A Reflection

It may be a good idea to pause and reflect at this juncture before proceeding on down The Path. We must get the first two steps correct since these two form the basis of what follows.

There is a risk of presumption inherent in discussing anything. We assume that we know what certain things mean and proceed based on that presumption, which is never a good idea. To ensure that we do not proceed down the primrose path with flawed presumptions, we’ll briefly pause to reflect on a vitally important matter: reality—how do we define reality?

The Buddhist perspective on reality is particular—upside-down from our ordinary understanding—and is defined as dependent origination. According to these criteria, something is real if it has “Intrinsic Substantiality,” meaning independent status, separate and apart from anything else. If it doesn’t meet that requirement, by definition, it’s not real. We could quibble about whether or not we like this definition, or even if the definition is accurate. Still, we’d miss the important point by so doing—this is the definition understood within Buddhism. Nobody says you must accept this definition, but you need to accept it if you want to make sense of the Eightfold Path. So, accordingly, what would be “real?” Absolutely nothing within the realm of conditional existence.

By conditional existence, think causal linkages. Nothing just pops into existence without prior conditions unless we’re talking the “Big Bang”—singularity, and in truth, there may have been a prior causal link even to that. There is growing scientific theoretical evidence to support this “before” perspective. But put that issue aside for the moment and think everything following then. And finally, when you hear the expression emptiness you must think, “not independent.” Emptiness is just the necessary partner of interdependent form. It does not mean vacuity/nothingness, which is, unfortunately, the common-coin understanding, which becomes a problem when you’re sitting looking at another person (or yourself in the mirror) and thinking, “I’m looking at a phantom.” A bit of a credibility problem arises from that piece of ignorance.

Now the dharma (teaching) of dependent origination says that everything has a counter-point that arises with events. Thus a mother arises with the counter-point of a child, instantly—not one then the other. There is no such thing as a “mother” without a child since, by definition, the term “mother” implies off-spring. Light arises with the counter-point of darkness. A self arises with a non-self. Form arises with emptiness. Emptiness arises with non-emptiness. Conditional reality arises with unconditional reality. These are all examples of simultaneous, interdependent arising. The list is without end. 

The causal links between phenomenal things, interdependently, creates karma like a cue-ball striking the eight-ball and sending it into the corner pocket, or a Zen master answering a novice with a wise answer—Book-ends. These forms are variations on the same theme of dependent origination, which denies the myth of independent, unlinked causal conditions. Every cause results in a measured response mandating “expedient means,” which is another way of saying one thing matching another—an appropriate response dictated, in wisdom, to a particular cause.

Why is this such a big deal? Let’s look at a real-life example. You get up in the morning feeling grumpy, and your teenage daughter makes some snippy comments. What happens next depends on whether or not you really “get it.” 

Variation # 1 would be to take offense and send a scorcher back at her, which she then fields and launches World War III. 

Variation #2 is not to respond in kind but to exercise forbearance and wisdom, taking into account that (a) your grumpy mood is not real but is rather a mental/emotional perception which is rooted in a “self” which is likewise not real (return to the definition of reality, please) and (b) that what is true for you is likewise true for your daughter. Variation # 1 is what we will do in ignorance and without being mindful of “reality.” 

Variation #2 is the flip side. In the first case, you feel forced to make a nasty conclusion that your daughter is just an independent-itch with a genetic streak, which she obviously got from your spouse (but not you) and that you are just having a bad day (but with some justification which escapes you at the moment). So both you and your daughter set off about the business of the day of creating some pretty bad karma that all begins with a distorted sense of reality and flawed perceptions.

So when we hear such statements as those in the Diamond Sutra which say, “Subhuti, no one can be called a bodhisattva who creates the perception of a self or who creates the perception of a being, a life or a soul,” we need to pay attention to this word “perception” and the definition of reality. Why? Because there is no such thing as an independent self, being, life, or soul and even if there were (which is impossible, given the Buddhist understanding of reality), what we perceive is a distortion. If you doubt this last statement about perception, just reflect on the example about your teenage daughter. What we perceive colors everything. And if we’re not extremely mindful and careful, our empty-perceptions will result in causally linked bad karma for which we must pay sometime down the road.

Our outlook on life (Our View) is either “Right”—which is a reflection of reality, unencumbered by flawed perceptions (as defined by dependent origination), or it is a reflection of ignorance. And this Right View flows (causally linked) into Right Intentions. Everything that follows is set in motion based on how we proceed from these two important first steps.