Hopkins Ultimate Reality in Tibetan Buddhism

Ultimate Reality in Tibetan BuddhismAuthor(s): Jeffrey HopkinsSource: Buddhist-Christian Studies, Vol. 8 (1988), pp. 111-129Published by: University of Hawai'i PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1390116Accessed: 03/09/2009 10:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Buddhist-Christian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1390116?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp

THEOLOGICAL ENCOUNTER III

Ultimate Reality in Tibetan Buddhism

Jeffrey Hopkins University of Virginia

In Vancouver, when it was suggested that the next topic be "ultimate reality," someone questioned whether the Buddhist representatives would accept the topic. I guessed that the question arose because it was presumed that Buddhists would assert that everything is illusion and thus there can be no reality. My con- jecture led me beyond the immediate and obvious identification of "ultimate

reality" as emptiness, the "ultimate truth," into thinking about the many meanings of terms in Sanskrit and Tibetan that could be loosely included within "ultimate reality," especially in the light of John Cobb's identification of many possible meanings of the term in Buddhist-Christian Studies (1983, 3: 39). Thus, I propose to speak about "ultimate reality" in Buddhism from sev- eral points of view including: (1) the phenomena that actually exist as opposed to merely being imagined, (2) the ultimate truth that is the final nature of all

phenomena, (3) the ultimate existence that phenomena lack, (4) the ultimate

types of consciousness that realize the truth, and (5) the final goal and state achieved by a practitioner. Following Maitreya's Differentiation of the Middle and the Extremes, I shall structure these and other meanings around the famil- iar Buddhist triad of the basis, the path, and the fruit.

My sources are primarily, but not exclusively, texts and oral teachings of the Ge-luk-ba order of Tibetan Buddhism., This order was founded by the poly- math and yogi Dzong-ka-ba (1357-1419), who was from the easternmost

region of Tibet. It came to have great influence throughout a region stretching from Kalmuck Mongolian areas near the Volga River (in Europe) where it emp- ties into the Caspian Sea, Outer and Inner Mongolia, the Buriat Republic of Siberia, as well as most parts of Tibet and Ladakh. Dzong-ka-ba established a system of education centered in large universities, eventually in three areas of Tibet, but primarily in Lhasa, the capital, which was like Rome for the Catholic Church. Young men came from all of the above-mentioned regions to Lhasa to study, usually (until the Communist takeovers) returning to their native lands after completing their studies.

With respect to my viewpoint, I am a Buddhist but not a Ge-luk-ba, because

Buddhist-Christian Studies 8 (1988). ? by University of Hawaii Press. All rights reserved.

JEFFREY HOPKINS

I find such an identification too limiting. I make use of whatever seems valu- able among what I encounter in the various sectarian and national Buddhisms, and it is with this spirit that I am increasingly enjoying the encounter with Christianity. Since the Buddhism from which I speak is concerned for the most part with very profound levels of realization, I cannot claim to have firsthand experience of these topics. It would amount to overweening pride, or hubris, were I to claim that all that I am about to say about ultimate reality is a matter of validly induced conviction. However, at the minimum, I have inklings that these presentations are helpful in arriving at the truth. Thus, although in some respects I am merely assuming the voice of a long tradition of explanation, I am fascinated by these doctrines and aspire to experience their meaning.

I shall be speaking largely from standard Ge-luk-ba perspectives on sutra and tantra. It is important to make this clear because it means that I can speak from a highly developed, living, conceptual system without the primary focus being the ancient Indian sources for these perspectives and their subsequent development and controversies in the various forms of Buddhism. This is not to say that neither I nor Ge-luk-ba scholars are concerned with the Indian sources of their views, for we are. Rather, when the focus of exposition is put on those sources and the varying interpretations of them, one is overburdened with a sense of tentativeness that does not accurately reflect the larger, dynamically function- ing world-view of the system. Conversely, when too much emphasis is put on the model system, a sense of the rich critical perspective embodied by many of these scholar-practitioners is not conveyed. At this point in our study of Bud- dhism, I usually choose to run the latter risk.

Let us turn to a Buddhist interpretation of "ultimate reality" in terms of the basis, the path, and the fruit of the path.

BASIS

Ultimate Reality as What Exists

The broadest possible meaning of "ultimate reality" is what exists, as opposed to what seems to exist but does not. "Ultimate" here has a rather weak sense of "when you get right down to it"; and "reality" has the sense of what is-as opposed to what merely seems to be. When you get right down to it-when you look into it-what exists? What is able to withstand analysis of whether it meets the criteria of existence?

An existent is defined as something observed by valid cognition. Briefly stated, valid cognition is direct perception and inference. Direct perception can be either sense or mental direct perception; and inferential cognition is conceptual, non-delusive knowledge of a hidden, or obscure, object that is gained in dependence upon a correct logical sign.

There are many synonyms of "existent." With their respective definitions, these include:

ULTIMATE REALITY IN TIBETAN BUDDHISM

1) established base: something established by valid cognition; 2) object of knowledge: something fit to be taken as an object of an

awareness; 3) phenomenon: something holding its own entity; 4) object of comprehension: something realized by valid cognition; 5) object: something known by an awareness; 6) object of comprehension by an omniscient consciousness: something

realized by an omniscient consciousness.

That these are synonyms entails that whatever is one of them is all the rest. Hence, an existent is an established base, an object of knowledge, a phenomenon, an object of comprehension, an object, and an object of comprehension by an omniscient consciousness. Similarly, an existent is necessarily established by valid cognition, fit to be taken as an object of an awareness, holds its own entity, is realized by valid cognition, is known by an awareness, and is realized by an omniscient consciousness.

In Great Vehicle Buddhism, the most famous list of existents (taken from the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras) begins with forms and ends with omniscient consciousnesses. It is a list of one-hundred and eight phenomena broken into two

categories: fifty-three in the thoroughly afflicted class, and fifty-five in the very pure class. (Anything that exists can be included in at least one of these one- hundred eight categories. The meaning of the list is not that things such as chairs, which are not explicitly listed, do not exist; rather, chairs, for instance, are subdivisions of forms.) Another list divides the existent into the permanent and the impermanent. The permanent are divided into four classes; and the impermanent are divided into three classes, which are then divided and sub- divided in manifold ways.2

Ultimate Reality as Ultimate Truth

The division of phenomena into 108 categories is important but not as vital as the division of those same phenomena into the two truths, ultimate truths and conventional truths (or truths-for-a-concealing-consciousness). Everything that exists is one or the other of the two truths, and anything that is either of the two truths necessarily exists. Hence, the horns of a rabbit (barring genetic engineer- ing) are neither of the two truths.

In the context of the two truths, "ultimate reality" is the final nature of what exists; although it exists, it is not-like the first interpretation of "ultimate reality" given above-everything that exists. Rather, it is the final mode of subsistence, the mode of being, of what exists. This is emptiness, an absence of inherent existence,3 called "ultimate truth" (paramarthasatya). A truth is something that exists the way it appears in direct perception and thus is a true object. It is something that does not deceive. An emptiness is an ultimate truth in that it is a truth (satya), existing the way it appears in direct perception, for

JEFFREY HOPKINS

an ultimate (paramartha) consciousness.4 In this context, an ultimate consciousness refers not to the final consciousness attained through practice of the path, that is to say, a Buddha's omniscient consciousness, but to a reasoning consciousness realizing emptiness. Such ultimate consciousnesses are of two varieties: non-conceptual and conceptual. A non-conceptual ultimate consciousness is one of meditative equipoise in which a yogi directly realizes emptiness, whereas a conceptual ultimate consciousness is one that realizes emptiness through the medium of a conceptual image. Both are called "reasoning consciousnesses," probably because they are generated from having analyzed with reasoning to determine whether an object exists from its own side or not.

It should be clear from the above explanation that even though an emptiness is an ultimate truth, it is not all that exists and it does not negate other phenomena. For, conventional truths also exist, and an emptiness is merely an absence of inherent existence in a phenomena, not the non-existence of that phenomenon. Thus, emptiness is the ultimate truth, but not in the sense that finally, when you get right down to it, it and only it exists and everything else only exists for ignorance. Rather, it is the mode of subsistence of things that appears non-delusively to a consciousness of meditative equipose and thus is a truth-for-an-ultimate-consciousness.

Everything else appears delusively, even in direct perception, except to a Buddha. Aside from emptiness, everything appears to exist in its own right but does not. Everything appears to be inherently established but is actually not so. Thus, all phenomena except emptinesses are truths-for-a-concealing-consciousness (samv.rtisatya)-things that seem to exist the way they appear for an ignorant consciousness that conceals the truth. These objects are taken by ignorance to exist the way they appear, and hence are truths for ignorance, or truths-for-a- concealing-consciousness.

Still, in the Ge-luk-ba interpretation, this does not mean that objects other than emptiness exist only for ignorance and therefore do not actually exist. Rather, the name "truth-for-a-concealing-consciousness" means that the truthness of such objects-their existing the way they appear-is posited only by ignorance, a consciousness concealing the way things actually exist; and this truthness does not exist at all. Remember that the basis of division into the two truths is existents; hence, both ultimate truths and conventinal truths (or truths-for-a-concealing-consciousness) exist, although only ultimate truths are actual truths.

Because the term "ultimate truth" seems to suggest that only it finally exists and because the term "truth-for-a-concealing-consciousness" seems to suggest that objects such as tables exist only for an ignorant, concealing consciousness, many scholars have understandably, but mistakenly, thought that the doctrine of the Middle Way School is excessively negative, unable to affirm the existence of anything except emptiness, which they take to be nothingness.


Ultimate Reality as That of Which Phenomena Are Empty

Given that another meaning of "ultimate reality" is ultimate existence (which phenomena are said to lack), it again is no wonder that many scholars have thought that Great Vehicle Buddhism is nihilistic to the point of denying that phenomena exist or, at best, agnostic in the sense that nothing can be posited about anything. For emptiness negates ultimate existence; in other words, ultimate existence is the object of negation in the view of emptiness. An emptiness is a negative or absence of ultimate existence. Once ultimate existence is denied of everything, emptiness included, it might seem that it was being claimed that, finally, when you get right down to the facts, nothing exists. But this is not what is being indicated.

Rather, phenomena lack a certain status of being, called ultimate existence, inherent existence, existence from their own side, existence right with their bases of designation, existence as their own reality, existence as their own such- ness, existence by way of their own character, substantial existence, true existence, existence through their own entityness, existence in the manner of cover- ing their basis of designation, and so on. Rather than existing in any of these ways, phenomena are subjectively dependent. They depend even for their existence upon a conceptual consciousness that designates them; hence, they do not exist in their own right.

This absence of inherent or ultimate existence is the emptiness of phenomena-their final nature, but this does not mean that when you get right down to it, phenomena do not exist. Rather, it means that when you analyze whether phenomena exist from their own side as they seem to do, an emptiness of such existence-an absence of such establishment-is found. This emptiness, in fact, is the very key to an object's existence; without it, the object would be impossible. Cause and effect are possible because things do not exist from their own side. If they did exist in their own right, they would not need to depend on causes and conditions.

Thus, there is nothing contradictory, incompatible, inscrutable, or paradoxical about the assertion that the emptiness of ultimate existence is the ultimate truth, since "ultimate existence" refers to a falsely reified status of phenomena, whereas "ultimate truth" refers to what exists the way it appears to the highest type of consciousness. The term "ultimate," therefore, does not have the same meaning in these two usages. The first meaning is the object of negation of emptiness, and the second meaning is the highest consciousness that realizes emptiness.

The difficult (but not paradoxical) point is that although an emptiness is what is finally found when you search to determine whether an object exists from its own side or not, what finally exists is not just emptiness. Existents (objects of knowledge) are what are divided into the two truths. Thus, truths- for-a-concealing-consciousness such as chairs, tables, and bodies exist, and their

JEFFREY HOPKINS

existence is certified by conventional valid cognition. If this is kept in mind, you will not think that just because emptiness is the ultimate truth, only emptiness exists.

But, one may ask, if this non-finding of an object, such as a chair, as existing from its own side is the object of the ultimate consciousness, why should we accept the evidence of some other, non-ultimate consciousness that the object itself exists? Put another way, the question is: If you yourself say that an ultimate consciousness investigating the nature of an object does not certify the existence of the object but instead certifies emptiness (the non-finding of that object under such analysis), how can you claim that the object nevertheless exists for anything but ignorance? Do you not call this ultimate consciousness wisdom?

The answer to this qualm is that the spheres of ultimate and conventional consciousnesses are different. For instance, that an eye consciousness does not confirm the existence of sounds does not mean that sounds do not exist. Simi- larly, that an ultimate consciousness searching to find whether an object inherently exists or not does not find the object does not mean that the object does not exist in general. The ultimate consciousness is qualified with respect to determining the status of inherent existence of the object but not qualified with respect to determining the mere existence of the object. Thus, finding something and finding it to be non-existent are two different things. When an ultimate consciousness reasons:

1) whether a chair, for instance, is one with the seat, back, legs, and so on which are its basis of designation;

2) whether it is a different entity from its basis of designation; 3) whether it inherently depends upon its basis of designation; 4) whether its basis of designation inherently depends upon it; 5) whether it inherently possesses its basis of designation; 6) whether it is the shape of its basis of designation; 7) or whether it is the collection of its basis of designation,

it finds that the chair is none of these and hence does not inherently exist. However, this does not constitute finding that the chair does not exist. The chair is not established, or does not exist, for such a reasoning consciousness, but this does not mean that it does not exist in general. Rather, the chair exists in the face of a conventional, valid consciousness that does not engage in such analysis; it exists in the face of an eye consciousness, or a body consciousness, and so on.

Does this mean that when we act in the world, we should remain in ignorance without analyzing; but that in profound meditation, we should analyze, whereupon activity with objects becomes impossible? No. A practitioner needs to analyze with this sort of reasoning in order to realize that objects are empty of inherent existence whereupon, after leaving cognition of emptiness and


when objects reappear, they are understood as qualified with a lack of inherent existence, as empty. Objects then and only then are seen to be like illusions, not because they appear to exist but do not, but because they appear to be existent from their own side but are not. A magical illusion of an appealing woman or man appears to be such a person but is not, and objects similarly have a lack of correspondence between how they appear and how they exist. They appear to exist in their own right but do not. The correspondence of phenomena with the example of a magician's illusion (or other types of illusions) is not on the level of appearing to exist but not actually existing; hence, the doctrine that phenomena are like illusions points to a falseness of objects, not to their non-existence.

The doctrine of illusion is, therefore, that phenomena are like illusions, not that they are illusions. This is why all objects except emptiness are called falsi- ties. They appear one way and exist another, even in direct, non-conceptual perception by sense consciousnesses such as an eye consciousness. Within existing, they falsely appear to exist from their own side but actually do not; and from this viewpoint, they are described as falsely existent, falsely established. This false appearance is due not to a fault in the object, but to a fault in the subject. The appearance of inherent existence, as well as latent predispositions for it that reside in the mind, are the obstructions to omniscience that must be overcome in order to attain Buddhahood. Due to faults in our own consciousnesses, objects falsely appear to have a status that they do not have. The

objects themselves are said to be falsely established or falsely existent. In this vein, everything except emptiness is said to be deceptive:

O monks, this which is nirvana, having the attribute of non-deceptiveness, is the ultimate truth. All conditioned things are false, having the attribute of deceptiveness.5

Many scholars have misinterpreted these teachings to mean that, according to Great Vehicle Buddhism, objects such as tables, chairs, minds, bodies, and people do not exist. Admittedly, much commentary is needed in order to understand the perspective from which the teaching about illusion, falsity, and not being found when analyzed are made.

Emptiness not only does not negate the functionality of objects but also is the very key to their functionality. For, if objects such as the mind were not empty of inherent existence, they could not change. From this viewpoint, the emptiness of inherent existence of the mind is called the Buddha nature-that which allows transformation of an ordinary, afflicted mind into the altruistic omniscience of Buddhahood.

The apprehension of inherent, or ultimate, existence is what binds beings in cyclic existence; hence, inherent existence cannot be merely something super- imposed by mistaken philosophies. It must be a false status of objects that uneducated persons, babies, animals, and so on apprehend. Inherent existence

JEFFREY HOPKINS

must be something that is very difficult to distinguish from the object itself-

something of which we would feel, if we negated it, that we were negating the

very object itself. Inherent existence must seem to be part and parcel of the

object such that when we affirm the object, we feel that we affirm it. Hence, although a consequence of inherent existence is that objects would have to be

unchanging, not produced by causes and conditions, and independent of a

positing consciousness, these entailments do not mean that to conceive inherent existence is to conceive that objects are unchanging, not produced by causes and conditions, and independent. Otherwise, it would be very easy to realize

emptiness indeed! To conceive of inherent existence, therefore, does not neces-

sarily involve conceiving these either explicitly or implicitly; rather, if objects were inherently existent as we usually conceive them to be, then they would have to be unchanging, not produced by causes and conditions, and independent of a positing consciousness. Conceiving objects to be inherently or ultimately existent is merely to conceive, to apprehend, that they exist from their own side.

Furthermore, this apprehension is merely an affirmation of the way objects appear in raw sensation. Since objects appear at even the sensory level as if they exist in their own right, it is not surprising that we assent to this seeming status. Indeed, it would take great force of mind, a bit like recognizing dreams as dreams, to turn the mind away from habitual assent to this falsely appearing, solid status of objects.

Ultimate Reality Is Not Ultimately Established

Emptiness, the ultimate truth and ultimate reality, is the absence, the negative, of an inherently existent status. It is a quality of objects, their final mode of subsistence, their final nature. However, it is said that ultimate truth does not itself ultimately exist. This means that emptiness, which exists the way it

appears for an ultimate reasoning consciousness of meditative equipoise and thus is an ultimate truth, is not found upon analyzing whether emptiness exists in its own right. Even emptiness is not found in the face of an ultimate, analyti- cal consciousness that investigates whether it is established from its own side. What is found is the emptiness of emptiness.

Not even emptiness is an independent entity. It depends upon the objects that it qualifies, even though it is permanent in the sense that the causes of the object do not make it. An emptiness of an apple, for instance, comes into being when the apple is produced by causes and conditions, but it itself is uncom- pounded, not produced by causes and conditions. The dependence of an emptiness on the object that it qualifies indicates its own lack of inherent existence, its own emptiness; this is the emptiness of emptiness, ad infinitum. Hence, emptiness is not an absolute, since an absolute must be independent.

Nagarjuna's statement that the final nature of things is "non-fabricated and does not depend on another"6 is interpreted as meaning that, unlike the heat


of water, it is not something that did not exist earlier and is newly produced, and thus it is unfabricated; also, it does not depend on other causes and conditions as do here and there, or long and short. Even if the emptiness of inherent existence of the first moment of a sprout does not exist before that sprout and does not exist after that moment of the sprout and hence is indeed a case of something non-existent earlier that is newly existent and newly established, it is not something that is newly produced or newly made. Similarly, although the emptiness of the first moment of a sprout is, after that one moment of the sprout, something that earlier existed and newly disappeared, it did not newly disintegrate and was not newly ceased. In this sense, emptiness, the final nature of things, is unfabricated.

Also, although an emptiness is relative-dependently established-in that it is established in dependence upon its basis of designation, it does not have the same type of dependence and relativity as does a yard-long rope which is posited as long relative to a rope only a foot long, but is short relative to a rope six yards long, and thus has no one-pointed definiteness as long or short. The positing of the absence of inherent existence as the final nature of fire, rope, or whatever phenomenon, in contrast, does not depend on other phenomena in that way, but instead is one-pointedly the final nature of those phenomena. In these senses of not depending on a special object of dependence and not depending on causes and conditions to produce it, an emptiness, an ultimate truth, is independent, but nevertheless depends on its own basis of designation as well as on the phenomenon that it qualifies.

In this way, the two truths-ultimate truths and conventional truths (or truths-for-a-concealing-consciousness)-are mutually dependent. Still, one etymological meaning of samvrti (also translated as "conventional" and "con- cealer") is "mutual dependence," and thus, this also might lead one to think that only truths-for-a-concealing-consciousness and not ultimate truths are dependent and relative. However, it is said7 that the etymology is wider than the actual meaning of samv.rtisatya, which is limited to all objects except emptinesses, because emptinesses also are dependent, relative. Emptinesses depend on the truths-for-a-concealing-consciousness of which they are the final nature; they also depend on a conceptual designating consciousness and perhaps even on the emptinesses of the parts of the objects that they qualify. Thus, it would be a mistake to conclude that ultimate truths are not dependent or relative, just because a word for mutual dependence or relativity, samvrti, is used frequently for all other objects. Otherwise, there would be no way to posit the emptiness of emptiness. As the Dalai Lama says in his Key To the Middle Way:

An emptiness is the way of being, or mode of existence, of the phenomenon qualified by it. Therefore, if the phenomenon qualified by it does not exist, there is no emptiness of it. The empty nature of a phenomenon is established in relation to that phenomenon which is qualified by this empty nature, and a phenomenon qualified by an empty nature is estab-

JEFFREY HOPKINS

lished in relation to its empty nature. Just as when a phenomenon qualified by an empty nature is analyzed, it is not found, so too when this phenomenon's empty nature itself is analyzed, it is unfindable as well. There- fore, when we seek the object designated as 'an empty nature', this empty nature is also not found. It merely exists through the force of subjective designation done without analysis. Thus it does not inherently exist... Therefore, when a tree, for instance, is analyzed, the tree is not found, but its mode of being or emptiness is found. Then, when that emptiness is analyzed, that emptiness also is not found, but the emptiness of that emptiness is found. This is called an emptiness of an emptiness.8

Thus, it is clear that even an ultimate truth is posited in dependence upon the conventional truth it qualifies and is relative in this sense. As was mentioned earlier, all phenomena, including emptinesses, are dependent-arisings; not even ultimate truth can withstand analysis into whether it exists from its own side.

The relativity of emptiness does not mean, however, that realization of it is somehow shaky or partial. When emptiness is realized non-dualistically, all

emptinesses in all world-systems are realized simultaneously without the

slightest sense of difference and without the slightest appearance of any conventional phenomenon. It is only at Buddhahood that emptiness can be realized directly within simultaneously realizing all conventional phenomena.

This latter fact makes it clear that even direct realization of ultimate truth- emptiness-is not realization of the ultimate state. Much misinterpretation of Buddhism has come from the suppositions (1) that since emptiness is the ultimate truth, realization of it must be the final state and (2) that since direct realization of emptiness requires withdrawing from phenomena, Buddhists are

ultimately seeking an isolated state at best and obliteration at worst. The fact is that direct realization of emptiness takes place at the beginning of the path of seeing, at which point the first of the ten Bodhisattva stages or grounds (so called because they are the basis on which other great mental qualities grow) is attained. Thus, it is clear that direct realization of the ultimate truth, emptiness, is not the final goal. Neither ultimate truth nor the ultimate consciousness realizing it are the final goal. The goal is Buddhahood-a state of fully empowered capacity effectively to help others.

Still, emptiness (ultimate truth) is not a positive phenomenon; it is a mere negative. Some negations imply a positive phenomenon in their place, such as when we say about a very corpulent person called Devadatta, "Fat Devadatta does not eat during the day."9 The meaning implied is that Devadatta eats, even a great deal, at night. Devadatta's not eating during the day is a negative phenomenon but one that implies something in place of its object of negation. Devadatta is the basis of negation; eating during the day is the object of negation; and eating at night is a positive phenomenon implied in place of the object of negation. Such a negation is called an affirming negation.10 Thus, fat Devadatta's not eating during the day is an affirming negative, since we are


speaking about phenomena and not about the words expressing those phenomena. Within affirming negatives, it is one that implicitly suggests a positive phenomenon in place of its object of negation.

A mountainless plain, on the other hand, is an affirming negative that explicitly suggests or indicates a positive phenomenon (a plain) in place of its object of negation (mountains). Another type of affirming negative is one that by context suggests a positive phenomenon in place of its object of negation; for instance, being told that Shakyamuni was either a brahmin or ksatriya (member of the royal or warrior class) and was not a brahmin suggests, by context, that he was of the royal caste. A positive phenomenon (being a kSatriya) is suggested in place of the object of negation (being a brahmin).

An emptiness, however, is none of these, since all of them suggest something positive in place of the negation of the objection of negation, whereas an emptiness does not. An emptiness is a non-affirming negative," defined as:

a negative which is such that the term expressing it does not suggest in place of the negation of its own object of negation another, positive phenomenon that is its own object suggested.

For example, the non-existence of the horns of a rabbit is expressed by the sen- tence, "The horns of a rabbit do not exist," and this does not suggest anything positive in place of the horns of a rabbit. Though it can suggest another non- affirming negative such as the non-existence of the beauty of the horns of a rabbit, it does not suggest any positive phenomenon in place of its object of negation.

In the same way, an emptiness merely eliminates inherent existence. It does not imply anything positive in its place. The basis of negation is any phenomenon. The object of negation is inherent existence, and nothing is implied in place of the object of negation. For instance, in the case of the emptiness of the body, the body-the basis of negation-is a positive phenomenon; but it is not implied in place of the object of negation; rather, it is that which is empty of inherent existence. An emptiness is the mere elimination of inherent existence or of the establishment of an object by way of its own character; thus, it is a mere negative, a non-affirming negative, a mere absence of its object of negation.

Non-affirming negatives are divided into two classes-those whose object of negation does occur among objects of knowledge, and those whose object of negation does not occur among objects of knowledge. For example, the non- existence of the horns of a rabbit negates the horns of a rabbit which do not exist anywhere; similarly, the absence of inherent existence eliminates inherent existence which never has nor will occur anywhere. Thus, these two are non- affirming negatives whose object of negation does not occur among objects of knowledge-that is to say, among existents. On the other hand, the non-existence of a pot, such as on a certain table, eliminates the existence of a pot there and does not suggest that anything else is on that table. Therefore, the non-

JEFFREY HOPKINS

existence of a pot is a non-affirming negative whose object of negation, pot, does occur among objects of knowledge.

Through making this division in terms of whether the object negated is, in

general, an existent or not, it is being stressed that an emptiness is a lack of

something-inherent existence-that never did nor will exist. Though an emptiness exists, its object of negation never does. Realization of an emptiness, therefore, is not a case of destroying something that once existed, nor of realizing the passing away of something that did exist. Rather, it means to realize a

quality of objects, a negative attribute, that is the mere absence of something that never existed but nevertheless was imagined to occur, with the conse-

quence being tremendous suffering in the round of cyclic existence. Even though nothing is more negative than a non-affirming negative, and

even though emptiness, the nature and ultimate reality of all phenomena, is such a non-affirming negative not implying anything positive in its place, it is central to the realization of emptiness that it is compatible with dependent- arising. All phenomena are mere dependent-arisings because of being empty of inherent existence and thus empty of independence. In turn, all phenomena are empty of inherent existence because of being dependent-arisings-arising in dependence upon their causes and conditions, their parts, and a designating consciousness. Though in the perspective of a consciousness realizing emptiness, nothing, including dependent-arising, is implied in place of the inherent existence that is its object of negation, the understanding of emptiness is said to assist in understanding dependent-arising. For, when it is eliminated that phenomena exist in their own right, one can appreciate to the fullest their being mere dependent-arisings. (This distinction is obviously an attempt to have your cake and eat it too-to have emptiness as a mere negative and yet allow realiz-

ing it to assist in understanding dependent-arising.) Even though in this way emptiness and dependent-arising are vitally compat-

ible, it is emphasized that emptiness is a non-affirming negative because in direct realization of emptiness, except at Buddhahood, all that appears is emptiness. A mere vacuity that is the elimination, the negative, of inherent existence dawns, and the meditator remains in space-like meditative equipoise con-

templating and comprehending this absence of inherent existence in a totally non-dualistic manner. It is said that to develop an antidote to our habitual assent to the seeming inherent existence or concreteness of objects, it is neces- sary to cultivate a wisdom consciousness capable of paying attention to just the absence of inherent existence. Therefore, the emphasis on the fact that emptiness is a non-affirming negative indicates the degree to which we must understand the absence of a wrongly imputed status of phenomena on which we build emotions of desire, hatred, bewilderment, enmity, jealousy, and so forth. A consciousness conceiving phenomena to inherently exist serves as the under-

pinning of these afflictive emotions which bind us in cyclic existence; hence, a wisdom consciousness perceiving the same phenomena in an opposite way is needed.

The existence of an object right in its own basis of designation never did nor

122


could occur, but beings conceive the opposite and thus have been drawn begin- ninglessly into cyclic existence. Extrication from that misconception can happen only through realizing the absence of such reified existence, becoming accus- tomed to it in intense meditation, realizing it directly in meditative equipoise in which nothing but emptiness appears and the mind is merged with it like fresh water poured into fresh water. Such direct cognition must be reentered over and over again. Meditation on emptiness is the medicine that, when accompanied by compassionate method, can clear away all obstructions such that unimpeded altruistic activity is manifested. Thus, though emptiness is a mere negative, it is a doctrine neither of nihilism nor of agnosticism, but a con- fident affirmation of a basic nature, the realization of which yields powerful, beneficial results.

Understood this way, realization of emptiness-the non-affirming negative that is the ultimate reality (not in the sense of being all that exists but in the sense of being something that exists the way it appears in direct perception)- not only indicates compatibility with knowledge of phenomena and activity but also is the very key, when accompanied by practice of great compassion, to transformation into a supremely effective altruistic state.

PATH

Ultimate Reality as a Wisdom Consciousness

Emptiness, the final nature of phenomena, is the actual ultimate, but the reasoning consciousness that realizes emptiness is also called an ultimate. Thus, the meaning of "ultimate reality" can be taken as the prime wisdom consciousnesses that realize the ultimate truth. This twofold treatment of the ultimate-as the emptiness that is the object of the wisdom consciousness, and as the consciousness realizing emptiness-is called "the ultimate as object" and "the ultimate as subject."

Since reasoning consciousnesses are conceptual and non-conceptual, the ultimate as subject is also of two types, concordant ultimates and actual ultimates. A conceptual reasoning consciousness that realizes emptiness in dependence on a reasoning process is able to eliminate the elaborations of the conception of inherent existence but is not able to eliminate the elaborations of dualistic appearance. Therefore, it is called a concordant ultimate since it is similar to the highest type of wisdom consciousness but not quite complete. A non-conceptual "reasoning" consciousness, however, is an exalted wisdom of non-conceptual meditative equipoise no longer operating through the medium of generic images but directly perceiving emptiness in a totally non-dualistic manner. Such a consciousness is non-dualistic in five senses:

1) There is no conceptual appearance. 2) There is no sense of subject and object. Subject and object are like fresh

water poured into fresh water.

123

JEFFREY HOPKINS

3) There is no appearance of inherent existence. 4) There is no appearance of conventional phenomena. Only emptiness

appears. 5) There is no appearance of difference. Although the emptinesses of all

phenomena in all world systems appear, they do not appear to be different.12

This non-dual wisdom consciousness (still called a "reasoning" consciousness, as mentioned earlier, probably because it depends upon earlier usage of conceptual reasoning) is called an actual ultimate.

Ultimate Reality as the Ultimate Deity

This extension of the vocabulary of the object to designate the subject is taken further in tantra. In Action Tantra, the process of generating, or imagining, oneself as a deity (an ideal being) begins with a step called the "ultimate deity." It is a realization that one's own final nature and a deity's final nature are the same. Here "ultimate" is used not just for the emptiness of inherent existence of oneself and the deity or for the sameness of these two, but also for a consciousness that realizes this sameness. In the subsequent steps of deity yoga, the practitioner uses this consciousness, called the ultimate deity, as the basis of emanation in physical form. The consciousness is the stuff out of which the subsequent form appears.

Ultimate Reality as the Mind of Clear Light

Similarly, but at a more profound level, in Highest Yoga Tantra, the actual mind of clear light within the stage of completion is designated the stage of completion of ultimate truth. In this case, the most subtle and powerful level of consciousness, the mind of clear light directly realizing the emptiness of inherent existence, is the ultimate truth. Here, not just emptiness, which is a mere negative, but also a positive phenomenon, the fundamental innate mind of clear light, is identified as "ultimate truth."

This identification of "ultimate truth" as the most profound level of the mind is similar to the identification in the Tibetan Old Translation School of Nying-ma of basic mind (rng pa) as the ultimate truth that is the mode of subsistence of all phenomena. In the Nying-ma presentation, a mere negation of inherent existence is not recognized as the final nature of phenomenon; rather, basic mind, which is a unified, inseparable combination of emptiness and appearance, is the basic reality of everything.

In both the New Translation School's practice of manifesting the fundamental innate mind of clear light and the Old Translation School's practice of manifesting basic mind, the practitioner is attempting to differentiate levels of mind. In the former case, the practitioner is seeking to cease all coarser levels of

124


consciousness, thereby allowing the fundamental innate mind of clear light to manifest. In the latter, the practitioner is seeking to differentiate between mistaken mind and basic mind, in order to recognize the fundamental reality and gradually dissolve mistaken minds. This type of emptiness is called "other- emptiness." The most subtle level of mind is empty of being the other, coarser levels of consciousness, and basic mind is empty of being the other types of mistaken minds. This type of emptiness in which a process of separation is being meditated is different from the emptiness of inherent existence described earlier, which is a "self-emptiness" not in the sense that a practitioner is realizing that an object is empty of being itself (since that would mean that the object did not exist at all), but in the sense of realizing that the object lacks its own inherent existence. Both of these types of meditation are cases of "emptying," the first type ceasing coarser levels of consciousness or dissolving mistaken consciousnesses, and the second type involving a withdrawal from appearance due to attending to the non-finding of an object under analysis.

FRUIT

Ultimate Reality as Nirvana

Just as the name "ultimate" which is primarily used for emptiness (the object realized by the wisdom consciousness) is also, by extension, used for the realizing subject, so the nirvana that is attained through cultivation of such a wisdom consciousness is also called "ultimate." In this vein, Maitreya's Differ- entiation of the Middle and the Extremes says:

The ultimate is asserted as of three aspects- Object, attainment, and practice.13

The object-ultimate is emptiness; the attainment-ultimate is nirvana; and the practice-ultimate is the wisdom consciousness realizing emptiness, either conceptual or non-conceptual. The highest type of nirvana-the non-abiding nirvana which is so called because it is a state that abides neither in cyclic existence nor in solitary, inactive peace-is Buddhahood.

Ultimate Reality as the Final Goal

The final reason for generating or manifesting these profound consciousnesses realizing the actual status of phenomena is to be of service to others. As Dzong-ka-ba says about persons practicing the Great Vehicle in both its sutra and mantra forms:

The chief aims sought by both types of Mahayanists are those of others, not the enlightenment that is the aim of one's own attainment. For,

JEFFREY HOPKINS

seeing Buddhahood as a means to achieve others' aims, they seek highest enlightenment as a branch of the aims of others.14

The highest level of such altruistic service is attained in the state of Buddha- hood which is comprised by both constant non-dualistic realization of emptiness and also constant dualistic cognition of sentient beings' needs and the techniques appropriate to their situation, within simultaneous appearance in

myriad forms to assist those beings. The final goal, therefore, is not realization but helpfulness to other beings.

The entire course of Bodhisattvas' practice is marked by great compassion, the wish to relieve all sentient beings of suffering and the causes of suffering. Buddhahood, the ultimate state, is seen as a means to enact their intense altruism. The primary intention, the ultimate goal, of Bodhisattvas is to bring about others' welfare. Their own enlightenment is viewed as the means to accomplish this, since a Buddha has omniscience knowing all possible techniques for advancement and knowing in detail the predispositions and interests of other beings. Between the two bodies of a Buddha, Truth Body and Form Body15 (the latter including the Complete Enjoyment Body and Emana- tion Bodies), Bodhisattvas primarily seek Form Bodies, since it is through physical form that the welfare of others can be accomplished (mainly through teaching what is to be adopted in practice and what is to be discarded in

behavior). Though Truth and Form Bodies necessarily accompany each other and thus are achieved together, Bodhisattvas' emphasis is on achieving Form Bodies in order to appear in myriad forms suitable to the interests and dispo- sitions of trainees and to teach them accordingly. In this sense, "ultimate reality" in Great Vehicle Buddhism is a state of altruistically effective purity from all inhibiting factors, in which body, speech, and mind are spontaneously and without effort dedicated to the service of others. As the goal or fruit achieved through practice of the paths that realize the actual basis devoid of fabrications, "ultimate reality" in this sense is fully active and effi- cacious love and compassion.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Because the English term "ultimate reality" carries with it many and various

meanings, I have not limited this discussion of ultimate reality in Buddhism to just the emptiness of inherent existence which is usually identified as "ultimate truth." I have tried to show how many varying meanings are presented in Great Vehicle Buddhism (at least as interpreted by a major system in the Tibetan cul- tural area). Eight meanings have emerged:

1) Ultimate reality as what exists. 2) Ultimate reality as ultimate truth, emptiness. 3) Ultimate reality as that of which phenomena are empty, inherent exis-

tence.

126


4) Ultimate reality as a wisdom consciousness. 5) Ultimate reality as the ultimate deity. 6) Ultimate reality as the fundamental innate mind of clear light. 7) Ultimate reality as the final state of nirvana, Buddhahood. 8) Ultimate reality as the final goal, service to others.

Many errors in the interpretation of Buddhism stem from assuming that any one of these meanings necessarily excludes the others. It strikes me that a book- length presentation of the many meanings of "ultimate reality" in Buddhism, would indeed clear away many misinterpretations of Buddhist doctrine at least from the viewpoint of this influential Tibetan school of interpretation.

In sum, what emerges from these many meanings is a picture of a world-view of great pain and great potential. For Great Vehicle Buddhists, we are in a situation of stifled potential due to misapprehending the nature of persons and other phenomena. Whereas objects do not exist in their own right, we see them that way and are therefore drawn into emotions that further afflict and distort our attempts at mental, verbal, and physical expression. These expressions, in turn, deposit potencies in the mind that ripen as myriad forms of suffering in the cyclic existence of birth, aging, sickness, and death. Failing to realize the absence of inherent existence that is our own ultimate nature, we and what we perceive are caught in a web of the superimposition of a concrete status of phenomena beyond what exists, granting to the superficial an ultimacy that it does not have. We are so distorted from our own reality that when, at death, the mind of clear light dawns, we are frightened by this manifestation of the deeper nature of our own minds such that, fearing our own annihilation, we lapse into unconsciousness, exiting the scene of our own profundity. A cure for this diseased state is reflection on the lack of such concreteness-the emptiness of inherent existence-and the development of love and compassion. When these are coupled with deep meditative stabilization and intimate experience of their import over a long period of practice, it becomes possible for compassion and wisdom to become fused in the practice of deity yoga, an imitation of the ideal state of altruistically directed pure body, speech, and mind. Eventually, the fundamental innate mind of clear light that has been with us begin- ninglessly as the foundation of consciousness can manifest in powerful realization of the emptiness of inherent existence such that, in time, without regress- ing through coarser levels of consciousness, phenomena can nevertheless appear from within the mind of clear light, and acts of love and compassion can ema- nate without exertion, spontaneously and unimpededly.

NOTES

1. These three paragraphs are largely repeated from my "Liberation from Systemic Distortion and to Altruistic Endeavor in Tibetan Buddhism: Response to David Tracy's 'The Christian Understanding of Salvation-Liberation,' " given at the Second Buddhist- Christian Theological Encounter, Vancouver (March 1985).

127

JEFFREY HOPKINS

2. For discussions of both lists of existents, see my Meditation on Emptiness (Lon- don), pp. 197-304.

3. rang bzhin gyisgrub pa, svabhavasiddhi. 4. The Sanskrit term for "ultimate truth," paramarthasatya, is etymologized three

ways within identifyingparama as "highest" or "ultimate," artha as "object," and satya as "truth." In the first way, parama (highest, ultimate) refers to a consciousness of meditative equipoise directly realizing emptiness; artha (object) refers to the object of that consciousness, emptiness; and satya (truth) also refers to emptiness in that in direct perception, emptiness appears the way it exists; i.e., there is no discrepancy between the mode of appearance and the mode of being. In this interpretation, a paramarthasatya is a "truth-that-is-an-object-of-the-highest-consciousness."

In the second way, both parama (highest, ultimate) and artha (object) refer to a consciousness of meditative equipoise directly realizing emptiness in that, in the broadest meaning of "object," both objects and subjects are objects, and a consciousness of meditative equipoise directly realizing emptiness is the highest consciousness, and therefore, the highest object; satya (truth), as before, refers to emptiness. In this second interpretation, a paramarthasatya is an emptiness that exists the way it appears to a highest consciousness, a "truth-of-a-highest-object."

In the third etymology, all three parts refer to emptiness in that an emptiness is the highest (the ultimate) and is also an object and a truth-a "truth-that-is-the-highest- object." See Donald S, Lopez, Jr. in The Svatantrika-Madhyamika School of Mahayana Buddhism (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1982), pp. 484-485. Chandrakirti, the chief Consequentialist, favors the third etymology in his Clear Words; see Jang-gya Rol- bay-dor-jay (Icang skya rolpa'i rdo rje, 1717-1786), The Presentation of Tenets (grub mtha'irnam bzhag). (Sarnath: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Press, 1970), 467.18.

5. This passage is cited in Chandrakirti's Clear Words; see Malamadhyamakakarikas de Nagarjuna avec la Prasannapada Commentaire de Candrakirti publiee par Louis de la Vallee Poussin, Bibliotheca Buddhica IV (Osnabruck: Biblio Verlag, 1970), 41.4. For the Tibetan, the passage beginning from Chandrakirti's discussion of why Nagarjuna composed his Treatise on the Middle Way is P5260, vol. 98 7.5.

6. Nagarjuna's Treatise on the Middle Way, XV. 2cd: "Such a nature is non-fabricated/And does not depend on another." The following discussion is drawn from Sha- mar Gen-dun-den-dzin-gya-tso (zhwa dmar dge bdun bstan 'dzin rgya mtsho, 1852- 1910), Lamp Illuminating the Profound Thought, Set Forth to Purify Forgetfulness of the Difficult Points of (Dzong-ka-ba's) "Great Exposition of Special Insight" (lhag mthong chen mo 'i dka' gnad rnams brjed byang du bkodpa dgongs zab snang ba'i sgron me), (Delhi: Mongolian Lama Guru Deva, 1972), 129.4-133.5.

7. The source here is the Kalkha Mongolian scholar Ngak-wang-bel-den (ngag dbang dpalldan, born 1797), Annotationsfor (Jam-yang-shay-ba's) "Great Exposition of Ten- ets," Freeing the Knots of the Difficult Points, Precious Jewel of Clear Thought (grub mtha' chen mo 'i mchan 'grel dka' gnad mdudgrolblo gsalgces nor), (Sarnath: Pleasure of Elegant Sayings Press, 1964), dbu 185.4. He, in turn, is citing Dzong-ka-ba's Ocean ofReasoning, Explanation of (Nagarjuna's) "Treatise on the Middle Way."

8. Tenzin Gyatso, The Buddhism of Tibet and The Key to the Middle Way (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1975), pp. 75-76.

9. The following presentation of negatives is standard to the topic of The Collected Topics of Prime Cognition (epistemology) in Ge-luk-ba education. Here, it is adapted from an appendix in my Meditation on Emptiness, pp. 721-727.

10. ma yin dgag, paryuddsapratiSedha. 11. med dgag, prasajyaprati4edha. 12. The source for this list is Kensur Yeshi Thupten, former abbot of the Lo-sel-ling

College of Dre-bung Monastic University, presently resettled in Mundgod, Karnataka

128

ULTIMATE REALITY IN TIBETAN BUDDHISM 129

State, South India. The contents of the list are common knowledge among Ge-luk-ba scholars.

13. Madhyantavibhanga, III. 1 lab and 12cd. 14. Tsong-ka-pa, Tantra in Tibet (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1977), p. 114. 15. chos sku, dharmak2ya and gzugs sku, rupakaya.

Documents

Hopkins Ultimate Reality in Tibetan Buddhism