Seal" has been placed on every instance of the mind, i.e. when all its cogitations are no longer substantially instantiated, the profound Buddha-qualities of this wisdom-mind of  Clear Light spontaneously & effortlessly arise ! Then the Clear Light dawns as a fish jumps out of the water, and the fact of it being inseparable with the emptiness of the mind may become a datum of direct yogic experience. But, in objective terms, nothing about this can be posited, for this personal, intimate and highly subjective experience is ineffable.

Mahâmudrâ Tantra is the mind of "meaning" Clear Light experiencing great bliss and realizing emptiness. Such a mind is fully qualified. Depending on whether emptiness is conceptuality or non-conceptual realized, two kinds of minds of Clear Light can be distinguished. Before the Bodhisattva enters the Path of Seeing, the mind of Clear Light realizes emptiness with a generic image and so is indirect. This is called "example" Clear Light. By using this example, yogis finally accomplish "meaning" Clear Light, the direct, non-conceptual realization of emptiness (on the Path of Seeing and beyond).

In a general way, Mahâmudrâ meditations, in tune with the process of dissolution and the "bardos" or "intervals" of "death", "intermediate stage" and "rebirth" of the ordinary, migrating mind, first clear away the gross reifying minds. The end of all gross & subtle cogitation is associated with the "bardo of death", or the interval between the moment the first signs of impeding physical death are present and the moment the "indestructible drop" in the heart-wheel splits, releasing the very subtle mind of Clear Light.

Realizing the emptiness of sensate objects (Earth), feelings (Water), volitions (Fire) and thoughts (Air), makes the coarse minds dissolve. On the Path of Preparation, this is done with a generic image. Next, realizing the emptiness of all forms of hatred (rejection), craving (attraction) and ignorance (indifference), cutting the roots of afflictive consciousnesses, the only reifying aggregate left, halts the substantial instantiation of the subtle minds (cf. empty White Appearance, very empty Red Increase & great empty Black Near-Attainment). When these subtle minds too are no longer substantially instantiating, they dissolve and the very subtle mind of Clear Light eventuates. Then, the union of this mind of meaning Clear Light & its adjacent "illusory body" (or "Sambhogakâya" of the intermediate stage) is merely existentially instantiated. This immediately continues into actual enlightenment or the end of rebirth (or "Dharmakâya").

Mahâmudrâ is a very profound Tantra, one in total harmony with the objective view of the Prajñâpâramitâ-sûtra, the emptiness-teachings  of Nâgârjuna (the Mûlamadhyamakakârikâ ) & the Critical Mâdhyamaka of Tsongkhapa the Great. Insofar as (a) nothing is affirmed about inherent qualities of the mind, (b) the process-like insubstantiality of the mind is found and (c) its reifying activities stopped, no conflict with the Critical Middle Way is present. But if before the actual manifestation of meaning Clear Light, the view on Mahâmudrâ anticipates this Clear Light by incorporating "clarity" at the beginning of the path, Critical Middle Way Mahâmudrâ is impossible.

9.6 Harmonizing Emptiness & the Clear Light.

In this paper, two paths  to emptiness were identified : the philosophical versus the yogic. These can be set up against each other, seeing them as two partisan, sectarian positions. They can also be harmonized with each other, as in Ri-mé. Philosophy accommodates the elimination of conceptuality by way of concepts, while yoga describes the actual experiential contents of meditations on emptiness. It is unwise to try to philosophize about these direct experiences. Likewise, once concepts are out, yoga should not invoke them back in !

Philosophy seeks an objective denotation of "śûnyatâ", emptiness. This must be strict and in accord with logic. As this also serves apologetic aims, a tough system is intended, one establishing the back-bone of the Buddhadharma, resisting the strongest counter-arguments and assist debate. This objective, conceptual intent makes physical science the ally of this philosophical inquiry, for the laws of nature apply for all physical objects (the sensate objects of mind). What laws operate all sentient beings ? The crucial discovery of the Buddhadharma is the absolute, total absence of static objects. This underlines the process-like nature of all phenomena, everywhere and always interdependent.

To formulate this discovery in terms of a single logical expression of emptiness was done by Nâgârjuna "the Protector" :

"Empty should not be asserted.
"Non-empty should not be asserted.
Neither both nor neither should be asserted.
They are only used nominally."
Nâgârjuna : Mûlamadhyamakakârikâ, XXII:11

It took another millennium to finalize the most perfect interpretation of this formal answer. "Not be asserted" means "not to be seen as an eternal substance", as Platonic ideas of sorts, as "universalia". In the ultimate analysis of the Critical Mâdhyamaka, absence of this kind of monadic & "closed" substantiality, featuring independent self-power, is the nominal use aimed at. The yogis may have misread Nâgârjuna, mingling subjective elements in the logical expression of emptiness, and then "adding" something to this absence of stasis. But precisely this addition betrays a subjective component : the primordial ground, the natural state of mind, a purified store-house consciousness, the Clear Light, clarity, luminosity, awareness, other-empty Buddha-embryo, etc. Each time, objectivity is lost by an eternalization of the mind a priori. Based on phenomenological & experiential considerations instead of on logical one, they mingle subjectivity with the process of establishing an objective basis for the philosophy of the Buddhadharma, thus undermining the aim of the exercise of formal logic, rejecting the conditions of this logic itself and traditional debate. Tsongkhapa identified the exclusive nominal use of emptiness with the object of wisdom-mind, aiming to identify the core of ignorance : the conditions of the possibility of static objects. Emptiness is merely the negation of characteristics or features inhering in objects. What makes them objective is not their appearance or mistaken own-power, but their being "empty" or not substance-like, i.e. process-like. Hence, objects are not independent bastions of substantiality, but interdependent processes.

The logico-philosophical view of the Critical Middle Way uses concepts to eliminate concepts, and, at the end of the day, tries to nullify the conceptual act of designating or labeling itself. This is the way of emptiness meditation. By itself, conventional reality is not considered as problematic, but its reification or substantial instantiation is. Because we understand objects to exist from their own side, independent from other objects, we nourish ignorance and cause afflictive mental states. These prompt us to act in non-virtuous ways, sustaining our suffering, dissatisfaction and d