1. THE TWO TRUTHS IN BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY
KHENPO MIGMAR TSERING IN CANBERRA
Today, we will deal with the significance of the two truths in
Buddhist philosophy. This is connected with all the
teachings of the Buddha which can be divided into two
categories, that of the relative truth and that of the ultimate
truth. For example, with respect to the Four Noble Truths,
the first two and the last one together are considered as the
relative truth, ( that is, the truth of suffering, the truth of the
origin of suffering and the truth of the path that leads to the
cessation of suffering.)
Whereas, the third truth, the truth of the cessation of
suffering is considered the ultimate truth. So before one is
able to come to the realisation of ultimate truth, it is
necessary to go through the different levels of relative truth,
as well as the practices concerned with this.
From the point of view of the Madhyamika school of
thought, the nature of the two truths is established right from
the beginning. The two truths serve as the condition for
what we formulate and contemplate in the beginning of our
practice. This means that before we are able to incorporate
the understanding of the two truths into our practice, we
have to engage in the study of what is actually meant by
relative and ultimate truth.
In terms of how phenomena appear to the general mind, they
exists in two ways. This refers to firstly, the mind which is
not of a realised nature, has not reached the level of
transcendental knowledge, which is considered as the
relative truth and then secondly, the mind when it reaches
the level of transcendental knowledge, which is considered
as the ultimate truth. So there is, in every phenomenon, (i)
the ultimate nature and (ii) the appearance, (or the relative
1

2. nature), of that phenomenon. This does not mean that, in
fact, there are two natures, two substances, which exist
independently, as their own objects, but because a particular
thing appears in two ways to two different types of mind,
then the levels of ultimate and relative truth are established.
So, in the course of one's practice, there will be direct
contact and study, as well as the putting into practice of the
relative nature of things and then, the realisation of the
ultimate nature of that particular thing.
According to the Madhyamika philosophy, every point of
study is understood or explained on the basis of what is
called the ' Middle Way ', (Madhyamika). This is always
understood and explained as the middle stance, not falling
into any of the extremes. When it comes to the explanation
of the two truths, then the explanation of the two truths is
also based on this idea of a middle way.
This means that the establishment of relative truth, the
establishment of the ultimate truth and the unity, or
combination of these two truths are all based on this middle
way.
The explanation of relative truth through other modes of
thought may not be what is called the middle way. For
example, other philosophical schools of thought, including
some other Buddhist schools of thought, postulate that in the
relative truth there exists an inherent nature of external
phenomena or, some say the mind has an inherent nature,
(the mind exists inherently and external phenomena do not.)
According to the Madhyamika viewpoint, whether both the
mind and phenomena or just the mind alone is considered as
inherently existing, then as long as something is accepted as
possessing an inherent nature,one cannot have the
understanding of the middle way as far as relative truth is
concerned, because this idea of the relative truth will be
2

3. aligned to either the extreme of existence, (eternalism), or to
the extreme of non-existence, (nihilism).
For example, when one accepts a phenomenon, say a table,
as truly existent and if this true existence of the table is
considered as the relative truth, then because it is believed to
exist as a truly existent entity, this cannot be sustained from
the point of view of observed reality. There will be no room
for change, either long term or momentary changes in the
table. This idea of considering the table as truly existent is
known as the view of the extreme of existence, that is, the
extreme of eternalism, because something which exists
inherently is not subject to any kind of change. The idea of
inherent existence is that it always remains so. That it will
always be the nature of that particular thing, so since there
will not be any change, since it cannot be explained as
depending on anything, then one will have an idea of that
thing as having a permanent nature. So as a result of this,
this particular idea of relative truth will become the extreme
of eternalism. This is considered a false view with regard to
the explanation of relative truth.
Let us consider the situation where a particular phenomena
is accepted as inherently existent initially and then, that it
will cease at a later point in time, from the viewpoint of the
Madhyamika.
Now, as the two truths are based on different levels of mind
, first let us consider what is experienced from the point of
view of the ordinary, worldly mind.
As one is still in the beginning of the process, or the
beginning of the practice, then whatever appears to this
worldly mind is to be established and accepted as the
relative truth.
3

4. In the case of the relationship between a cause and a result,
then the result is said to arise by depending on its cause.
However, it is not that the cause has completely come to an
end or inherently ceased after the arising of this phenomena
.
This establishes that there is no notion of the non-existence
of the cause. This means that when a result arises, we do
not say that the cause has completely become extinct and
that there is nothing left of the cause in the result.
So,the cause is not accepted as being either non-existent or
existent at the time of the result.
In the next moment, since it is subject to momentary
changes, the cause does not remain exactly the same at the
time of the result.
As it does not remain the same, then the idea of a cause is
not aligned to the extreme of existence, (eternalism), or the
extreme of non-existence, (nihilism).
On the basis of this one particular phenomenum, one is then
able to explain it from the point of the middle way, without
being aligned to any of these two extremes.
Now this is with regard to the relationship of two things,
cause and result. If one was to explain this line of reasoning
on the basis of one entity, or one substance, then stating that
a substance does not arise without depending on its cause
and condition is the view which is not aligned to the extreme
of existence, (eternalism).
Whereas stating that it has arisen as a result of dependence,
in such a manner as it will change, it will not remain the
same in the next moment, is looking at the thing from the
4

5. view of not aligning to the extreme of non-existence,
(nihilism).
The idea that a thing arises as a result of cause and
conditions is not having the view of the extreme of nihilism.
That it is subject to change is the view which is not aligned
to the extreme of eternalism.
So every single phenomenum, as well as every collection of
phenomena in the relative truth is explained or understood
on the basis of this middle way.
All the various aspects of the relative truth are also to be
understood from the point of view of the middle way.
Similarly, when it comes to ultimate truth then, since
ultimate truth is established as a state of being free from all
the four extremes, then one has to again rely on this line of
reasoning.
For example, when it comes to explaining the ultimate
nature of a table, then the view of looking at , or 'grasping '
the table as something existent, non-existent, both or neither,
are all considered as false notions because the ultimate
nature of the table does not remain in any form of existence
or non-existence.
As the ultimate nature of the table is free from existence,
then the view of ultimate truth is free from the extreme of
eternalism. As it is also not non-existent, then the view of
ultimate truth is free from the idea of the extreme of
nihilism. So the explanation of the ultimate truth is also
based on the middle way, in which both extremes are
avoided.
Then, when it comes to the explanation of the combination
of the two truths in terms of the the middle way, then
because there are phenomena in the relative truth and these
are accepted on a relative level,
5

6. the viewpoint of the Madhyamika with respect to things is
not aligned to the extreme of nihilism. Even though we talk
about all phenomena not existing in any way, which means
they have the ultimate nature of emptiness, this establishing
everything as empty of inherent existence does not mean
that from the beginning when one is within the worldly
mind, in the process of practice, that one has to completely
negate everything which appears, because there is this
relative truth which is to be used, which one has to take into
account in order to understand and realise the ultimate truth,
to gain the complete realisation which is a result of
understanding both truths.
Since relative truth cannot be avoided or negated just
because something possesses this ultimate nature, then
phenomena do exist in the relative truth within the
parameters of dependent arising.
Either a phenomenum is established as something originated
by depending on a cause, or it is imputed as depending on
other conditions. When we establish what is called a
compounded thing, such as a table or a rice sprout, then
these are established as existent in relative truth because
they have originated by depending on causes. The idea of
the existence of a particular thing, a rice sprout in this case,
is based on dependence, but a dependence originated from
cause and conditions.
Whereas, when we establish what is called an
uncompounded thing, such as space, this may not
neccesarily be established as originating from cause and
conditions, but is established on the basis of having been
imputed by depending on other conditions.
6

7. Not every phenomenon in relative truth is considered as an
originated phenomena, as a compounded thing which is a
product and has an impermanent nature.
There are also phenomena which we have to explain on the
basis of permanence, which are what are called
uncompounded things. These cannot be explained on the
basis of dependent origination, of having originated by
depending on causes and conditions, but are established as
existent in the relative truth because they are imputed as
existent by depending on other factors.
For example, the uncompounded phenomenon of space is
considered as existent in the relative truth as the mind has
imputed something, which is a state of the negation of form.
This has been imputed as space.
Although space does not originate from any cause and
condition, its existence is based on the dependence on other
conditions because the mind has imputed it as being so.
So generally, since all phenomena in relative truth can be
established on this basis, that is, things do exist in the
relative truth, then the nature of phenomena is not aligned to
the extreme of nihilism.
Now with regards to the ultimate truth, when we analyse
these same phenomena which exist in the relative truth, they
cannot be established as truly existent since the ultimate
nature of these very phenomena is to be understood as a
state free from all conceptual elaborations, free from all
extremes.
This understanding is on the basis of the view which is free
from the extreme of eternalism.
Since one accepts all things as they appear in the relative
truth, one's understanding of things, or one’s viewpoint is
not aligned to the extreme of nihilism. Since one does not
7

8. accept anything as inherently existent, which means one
views all things as being interdependent, one's
understanding or viewpoint is not aligned to the extreme of
eternalism,(or existence).
So when one is engaged in the study of the two truths, then
the very foundation of this is to be understood on the basis
of the viewpoint of this middle way.
When the actual nature of the relative truth is explained,
then it can be understood on two levels. Whatever appears
to the worldly mind is considered as a relative truth, but
even to this worldly mind there are things which appear as
true and things which appear as false. So we divide the
relative truth into the perfect relative truth and false relative
truth.
For example, the phenomena which are 'grasped ' or which
become objects of unmistaken consciousness, like a visual
form which is seen by unmistaken eye consciousness, is
considered as a
perfect relative truth. It is a phenomenon which exists as it
appears to the worldly mind.
However, if the phenomena that is 'grasped ' is a visual form
which is seen by a mistaken eye consciousness, it is
classified as false relative truth. For example, if the eye sees
something which is actually white but is seen as yellow
because of the eye function being defective due to an illness,
then that visual form is also in the relative truth, it also
appears, but because it is not considered as true in the
general worldly mind, it is considered as false relative truth.
These false appearances to the faulty or defective
consciousness is also relative truth, but it is not considered
as perfect relative truth.
8

9. In the false relative truth we also include all those false
notions which are created by different philosophical ideas,
as there are many different ideas with respect to particular
things. For example, let us take the example of a table,
according to the Vaibashika school, what appears as a table
is an actual table which is an external thing, having nothing
to do with the mind, which exists in its own way as it
appears. However, according to the Sautantrika school of
logic, that table appears as external, but it is not the actual
external table, it is only the appearance of another external
thing, which causes the generation of the eye consciousness,
which in turn will then have an image of that thing. In other
words what is now seen by the eye as a table is only the
image of the mind which is created by the actual external
table. So the table is not considered as a completely external
thing. It is a part of the mind which appears in an external
way.
Now according to the Yogacarya school, as far as it is
viewed as part of the mind, it is the same as the Sautantrika
school, the difference being that the Sautantrika school
acccepts another external thing besides what appears now.
What appears is a simultaneous thing with the eye
consciousness, but the actual external object is the one
which existed one moment before, which functions as a
cause, as a result of which the eye consciousness is
produced. Then this eye consciousness comes into direct
contact with the present appearance but not the actual
external thing. So the difference is that they believe in the
existence of an external thing, though it is not what appears
now to the eye consciousnesss
The Yogacarya school does not accept any external thing, in
any form what so ever. So what appears now is the image
9

10. of the mind and there is nothing external other than that. So
their notion of the table is that it is completely an image or
projection of the mind.
According to the Madhyamika school of thought, there is a
stage where we establish things as images of the mind, but
in the ultimate analysis, this is not the final explanation, it is
also refuted and then one proceeds further. But in the
relative case, what is accepted by Madhyamika is that this
table is an external thing because it appears so to the worldly
mind and it is an external thing which arises as a result of its
causes and conditions. So it is accepted or understood as a
dependent arising, as an external thing.
So these different understandings with respect to the
identification of a table in the relative truth, are there. In the
same way, there are many other ideologies which have
different notions with respect to what a table really is. Since
all these ideologies are not in agreement with the actual way
the thing manifests, with the actual nature of the thing, then
these are considered false, as the false relative truth.The
understanding of the table as an image of the mind, but
accepting that there is another table which is actually
external and which does not appear to the eye
consciousness, is a false notion according to Madhyamika.
So this false idea is also a relative form, it also is a
phenomenon in the relative truth. We have two types of
false relative truth: apparent false relative truth, which are
the false appearances with respect to the five sense
consciousnesses, and then the imputed false relative truth,
which is the false object or false ideas imputed by the mind
consciousness, by the conceptual thought of the mind
consciousness. This is how relative truth is understood
according to the Madhyamika school.
10

11. When it comes to the ultimate state, as far as studying or
learning of the ultimate truth is concerned, in fact the actual
definition of the ultimate truth is the state of being free from
all types of extremes or conceptual elaborations. There can
be two versions of this kind of ultimate truth, one which is a
mental image, which is formed in the conceptual mind of a
lower practitioner, of an ordinary person and then the actual
ultimate truth, which becomes an object of transcendental,
ultimate and final knowledge.
The first level of this is called the ultimate truth of
expression, or the expressible ultimate truth. When it comes
to explaining the ultimate truth to another person, then that
which is explained by the teacher to their student is not the
final ultimate truth which is understood directly by
transcendental knowledge, as, in the case of learning from
another person, it is explained through conceptual mind, so
it cannot be the ultimate truth of the object of transcendental
knowledge. So it is not the actual ultimate truth which is
understood directly by the transcendental knowledge, which
is called the ultimate truth of realisation. When it comes
to the ultimate truth of realisation, then that particular
ultimate truth cannot be taught in a direct way because the
understanding cannot be transferred to the mind of another
person. There is no way in which one can show it to
someone in an ordinary way, because ultimate truth is the
state free from all conceptual elaborations.
When, in an ordinary way it is explained to one, then there is
a mental image or form of this ultimate truth. For example,
when we examine a particular phenomena and come to the
conclusion that it is free from existence, from non-
existence, from both and from neither, then we know that it
11

12. is a state of being free from all the four extremes. The object
of this understanding is also considered an ultimate truth,
but it is not the actual ultimate truth, but only a form of
ultimate truth which is used when it is expressed to another
person. So it is an object of expression and of thought, so it
is called the object of nomination, which means the
expression through words and then grasping through the
conceptual mind.
In the beginning one cannot have a direct contact with this
actual ultimate truth of realisation,
one can only approach it through the ultimate truth of
expression. So it is on this basis that the different
philosophical reasonings are mentioned in the texts to help
to establish the ultimate truth of phenomena and one pursues
this understanding of the ultimate truth through the
conceptual mind, by depending on these different
reasonings. One’s understanding of the ultimate truth in this
conceptual way will become better and better and finally
there will be a direct realisation of the ultimate truth. The
ultimate truth of expression, which is the basis on which an
explanation of ultimate truth is given is necessary as a
foundation and with regards to one who is on the path of
practice, it is called the middle way of foundation. This
explanation is in terms of dividing the practices into three
sections of 1)ground or foundation,2) path and 3) result or
fruition, also sometimes described as 1) view ,
2) meditation and 3) action.
The actual understanding of the two truths as free from two
extremes of eternalism and nihilism, is the understanding of
the middle way of foundation. When one has established this
middle way of foundation, then the next step, which is again
linked with the two truths, is the actual practice, which is
12

13. also explained on the basis of middle way, and is called the
middle way of the path or the middle path. This is the
understanding of the two truths in terms of the various
practices of method.
In other words, the two practices of wisdom,(prajna) and
method, (upaya) are considered as the middle path or the
middle way with respect to path. The practice of the
development of wisdom includes the practice of
meditation,divided into single-pointedness or calm-abiding
meditation,(shamatha) and insight meditation,(vippashyana)
or the understanding of the ultimate truth of emptiness.
The understanding as far as foundation is concerned is only
a conceptual understanding of the two truths. Since this is
not enough for a practitioner, then what one needs is to
attain transcendental knowledge or the wisdom which can
have a direct realisation of the ultimate truth, a wisdom
which can have a complete understanding of the relative
truth as well as the final direct realisation of the ultimate
truth. In order to generate that kind of wisdom, practice is
needed and this is called the practice of generating wisdom
or the accumulation of wisdom.As the practice in the form
of the path includes these two, the practices of wisdom and
method are in fact parallel and the same as the two
accumulations of wisdom and merit.
The accumulation of wisdom requires the practices of one-
pointed absorption,(shamata) and transcendental knowledge
or wisdom,(vippashyana). To attain these, one has to engage
in the practice of mind training, the practices which require
controlling the mind, as a result of which one will then come
to the point of one-pointed concentration in the mind.
After this is attained, one can place one’s mind on any type
of object one-pointedly and since one has this characteristic
13

14. of one-pointed concentration, whatever is concentrated on
will become perfectly concentrated on. Then, one’s one-
pointed concentration can use the ultimate truth as an object.
Now, the point should be made that one-pointed
concentration may have any kind of object as the subject of
attention, a table, or any other relative phenomenon, for
instance. But since, in terms of real lasting benefit, there is
no purpose in focussing one’s mind one-pointedly on any
relative object, the purpose being to attain some realisation,
one will naturally place one’s mind on the ultimate truth as
the object of meditation. This practise of placing one’s mind
one-pointedly on the ultimate truth is the practice of the
perfection of wisdom, the accumulation of wisdom. This
will continue in the course of one’s practice at the different
levels of realisation, the different levels of the paths.
At the same time, one also has to engage in the path of the
accumulation of merit, which means the practice of the
method aspect and this includes dealing with the relative
truth. Even though, as it was explained earlier, the relative
truth is as it appears to the worldly mind, which may be an
unmistaken or undeluded mind, but also may be a deluded
mind, it can still be used. This very mind, as well as the
appearances to that mind, can be used as a form of practice
to help in the realisation of ultimate enlightenment. This is
the reasoning why the practitioner engages in the practices
of loving kindness, compassion and the generation of
bodhicitta.
This is the reason that the relative truth is considered as a
means for understanding the ultimate truth. It is said by
Acharya Chandrakirti in his Madhyamika Avatara that the
nominal truth, or to be precise, the perfect relative truth,
serves as a means for attaining the understanding of ultimate
truth. This means that one needs to engage in the practices
14

15. related to the nominal truth, such as the practice of loving
kindness, compassion and the generation of bodhicitta. This
is especially necessary in the course of Mahayana practice.
As the ultimate purpose of the Mahayana practitioner is not
just to have a direct understanding of the ultimate truth
alone, ignoring all aspects of relative truth, but to have the
understanding of the ultimate truth of all phenomena and to
benefit all sentient beings.
By making every effort to benefit sentient beings, one will
ensure that when the result is finally attained, that this result
will consist of both aspects of the truth, the ultimate and the
relative.
From the point of view of path, we have the two
accumulations of wisdom and merit, which are explained on
the basis of the middle way. This means that through the
cultivation of the accumulation of wisdom, one is not
aligned to the extreme of eternalism and through one’s
accumulation of practices,the accumulation of merit, one is
not aligned to the extreme of nihilism. In the practice of the
accumulation of merit, one accepts all phenomena as they
appear and then engages in the activities involving this very
relative truth.
This stance is very different from those ideologies who
negate appearances even in the relative truth and negate
such things as past and the future lives, or from those who
negate anything which is not a direct object of one of the
sense consciousnesses. Such ideologies state that whatever
is not understood or known by an ordinary or deluded mind
does not exist, and this is clearly aligned to the extreme of
nihilism. However, if one is engaged in the practise of the
accumulation of merit, although one accepts the existence of
all appearances, now, all sentient beings become the object
15

16. of that practice through one’s practice of loving kindess,
compassion and the generation of bodhicitta.
In one attempts to familiarise oneself with these practices,
there is always the opportunity of meditating on all sentient
beings and having a detailed approach with respect to
generating loving kindess and wishing happiness for all
sentient beings, followed by the arising of compassion in
which you do not wish suffering for all sentient beings. So
all these practices involve the existence or acceptance of
relative truth, which is necessary for the achievement of the
ultimate result, which consists of the result of both the
truths. As in the foundation and in the path, the result also
consists of what is called the two bodies of enlightened
beings, the truth body, (dharmakaya) and the form body,
(rupakaya).
This is the same as the division into the arupakaya and the
rupakaya, the former being the dharmakaya and the latter
being the sambhogakaya and the nirmanakaya together.
The truth body is one’s accu,ulated understanding, the
aspect of transcendental knowledge, which is a state of
ultimate abandonment, and is the result connected to the
ultimate truth.
The form body, which has the thirty major and eighty minor
signs of an enlightened being, is the result of the
accumulation of merit, which is based on the relative truth.
So, based on the knowledge or learning of relative truth,as a
foundation, one can approach the ultimate truth. Then one
engages in the pratcice of the accumulation of wisdom
during the course of path, as a result of which one achieves
the result of the truth body,the transcendental result, the
ultimate transcendental knowledge of the enlightened being.
16

17. As a result of studying the relative truth as a foundation,
then in the course of one’s path, one engages in the practice
of the accumulation of merit, as a result of which then the
ultimate result one achieves is the form body, by which the
enlightened being manifests in many different emanations,
to work for the sake of all sentient beings on a continual
basis. There is another form of practice, another level, in
which a the practitioner gets rid of one’s personal sufferings
of one’s form and attains a certain level of realisation, but
because it is not reinforced by a solid practice of the
accumulation of merit, as in the case of a Mahayana
practitioner, it cannot lead to the ultimate result.
So , such an enlightened being may not be able to benefit
other beings as a bodhisattva, as the ultimate enlightened
being would do. It is due to the fact that the accumulation of
merit is lacking more in this particular case, that is, the
accumulation of wisdom is not complete as there is still
something which this particular enlightened being has not
understood, so one’s accumulation of wisdom is not
complete, in terms of in this case,the aspect of the
accumulation of merit.
What we are referring to here, is that the practise of loving
kindness and compassion in which all sentient beings are
taken as the object of one’s meditation is not practised in
this category of practice that covers the the lower levels of
realistion. So because of this lacking, the accumulation of
merit which leads to the result will also be incomplete.
There is another stage where it can be a level higher than
this lower level of enlightenment, but also not the ultimate.
This means that the final realisation or attainment of the
result depends on both accumulations which of course
depend on the understanding or learning of the two truths as
17

18. a foundation. So, from the Madhyamika point of view, study
of two truths is used as a foundation and then these are
related to the two accumulations which one engages in
during practice, as a result of which the two aspects of the
result are attained.
As a result of the final understanding of the ultimate truth,
the enlightened mind of the enlightened being, in this case a
Buddha, always remains in this understanding of the
ultimate truth, but because of one’s practice of the
accumulation of merit, the understanding of all relative
phenomena is also concurrently existent, as a result of which
a Buddha can give teachings according to the different
levels of minds of sentient beings. It is because the
kowledge of both the truths has been acomplished that a
Buddha can lead every type of sentient being through
different means or different methods, because the path or
practice which a Buddha followed included the practice of
the method and since this is the accumulation of merit,which
has become the ultimate accumulation of merit, then as a
result of this one can display all types of methods and means
for different levels of disciples.
This is the explanation why the the teachings of the Buddha,
the sutras taught by the Buddha, encapsulate many different
types of teachings, which are not meant for one particular
type of disciple or one particular level of mind, because
what is said in one sutra may not be appear to be in
agreement with what is said in another sutra, on a relative
level.
The Buddha stated in one particular sutra, that he taught the
different approaches to the teachings for the sake of different
levels of disciples. So for every level of mind of those who
are in search of the truth, there is an appropriate method, or
18

19. form of teaching to be found in the sutras. All these
methods and means are ultimately ,of course, to assist in the
realisation of the ultimate truth, but on a relative level, one
has to depend on these means and methods, one has to
accept and depend on the relative truth, on the appearances
or phenomena which appear to one in the relative truth.
Q: Could you explain a little more how the view of the
Madhyamika school looks at eternalism and nihilism ?
Khenpo: Just by the act of recognising phenomena as
dependent arising, that they arise from cause condition and
result, and not grasping onto things as being inherently
existent, then this is an understanding or a view of
phenomena which is not aligned to the two extremes of
eternalism or nihilism. The understanding of the
Madhyamika viewpoint is that one looks at everything from
the point of view of the middle way. One’s understanding
and viewpoint should not be aligned to either of the two
extremes.If one accepts a phenomenon as inherently
existent, then one is aligned to the extreme of eternalism,
(that is, existence) and there is no more extreme view of
existence than this, of accepting something as truly existent.
On the other hand, if one says that whatever appears to the
worldly mind does not exist at all, if one negates the
appearances of the world, then this is a view aligned to the
extreme of nihilism, non-existence. However, the
Madhyamika approach to the viewpoint of relative truth is
that it is dependent arising and as such,is free from both
extremes. By asserting that it is not accepted as truly
existent, one is not aligned to the extreme of existence, but
due to the fact that something is accepted, that is, dependent
arising, one is not also falling into the extreme of nhilism.
19

20. Q: Could you explain how I can approach understanding
dependent arising in my everyday practice ?
Khenpo: Well, the understanding of something as
dependent arising will serve as a skillful means. You see,
getting rid of grasping is not something that happens
instantly. It requires gradual practices, the process of
practice. With respect to the different levels of mind, for
those who are very attached to the inherent existence of
things, then the teaching that they do not exist inherently
will help to get rid of that attachment and then the
practitioner can continue from there. Now, if one is attached
to the non-existence of mind, thinking that nothing exists
ultimately, then one is again attached to a particular stance,
one is aligned to the other extreme of nihilism. One has to
relinquish this grasping also and realise that it is not so.
Through this process of reasoning one can come to the
understanding of the ultimate state where one will know that
there is nothing to grasp at, that it is beyond the grasping of
all samsaric conceptualisations or formulations.
So it is a matter of the process. So the understanding of
interdependent origination, (dependent arising) will help a
great deal as this is the very basis of the Madhyamika point
of view.Without having this understanding, nothing more
can be imputed as to the nature of phenomena.
Emptiness is also imputed on this as we have what is called
the ‘emptiness of emptiness ‘. There are different types of
emptiness mentioned in the texts. However, if one thinks
that what is called emptiness is inherently existent, then this
is also a false notion. This is a Vajrayana practise.
The practice of Sutrayana and the practice of Vajrayana are
different means of getting to the same ultimate
result.Vajrayana is also a method which deals with the
20

21. relative truth. The various levels and different methods are
there to stimulate one’s realisation. Even in the ordinary
sense there are different methods or different roads that one
can take to reach the same destination. For example, there
may be different roads leading to the same town. One can
take the circuitous route or the short cut to arrive at the same
town, but both roads are made of the same material. In the
same way the Vajrayana path, which involves the
visualisation of and meditation on particular deities, is also a
practice in the form of the relative truth, it can also be
termed the accumulation of merit. It is a faster method due
to many reasons which cannot be elaborated on here, so the
result of enlightenment is said to be attained in less time.
This is why it is considered as the most superior of the many
skillful means, (Sanskrit;Upaya, Tibetan:Thabs) which are
available to the practitioner.
21