Dalai Lama, Barcelona, 1994

Preliminary Teachings
Prior to the Kalachakra Initiation
H.H. the Dalai Lama
Translated by Thupten Jinpa
Barcelona, December 11-14, 1994
	Let us recite the verses for taking refuge and generating bodhicitta together.
Today we are gathered here, a large number of people from different walks of life with 
different languages, different cultural backgrounds, societal backgrounds and so forth. 
We are not gathered here for a business purpose nor are we here to watch a performance 
or spectacle. We have all been drawn here together by a single objective which is to 
participate in a ceremony which is religious and which has to do with the Buddhist path 
and practice. I would like to extend my greetings to all of you and express my 
appreciation to those of you who have come here with great interest.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all the 
individuals who have been involved in organizing this event. They have all worked very 
hard to make this event possible. So I would like to take this opportunity to express my 
thanks to them. I am also grateful to perform the Kalachakra ceremony in this famous 
city of Barcelona. I gather that Barcelona is a city that takes great interest in the diversity 
of cultures and also in a diversity of religious traditions. Barcelona’s fame has been even 
made even greater by the staging of the Olympics here. Incidentally this hall where the 
teachings are being held was built during the Olympics and during the Olympics it was 
used in some sense to demonstrate the excellence of physical and athletic prowess. Today 
in contrast although in terms of physical expression we are all sitting here rather relaxed 
but what we are engaged in here is in an act where we are trying to sharpen and refine our 
mental, intellectual and spiritual faculties. 
In this multitude of faces I can see quite a number of faces which are familiar and 
those of you may find little new in what I have to say. To those of you perhaps you can 
use these teachings as something to refresh your memory and reinforce your 
understanding and commitment. However in the audience there are many new faces and 
to these I hope my teachings will give something new to think about, something new that 
they can reflect on, something they can practice. 
All of us who have gathered here and in fact all human beings, and also all 
sentient beings, one thing that is common to all of us is that we have right from birth a 
natural tendency, instinct to seek happiness and avoid or overcome suffering. It is this 
basic, fundamental instinct to seek happiness and overcome suffering that in some sense 
drives us as individuals, living beings and it is on this basis that we also insure our 
survival. One can also understand the whole process of evolution in terms of this 
fundamental, basic instinct that is common to all of us.
So what distinguishes us as human beings from other forms of life? One principal 
characteristic of the human species is that we are gifted with a much higher faculty of 
intelligence, the ability to understand. Unlike animals we have the capacity, the faculty of 
intelligence and capacity to determine the long and short-term consequences of our 
actions. So in this sense of course we are distinct, we are unique but at the same time this 
unique faculty, this unique gift of intelligence sometimes one could say creates more 
problems and sufferings. For example many of the pains and sufferings that we 
experience are in some sense products or constructs of our own imagination. Hopes, 
aspirations, frustrations, doubts and so on constantly characterize our lives. These are 
things in some sense products of our intelligence. 
Even within humanity if we compare human society and the lives of individuals at 
our present age with that of the past, it is plausible to say that people in the past where 
dogged by less anxiety. In some sense their lives were simple and one could say that was 
because there was less progress, economic development and also less educational 
development. Even in the current age if we make a comparison between two societies, 
one where there is high economic development and education compared to a less 
developed, simpler society, between these two contemporary societies, the more 
developed one is dogged by more anxieties, frustrations and expectations. 
The crucial question arises that since our fundamental aspiration or fundamental 
desire is to overcome suffering and at least to lessen or minimize suffering, and if we 
know that our faculty of intelligence often becomes another cause for additional 
suffering, are we better off without developing our intellectual faculty? So far as I am 
concerned the answer is definitely no.
The reason why I say that the answer is definitely no is because the degree of 
calmness, temporary freedom from such anxieties which comes from inadequate 
knowledge due to a lack of education is a product of ignorance. Therefore even though it 
might be comparatively a more calm state, but it is not reliable; it is not enduring because 
the potential for disturbance is present. What is required is that to be able to appreciate 
the faculty of intelligence properly and to see what it is for. If we examine the faculty of 
intelligence, in itself it is neither positive nor negative; it is neutral. It has the potential to 
be used negatively or positively at the same time. So what is important is to be able to 
appreciate its nature and then utilize the faculty of intelligence to understand a situation 
properly, to be able to look at a problem or suffering through the application of human 
intelligence. Through this way in some sense transcend the problem by the application of 
the faculty of intelligence. Once one can confront and overcome suffering through this 
way then the result is much more reliable and enduring. This is what needs to be sought. 
When I look at materially advanced societies the impression I get is that although 
there has been much human progress made and a tremendous increase in human 
knowledge there is also a tremendous appreciation of the importance of education and 
intellectual understanding. But I feel that no comparable emphasis is placed on paying 
attention to taking care of what could be called the human individual, the person who 
possesses that faculty of intelligence. In other words there is not enough attention paid to 
nurturing and enhancing the fundamental human qualities of love, compassion and the 
feeling of connectedness with fellow human beings and so on. 
There is not enough attention or energy expended towards the enhancement and 
nurturing of that aspect of the human psyche. Not only that but also there seems to be an 
assumption that when it comes to talking about nurturing these humanitarian qualities, it 
is something which is private matter of religious practice. It is not something that is the 
concern of the average person as it were. This I think is a great mistake. When I talk 
about goodness and positively and negativity in this context, I’m not talking in religious 
terms; I’m not talking about religious faith being positive and non-religious ideas being 
negative. Rather I am talking at a much more basic human level. I’m talking about 
goodness and badness in relation to fundamental human existence such as the qualities of 
love, compassion and the feeling of connectedness, which form the core of human values. 
These are values, which can not be neglected and ignored by even non-believers. So long 
as we are human beings we cannot exist as a fully human being without nurturing and 
enhancing these qualities. So it is in this respect and it is in these terms that I am talking 
about positivities and negativities. 
When we think about these human qualities for example like compassion and 
love, we know from our own personal experience the significance of these basic human 
values. For example like compassion, the altruistic and compassionate a person is, not 
only does it bring about immediate calm and tranquility in the mind of the individual but 
also that individual creates a peaceful and tranquil atmosphere and them. This 
atmosphere is enjoyed and benefits by other fellow human beings as well. On the other 
hand if the person is nurturing ill-will, hatred and so on within themselves, not only does 
it immediately destroy calmness of the individual and brings about disturbances within 
that individual’s mind but it also creates a very disturbed environment around that person. 
It immediately affects other people in a negative and destructive way. So this is 
something we know from our own experience.
So what happens in such situations is that as you nurture this ill-will, you project 
it on to others and then you start to see other people in very suspicious terms. You feel 
that they are hostile towards you; you see in some sense the whole world as being hostile 
towards you. This is because you are projecting what you feel inside and what you harbor 
inside. So if on the other hand as societies and as individuals we can pay equal attention 
to the development and enhancement of these fundamental human qualities like love, 
compassion and so on along with attention to intellectual and educational development, 
then not only will we create healthy and more full human individuals but also we will 
create a healthier society. 
On the other hand if you have an individual whose fundamental outlook on life is 
altruistic, who naturally and from the depths of their heart always takes into account the 
wellbeing and welfare of other fellow beings, then if that person is in a professional life 
such as a scientist, economist or politician all of their activities well become 
humanitarian. All of their activities will become truly human activities. On the other hand 
if these activities are separated or divorced from these fundamental human feelings then 
there is no guarantee that they will serve human society in a positive way. As in the case 
of intelligence they are in and of themselves neutral; they can be used either positively or 
negatively. 
What we are engaged in is trying to find a way, the best way by which we can 
apply this natural faculty of intelligence that we are gifted with to transcend and 
overcome suffering, the fundamental problems of existence and so on. But intelligence 
alone is not adequate, we need another factor that will compliment it. This would 
compensate for intelligence such that we do not push too far, to the extremes of using our 
intelligence faculty alone. 
The importance of the combination of these two factors can be understood quite 
clearly if we look at the way we relate to question of objectivity. We all know that when 
we are analyzing a situation, objectivity is very important otherwise our prejudices, 
feelings or whatever will color our perception of that situation or event. What is needed 
in order to understand fully any situation correctly we need a degree of objectivity. Yet at 
the same time if we go too far in our insistence on objectivity then we may end up in a 
very absurd situation where we are even detached from our own feelings, pain or 
suffering. We may end up looking at our own experience like as if it were something “out 
there”, totally unrelated to ourselves. This is not what we want.
What is needed is an extra factor, a sense of involvement, a sense of engagement 
or a sense of concern. So the faculty of intelligence should be combined with a sense of 
involvement or a sense of engagement that in some sense cater to the feeling side of our 
psyche. At the same time if the feeling side or the sense of involvement is too prominent 
again we will lose the objectivity and end up looking at the situation in a very prejudiced 
way. What we need is a fine balance between the use of the faculty of intelligence so we 
have a degree of objectivity yet at the same time we are not too detached from the subject 
of our investigation so that it remains a human endeavor. Of course even in ordinary 
language when we criticize someone as being too cold we are using the word in a 
pejorative way. We don’t like to be called a person who has no feelings or a person who 
is cold. 
The fact that this supposed objectivity divorced from feeling is impossible can be 
understood by taking an example of a cultural custom. For example in the West in 
modern society death is a taboo subject; nobody wants to talk about it. People try to avoid 
thinking about it. Even to use the word death in some sense is sort of a taboo. What this 
indicates is that there is this fear, almost subconscious hesitation to take about death as 
the pain and suffering associated with the idea is so great than you don’t want to be 
involved with it. So this tells us that as human beings we are an intelligent species, but 
also we are a species with a component of feelings. So what is needed is a combination of 
the faculty of intelligence with a sense of involvement or a sense of concern. 
Of course when we talk about the sense of involvement or a high motivation, 
strong motivation, it is possible to see that our selfish instincts or impulses can give us a 
strong sense of involvement and engagement. But if you examine it carefully such a 
sense of involvement or concern is very limited and also quite narrow-minded. Whereas 
if the sense of involvement or sense of concern is derived from an underlying compassion 
and altruistic attitude concerned for other fellow sentient beings, then that sense of 
involvement is much more firmly rooted and also reliable. It is because of this that in 
Buddhism there is this repeated emphasis placed on engaging in a path where there is a 
combination of wisdom and compassion.
So in the Buddhist context when we talk about wisdom, generally speaking there 
are two principal types of wisdom that are mentioned. The first is the five principal types 
of conventional wisdom that deals with matters that are relative and conventional and 
then the second type of wisdom is the wisdom that principally deals with the ultimate 
meaning or the ultimate truth. Of these two of course it is the wisdom related with the 
ultimate truth, which is felt to be more important. However it is only on the basis of the 
difference of the objects of the two wisdoms that distinctions between the two wisdoms 
are made. So far as the subjective experience of these two wisdoms is concerned, no 
distinctions can be made. So because of this there is an emphasis placed on a union of 
emptiness and compassion. 
Now the question may be quickly raised as to why it is considered so important in 
Buddhism to understand the nature of emptiness. Why is it so important that we should 
understand and cognize emptiness? This is related to wider questions about our 
knowledge of the world in general. Generally speaking when we examine the nature of 
our knowledge we find that even in our ordinary life, the day-to-day experience, we 
constantly confront situations where we find a disparity between the way we imagine a 
thing to be like and the way things actually are. There seems to be a constant gap or 
disparity between the way things appear to us and the way things naturally are. There 
need not necessarily be a conscious will on the part of a person to deceive us. We often 
find ourselves in a situation where we are deceived. 
So there is this disparity between appearance and reality and this is something 
quite natural or common. Especially if we were to reflect on the findings of modern 
science then the disparity between appearance and reality is something that is quite 
understandable. Similarly in Buddhism emphasis is placed on understanding this point 
that there is a disparity between the way things appear to us and the way things really are. 
In order to enable us to deal more appropriately and more correctly with the appearance 
of things what is required on our part is to have a greater and deeper knowledge of the 
underlying reality. It is in this respect that the understanding of emptiness is crucial. 
We find that from our own experience that there are events and things in which 
there is a disparity between appearance and reality. There are also events and situations 
where there is no such disparity. So in order to enable us to determine whether or not 
there is such a disparity between the way things appear to us and the way things really are 
Buddhism suggests that we apply a formula of analysis. This is based on looking at the 
reality in terms of two levels or technically known as the Two Truths. 
So far as the technical term of Two Truths is concerned it is not something that is 
not unique to Buddhism. Other ancient non-Buddhist Indian schools such as Samkhya 
uses the terminology of the Two Truths and use this model of reality, looking at reality in 
terms of two levels. For example in the Samkhya philosophy where the entire expanse of 
reality is divided into twenty-five categories out of which prakrit which is the primal 
substance or substratum is considered to be the ultimate truth. All the other remaining 
twenty-four categories are seen as in some sense effulgence or illusory manifestations of 
the underlying reality. So they have the idea of two truths even in a non-Buddhist school 
like Samkhya. Using this model of reality where you look at reality in terms of two levels 
of truth is quite a common feature in other non-Buddhist Indian schools as well.
Similarly of course in Buddhism all the four major schools such as the 
Vaibhashika, the Sautrantika and so on, all speak about the doctrine of the Two Truths. 
However it is only in the Mahayana schools that the understanding of the Two Truths in 
terms of identity or sameness is understood. According to these Mahayana schools the 
Two Truths are seen in terms of ultimately being identical yet with unique or distinctive 
features. 
As I mentioned earlier although the language of the doctrine of the Two Truths is 
something common to many ancient Indian schools including non-Buddhist schools, so 
far as the deepest understanding of the doctrine of the Two Truths is concerned, it is only 
in the Madhyamika schools of Mahayana Buddhism that we see the fullest development 
of this doctrine. According to this school the Two Truths has to be understood in terms of 
an identity of the interdependent world of appearance and its underlying emptiness of 
intrinsic identity and existence. It is this unity of appearance and reality that is the deepest 
meaning of the Two Truths.
The essence or the deepest meaning of the doctrine of the Two Truths emerges at 
the level where one’s understanding of the doctrine is so advanced that by the very 
perception of the efficacy in the relative world of interdependent origination that in itself 
will give rise to an understanding of the emptiness of inherent existence or intrinsic 
reality. Given the validity of the interdependent laws, the laws of interdependent 
origination we realize that it is only by dependence upon other factors, the multiplicity of 
causes and conditions, interacting with each other that can give rise to a thing or an event. 
The very fact that things and events come into being as a result of such a multiplicity of 
causes and conditions, they lack an independent status. They are absent of independent, 
intrinsic reality. This absence of independent existence is emptiness. 
The world of our everyday reality where we see a multiplicity of things and 
events, a diversity of causes and conditions where there are distinct phenomena which 
enjoy distinguishing and unique features and characteristics, the whole multiplicity of our 
empirical world is in Buddhism known as conventional reality or the relative world. It is 
a world, which we posit without any metaphysical or philosophical postulations. It is the 
world of our everyday, lived experience. This is for example when we talk about causes 
and conditions we do not talk in terms of metaphysical constructions we are talking at the 
level of the way we experience the world. Our understanding of reality at this level is 
known as the wisdom cognizing the conventional aspect of reality.
However when we examine the existential status of these things and events, not 
satisfied by the mere label or convention, if we probe further and try to seek the true 
reference behind the terms and labels, what we find is the total absence of things and 
events. This absence or the unfindability when sought in such an analytic process is 
called the ultimate truth or in other words emptiness. Wisdom or insight understanding 
this nature is called the wisdom realizing emptiness.
One could say that multiplicity is the world of appearance and unity is the world 
of reality. In other words they are sometimes described as the multiple appearance and 
the ultimate world of one taste or single taste. When we think about this contrast between 
the multiplicity of the world of appearance and the unity and singularity of the world of 
ultimate reality, here it is important to understand how we generally relate to an object, 
how it appears to our mind. Generally speaking there are two manners in which we can 
conceive an object.
Generally when we relate to an object, it appears to our mind in two possible 
manners, either in affirmative characteristics that the object has definite features and 
characteristics or in contrast, what it is not in terms of its negation. When we think about 
the world of ultimate reality we can approach it only in terms of negation. We can not 
approach ultimate reality in terms of any affirmative or positive characterizations as it is 
the total absence or negation of independent existence that is ultimate reality.
When we look at the nature of reality in terms of this model of the Two Truths, 
we find it very intimately linked with the manner in which we understand reality, the 
manner in which our consciousness or mind operates when its engages with reality. As 
explained earlier the multiplicity of the world of appearance is the conventional world or 
conventional reality and the unity of the underlying absence is the ultimate reality or the 
ultimate truth. So immediately we find here that the Two Truths are in some sense 
defined with regard to how we know or perceive reality. It is because of this that we find 
in Buddhism there is extensive discussion of the nature of knowledge, how we develop 
knowledge and what means or methods exist in terms of generating such knowledge. 
It is in this respect again that the importance of applying our faculty of 
intelligence comes into the picture. As I stated earlier that in our quest to find solutions to 
the problems of existence we need to use the faculty of intelligence. For example in the 
case here when we talk about generating knowledge of the ultimate reality, ultimate truth 
or the conventional truth and the relationship the relationship between the two of them, 
what is required is not just mere understanding but rather true knowledge or insight into 
reality. Then the question is raised as to what means do we have that would help us verify 
that our understanding is correct, that the understanding we develop is true knowledge 
and not mere assumption? 
Here it may be quite useful to draw a parallel with scientific experimentation. In 
modern science in order to prove something the scientist needs to go through certain 
procedures of methodology. Initially the person through experiment thinks that they have 
come up with a new discovery. Now it is not enough for someone to claim that one has 
found this through experimentation, the person needs to verify it. One of the ways 
verification takes place is whether someone else can repeat the same experiment and 
arrive at the same conclusion, come up with the same result. This is seen as verification 
that the initial discovery is correct. On the other hand if someone else proves the 
supposed discovery incorrect the supposed discovery is seen as suspect. 
Similarly in the case of our knowledge when we arrive at an understanding we 
must have means by which we can test the validity of that understanding and to verify 
that it is a case of true knowledge, not a false belief. But this can not be done by the 
knowledge itself we need the case of another knowledge, which would be able to put the 
previous knowledge to a test. Through this way it can be verified. What we find here is 
the importance of understanding the very concept of knowledge and also verification.
What we find here is the basic standpoint that when we asked a question whether 
or not something is true or whether it exists, what are the basic criterion that we use in 
determining whether or not something is true or whether something exists? In Buddhism 
of course the answer lays with knowledge; anything that is an object of knowledge exists 
and anything that is not an object of knowledge is non-existent. 
Then the question arises how do we know that an instance of understanding is true 
knowledge and not a false belief? Here some Buddhist schools maintain that there is 
something called a self-cognizing faculty to all instances of consciousness, that the object 
is certified by an understanding, which is a state of consciousness, and the validity of that 
consciousness is certified by a self-cognizing faculty of that mind. This is how the 
problem of verification of that knowledge is solved in some schools of Buddhism. The 
main reason they come up with this strategy is because they are uncomfortable with the 
idea of mutual dependence between subject and object. This mutual dependence from 
their point of view entails that both subject and object have equal power of validation or 
verification. So far as they are concerned it is the consciousness or the subject which has 
greater power in validating or verifying an existence. Therefore they postulate this faculty 
which is known as the self-cognizing faculty.
Now in other schools of Mahayana Buddhism such as Madhyamika-Prasangika, 
they do not accept such a faculty, self-cognizing faculty of consciousness. The reason for 
this is that the acceptance of a self-cognizing faculty, which in some sense is the primary 
validating faculty, would entail believing in an intrinsic power or reality of 
consciousness. So far as Prasangika-Madhyamika is concerned all things and events 
including consciousness, including all states of mind are all dependently originated 
phenomena. Nothing exists on its own; nothing exists in and of itself. Nothing possesses 
intrinsic identity or inherent existence. All things and events are dependent; they lack 
independent status. So because of this it is contradictory to posit a faculty which is self-
validating. As far as the Madhyamika-Prasangikas are concerned of course existence is 
determined in terms of whether or not something can be known or something is an object 
of knowledge. However Madhyamika-Prasangikas argue that the reality of subject and 
object can be established through mutual dependence; just as subject is dependent on the 
object so is the object dependent on the subject. There is nothing seen wrong with this 
formulation of verification.
So the fundamental criterion of existence that the Prasangika-Madhyamika school 
comes up with is that something to be conventionally known as long as that convention is 
not contradicted or negated by another convention or another validating consciousness. In 
some sense whatever is known should be verified by another instance of knowledge, be it 
a subsequent state of knowledge or understanding or a third person’s verification. So as 
far as the Prasangika-Madhyamika is concerned they accept this mutual dependence 
between subject and object. Just as the object exists dependently and by the power of the 
subject similarly the subject exists in dependence or by the power of the object; there is a 
mutual dependence. 
Not only this but also Prasangika-Madhyamikas accept that all states of 
consciousness must have an object even if it be a mental object like an image. All states 
of consciousness must be a consciousness of something. In this regard or in this respect 
all forms of consciousness are a consciousness of something; it is a state of awareness. 
But this is not to say that we can not make distinctions between a false belief and true 
knowledge. That distinction between false belief and true knowledge is made on the 
grounds, on the basis of whether or not an understanding that one has is controverted or 
negated by an instance of knowledge, which would directly contradict it. (Break)
Question: (Not on tape)
Answer: For example Buddhist teachings explain that grasping at the true 
existence of things and events is at the root of volitional, karmic action. However that 
does not imply that the grasping at the true and inherent existence of things and events in 
itself is the product of karma. 
Question: Is there a simple example of emptiness that can help a beginner before 
reaching higher levels of understanding of emptiness
Answer: Discussions on emptiness will come up in subsequent sessions and also 
during the initiation. 
Question: Please explain how if one understands dependent arising and cause and 
effect? Does one see it in a flash, the connection with ultimate truth that objects are like 
an illusion?
Answer: It is possible in the case of some people that due to their long karmic 
seeds that the connection between the interdependent world of cause and effect and the 
ultimate reality can appear in a spontaneous awareness like a flash. But it is not truly a 
spontaneous awareness in the true sense of the phrase because one needs to take into 
account that the individual’s having reflected on this in previous lifetimes.
As for my own understanding of the relationship between the interdependent 
world of causality and the ultimate reality is concerned, I have definitely put great effort 
with a sense of involvement and engagement into this understanding. So I can say as far 
as my current understanding is concerned it is more of a sense, an intuition rather than a 
spontaneous flash of knowledge. But one thing I can definitely say is that such 
understanding is truly beneficial. It has been nearly thirty years since I first began to take 
serious interest and effort into developing and refining my understanding of the Two 
Truths.
Question: Is it possible that emptiness and god are similar concepts?
Answer: Of course I have found that when we talk about the concept of god that 
there are diverse interpretations. I have heard sometimes god defined in terms of infinite 
compassion and defined in terms of a creator or absolute being. So far as god understood 
in terms of an absolute being or creator, then this is very different from the Buddhist 
understanding of emptiness. 
According to the Madhyamika teachings of Buddhism, all things and events 
without exceptions are absent of intrinsic reality or independent existence. This includes 
not only samsara, the samsaric world of everyday reality but also it includes Buddha and 
emptiness itself; nothing is spared. 
Sincere Christian practitioners have asked me questions relating to the 
relationship between Buddhist meditative practices and the contemplative traditions of 
Christianity. I have told them that it is possible at the initial stages to have in some sense 
a combined approach of the two traditions. It is possible for a practicing Christian to 
adopt certain meditative techniques from Buddhism such as techniques aimed at 
enhancing compassion or one’s capacity for tolerance or overcoming hatred and anger. 
These techniques which do not necessarily require accepting unique doctrines of 
Buddhism could be of course be seen as common practices which can be adopted by 
practicing Christians. So it is possible at the initial stages for a spiritual trainee to seek 
refuge both in the Buddha Shakyamuni and also Jesus Christ. 
However as one specializes in one’s own spiritual quest, as one embarks further 
and progresses on the spiritual path then at a certain stage, at a more advanced stage I feel 
one needs to part company. In some sense one needs to pursue a specialized line of 
practice because the approaches of the two traditions to some sense are fundamentally 
different. In the case of Buddhism the entire path of meditative techniques and practices 
are based upon the fundamental Buddhist philosophical tenet of the no-self doctrine 
where the emphasis is placed on selflessness and relativity. On the other hand in 
Christianity the entire spiritual approach is based on a single-pointed dedication towards 
the objective or goal which is seen in terms of absolute being. So at the more advanced 
stages I feel one needs to part company.
What we see is that the major religious traditions of the world, each of them has 
its own uniqueness in its approach along the spiritual path. These unique approaches suit 
different individuals, individuals with differing mental dispositions.
Question: Prasangikas say that the reality of subject and object can be validated 
through dependent arising but if ultimate reality is a non-affirming negative how can we 
say that anything is a cause of something else? How can we establish dependent arising?
Answer: Here in the Madhyamika context when we speak about emptiness it is 
important to bear in mind that we are not talking about emptiness in terms of mere 
nothingness. We are talking about the emptiness of independent existence, the emptiness 
of things and events possessing intrinsic reality or intrinsic identity. So emptiness is not a 
mere nothingness or nonexistence but rather it is the emptiness of an independent status, 
an independent existence. 
When we look at the multiplicity of the world around us we see the fact that 
things and events come into being due to other factors is quite obvious. We see things 
and events coming into being as the result of causes and conditions and this is quite 
obvious to us. Now if we pursue that line of argument or pursue that line of 
understanding further, we will arrive at the knowledge of the absence of independent 
existence. Again if we pursue that knowledge, the absence of independent existence 
further then it will reinforce our understanding of the world of interdependence, the fact 
that things come into being as the result of causes and conditions. 
Perhaps what is important here is to make a distinction. When we talk of 
emptiness as the ultimate absence of independent existence, when we talk of ultimate 
truth as being understood in terms of mere negation, a non-affirming negative, what is 
important here to understand is that when we arrive at such a knowledge of emptiness, in 
that state of consciousness there is no underlying sense or inference that maybe there is 
something else. Maybe things exist in such-and-such a manner? What constitutes true 
insight into emptiness is the full appreciation of the total absence, the negation of 
independent existence.
Now the understanding of the interdependent nature of reality comes as a 
subsequent knowledge. When you have gained such knowledge of emptiness then as a 
consequence of that knowledge, it reawakens in you the full implication of that 
knowledge. That is to say, if things and events lack independent existence then it is only 
through the interdependent nature, it is only through the nature of interdependence that 
they can come into being. So it is a subsequent knowledge. 
When we think about the relationship between or the mechanism or process of our 
understanding emptiness and also the validity of that knowledge, it is quite a complex 
issue. Generally speaking when one develops a knowledge of something, one negates a 
false belief. When one develops insight into emptiness what is being negated is the false 
belief, which is grasping at the true existence or inherent existence of things and events. 
This knowledge of emptiness in itself can not apprehend the existence of emptiness nor 
can it apprehend the validity of the knowledge itself. 
However that is not to say that in order to gain knowledge, in order to understand 
the existence of emptiness, in order to understand the validity of that knowledge, one 
needs further consideration or reflection. This is not the case. They come about in some 
sense as a natural by-product of subsequent awareness to one’s awareness of emptiness. 
So in the aftermath of one’s full realization of emptiness, this total absence, the 
knowledge that emptiness exists, the knowledge that one’s understanding of emptiness is 
valid, come naturally and spontaneously subsequent to one’s understanding of emptiness. 
Question: How does one remain aware of compassion and tolerance despite all 
the problems of daily life and the clashes between people?
Answer: When we think about the true meaning of tolerance, I don’t think we 
should understand tolerance in terms of a meek acceptance of harm and suffering. What 
is meant by true tolerance is an active principal whereby you deliberately adopt a 
standpoint not to retaliate against a harm or infliction of pain. So when you understand 
tolerance in such a way then of course when you practice tolerance it further strengthen 
your capacity to withstand sufferings and problems.
So when your understanding of tolerance is such I as just described then in some 
sense one could say that your tolerance or your choice to be tolerant is based on an 
understanding which is that you see retaliating is foolish and also has no benefit. You will 
then be a position in fact when you see someone inflicting harm on you, because of your 
tolerant standpoint you will develop a sense of empathy or compassion towards the 
perpetrator of the harm. You see that person whose is perpetrating the crime is doing 
something which is totally stupid and self-destructive. 
Question: How can one be sure that one is not going crazy or beyond reality 
when considering reality?
Answer: One basic rule or a rule of thumb that is used in Buddhism especially in 
regard to examining one’s analysis in Madhyamika is to check whether or not as a result 
of one’s analysis of emptiness and ultimate nature of reality, whether or not it effects 
one’s attitude and relation towards other areas of practice. These include love, 
compassion, tolerance and also whether or not your attitude towards the law of karma and 
causality is effected. If one finds that as a result of one’s understanding of emptiness, as a 
result of your analysis that your respect towards the subtle laws of karma and causality is 
increasing even to the point where one is so mindful of the consequences of even the 
slightest negative action, this is a positive indication that one’s analysis is going in the 
right direction. On the other hand if one finds that as a result of one’s long meditation or 
analysis on emptiness one is beginning to feel more apathetic, thinking that there is 
nothing out there and one’s commitment to the laws of karma becomes more lax then that 
is an indication that one’s analysis is going in the wrong direction. This is the basic rule 
of thumb.
So when you find yourself in such a situation, then it is very important not to be 
totally confined into meditating on emptiness alone but rather combining and balancing 
one’s meditation on emptiness with other practices. These include generating a genuine 
aspiration to seek liberation from cyclic existence based on developing insight into the 
suffering nature of samsara and also enhancing one’s capacity for compassion and 
bodhicitta. So it is with these other aspects of the path that one must balance one’s 
meditation on emptiness. 
Not only that but it is also important to bear in mind that as a result of one’s 
reductive analysis, one finds things and events can not be found when sought through an 
analytic process. This unfindability in itself alone does not constitute a full understanding 
of emptiness. If that were the case then it would be rather limited. This is something one 
can derive even in respect to things that are totally non-existent. So what is required is 
that in addition to the insight that things and events, although they may seem solid and 
enjoying a discrete reality, when sought in an analytic way they are unfindable. Yet they 
must exist in some way because the reality of their existence is something that is 
incontrovertible; it is something one’s valid experience, in some sense, speaks for their 
reality. 
If this is the case then in what manner do they exist? They must exist; there must 
be some level of reality. However they do not exist in an independent or inherent way, as 
they seem to appear to us. What is the status of their existence? Through this two-
pronged approach, when one arrives at a point where one’s understanding of their status 
is that they truly lack independent existence although they exist in some sense, therefore 
their existence must be understood only in terms of conceptuality, label or imputation. So 
it is through this way that one can steer away from falling into the two extremes and stay 
in the middle, arriving at the true middle way understanding of emptiness. So it is rather a 
profound insight. 
Question: Are we born with a soul? Do we have a soul at the moment of birth or 
do we build our soul day by day? What do you think of Jesus Christ?
Answer: As a Buddhist and from a Buddhist point of view, since Jesus Christ 
played such an important role in bringing a spiritual message and spiritual solace and 
taught on love, compassion and tolerance to millions of people one can not view him as 
an ordinary person. Definitely a Buddhist would have to say that he was a Noble Being. 
Now as to what exactly is the status of such a Noble Being, Buddhism would have 
different explanations. Although the philosophy, the metaphysical teachings of Jesus is 
very different from the Buddha’s teachings and as practicing Buddhists would consider 
their own metaphysical or philosophical teachings as reflecting the truer nature of reality, 
however there is no contradiction for a Buddhist perceiving Jesus as a manifestation or 
emanation of a Bodhisattva or even the Buddha. In Buddhism there is no contradiction in 
accepting a teacher whose own personal standpoint may be different from the teachings 
the person has given because the Buddhist hermeneutic tradition makes a distinction 
between the author’s intentional standpoint and the scriptures standpoint. They need not 
be identical. 
For example in the Buddhist tradition if one looks at the thangka immediately 
behind me, on the two sides of the Buddha Shakyamuni there are two figures. On his left 
is Nagarjuna and on his right is Asanga. Asanga who is considered by Mahayana 
Buddhists as someone who has attained the Third Bodhisattva Bhumi, the third 
Bodhisattva level, in some of his writings such as the Bodhisattva Grounds and also his 
Compendium, he criticizes Nagarjuna’s philosophy as being nihilistic. Yet we accept that 
Asanga was a Bodhisattva on a very high level of realization. There is no contradiction in 
this as we make a distinction between Asanga’s own ultimate standpoint and Asanga’s 
intended standpoint in a particular text which may be addressing an issue for a particular 
perspective.
Similarly in the case of the Buddha he has taught so many sutras and in some 
sutras for example in the sutra the Unraveling of the Buddha’s Intention, which is a 
hermeneutical sutra, Buddha discusses reality in terms of what are called the Three 
Natures. This is in contradiction with other sutras that the Buddha has taught but again 
the hermeneutic tradition in Buddhism maintains that a sutra taught by the Buddha need 
not necessarily represent the ultimate standpoint of the Buddha. So one can make a 
distinction between the author’s ultimate standpoint and a particular scripture’s 
intentional standpoint. This hermeneutical explanation could be applied to other cases as 
well. 
As to the first part of the question concerning the question of a soul, generally speaking if 
one conceives of a soul in terms of an eternal principle, which is unitary, eternal and 
indivisible, then this is synonymous with the atman theory of the non-Buddhist schools. 
There the soul is characterized in terms of an eternal principle. So far as that concept is 
concerned all Buddhist schools deny the existence of such a soul or self. Such a soul or 
atman or self would be naturally something that is independent from the psychophysical 
constituents of the person; it would be independent of both body and mind. This type of 
self or soul is definitely not accepted by any Buddhist school. 
However the Buddhists’ position as to the identity of the individual is explained 
in terms of the five aggregates. Even on this there is a divergence of opinion within the 
Buddhist schools themselves. Some schools of Buddhism will accept the identity of the 
individual or the identity of the person from within the five psychophysical constituents, 
something identifiable either with the collective or one of the individual aggregates. This 
is different from another category of Buddhist schools that accept the personal identity of 
the individual only in terms of dependence upon the five aggregates. It is not identifiable 
either with the collective of aggregates or any of the individual aggregates; it is seen 
purely in relation or as a dependent phenomenon. 
One of the non-Buddhist ancient Indian schools has a conception of the soul 
which according to them; the soul is co-extensive with the body of the individual. In this 
concept although the soul is independent of the body but is co-extensive such that when 
the body grows, the soul also grows. When a child grows … increase in its size. There is 
such a conception.
What we find in Buddhism is that the whole motivation behind this complex 
analysis of the nature of reality is to try and see if it is possible to fulfill one’s basic 
aspiration to seek happiness and overcome suffering. The very analysis of the nature of 
reality is connected with a purpose and that purpose is to seek fulfillment of this basic 
aspiration. Through analysis of the nature of reality and through developing one’s insight 
and awareness, the idea is that one will be in a better position to seek happiness and the 
causes of happiness while overcoming suffering and prevent the causes of suffering. 
Because of this Buddha in his first sermon taught the doctrine of the Four Noble Truths. 
In some sense one could say that the doctrine of the Two Truths arises from the doctrine 
of the Four Noble Truths. 
One could roughly say that when we are discussing about the nature of the Two 
Truths in some sense we are in a philosophical domain or realm. We are not talking about 
a religious idea. However when we go on to a discussion of the Four Noble Truths then 
we are talking about something that is directly related to our experiences of pain, 
pleasure, suffering and happiness. We are then talking within the realm of religion or 
spirituality. So although one could make an arbitrary distinction between the two, the 
separation of the two, however when we talk about the Four Noble Truths we are talking 
about a means and a way of overcoming suffering and means and ways of achieving 
happiness. When we are talking about experiences of pain and pleasure we are talking 
about events and phenomena which are directly related with the law of causality; pain 
and pleasure do not come into being from nowhere or without any cause. They come into 
being as the result of causes and conditions. 
Although we are talking about something that is a spiritual matter, something 
related to our spiritual life, yet at the same time we can not totally divorce it from a 
discussion of the nature of reality. Because in order to understand fully how the causal 
mechanism works that gives rise to suffering and happiness, we have to understand the 
natural laws of causation. In order to understand that fully, we have to understand the 
nature of reality. So we are already in the realm of the Two Truths. One can not really 
make such a separation. 
One of the reasons why this is such an intimate connection between the teachings 
on the Two Truths and the Four Noble Truths is that the deeper one understanding of the 
Two Truths the deeper and more refined becomes one’s understanding of the 
interrelationships between the Four Noble Truths. One is also in a stronger position to 
overcome seeming contradictions that might arise in one’s understanding of the Four 
Noble Truths. On the other hand if one has a rather superficial knowledge of the Two 
Truths or if one lacks an understanding of the Two Truths, then one’s understanding of 
the Four Noble Truths will remain on a very superficial level. One’s understanding may 
only be on the level of everyday reality such that if one tries to probe deeper then one will 
confront constantly situations where one simply can not understand or come up with 
seeming contradictions. 
For example if one reads the Madhyamika writings by Candrakirti one finds that 
because of Candrakirti’s very advanced and very highly developed understanding of the 
doctrine of the emptiness of inherent existence or inherent reality, he’s whole 
understanding of the Four Noble Truths is very sophisticated and deep. One finds that 
because of his understanding of emptiness his identification of the fundamental ignorance 
and its mode of apprehension is very different. Because of this and his whole 
understanding of the nature of derivative delusory states along with their interactions is 
again very deep. Because of this his conception of True Cessation is much deeper and 
because of this his understanding of the true nature of the path that leads to such cessation 
is also very deep. So one sees that one’s understanding of the Two Truths deepens one’s 
understanding of the nature of the Four Truths. As one’s understanding of the delusory 
states of one’s mind deepens then also one’s understanding of the nature of suffering and 
the basic unsatisfactory nature of existence also deepens. 
One of the principal implications of the teachings on the Four Noble Truths is that 
pain and pleasure or suffering and happiness come into being as the result of the 
interactions of causes and conditions. They do not come into being without any cause or 
from nowhere nor do they come into being because they were created by some external 
force or absolute being. Nor do they come into being as a result of some totally 
unconnected or unrelated cause. The moral one should take from the teachings on the 
Four Noble Truths is that pleasure and pain, suffering and happiness come into being 
only and merely as a result of their related causes and conditions.
What we see in the teachings on the Four Noble Truths is two sets of causation; 
the causation between suffering and its origin and the causation between cessation and 
the path. When these two sets of causation are further elaborated then we find the 
teachings on the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination. The whole causal mechanism 
that gives rise to suffering and existence in the samsaric world when it is elaborated in its 
fullest form one has the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination starting with 
fundamental ignorance and so on. Similarly when you try to understand the mechanism 
that leads to in some sense the unwinding of samsara, putting an end to samsara one finds 
the reverse order of the Links of Dependent Origination. So the teachings on the Twelve 
Links of Dependent Origination are in some sense elaborations on the teachings of the 
Four Noble Truths. 
In the sutras where Buddha taught the sermon on the Twelve Links of Dependent 
Origination he made the statement, “Because there was the cause, the effects ensued. 
Because the cause was produced, the effect was engendered. For example because there 
was ignorance, then the volitional actions followed”. Asanga in his 
Abhidharmasamuccaya, The Compendium of Manifest Knowledge, when he elaborates 
and comments on these three statements, he identifies three characteristics of dependent 
origination. He states that these characteristics are that dependent origination entails that 
effects do not come into being as result of being created by an external agency, force or 
some entity’s design nor do they come into being due to a permanent, eternal cause, but 
rather come into being only as the result of related causes and conditions. So these three 
characteristics are fundamental features of the laws of dependent origination. So it 
becomes quite clear when Asanga makes such comments on the three cryptic statements 
by the Buddha.
In his Fundamentals on the Middle Way Nagarjuna raises a point and responds to 
the objections raised his opponents who are realists and criticize Nagarjuna’s philosophy 
as being nihilistic. They put the objection in the following manner. If as you [Nagarjuna] 
accept that all things and events are devoid of independent, intrinsic reality, intrinsic 
reality and existence, then that means that one can talk about reality only in terms of a 
mental construct, that means whatever the mind creates, becomes reality. If this is the 
case then there is no room for accounting for natural law in the relationship between 
causes and effects. If this is the case then there could not be any causal laws operating 
and if that is the case there can’t be any laws of Dharma. If this is the case then there can 
not be Sangha members practicing the Dharma and if that is the case then one can not 
have Buddhas, fully enlightened beings as there is nothing to practice. If this is the case 
then there are no Four Noble Truths; there is no possibility of the Three Objects of 
Refuge and so on and so forth. So in other words you [Nagarjuna] deny everything. 
To this Nagarjuna responds by stating that on the contrary it is you [the Realists] 
if one pursues the line of argument that you adopt who would be faced with all those 
consequences. According to you since things and events posses intrinsic reality, they 
posses independent existence therefore they are absent the nature of dependence. If they 
are independent how can you talk about their being dependent on causes and conditions. 
If they are absent of dependence on causes and conditions then there are no causal laws 
operating and if that is the case then the charge of nihilism that you level against me will 
be reversed. 
Candrakirti in his Prasannapada or Clear Words when he comments on this 
particular section of Madhyamikakulakarika or Fundamentals on the Middle Way states 
that what is being stated here by Nagarjuna is that when the Madhyamika’s talk of 
emptiness they are talking about emptiness in terms of dependent origination. It is not an 
emptiness in terms of mere nothingness; it is an emptiness in terms of dependent 
origination. It is only when one accepts emptiness can one fully account for the laws of 
interdependent origination. Whereas if one denies emptiness then one denies 
interdependent origination therefore one denies the nature of dependence so therefore one 
can not account for any of the conventionally valid world of relativity. Therefore one 
would not be able to validate all of the Buddha’s teachings like the Four Noble Truths, 
the Three Jewels, taking refuge so on and so forth. So what this discussion indicates is 
that it shows a clear connection between the understanding of the Two Truths on the one 
hand and how a deep understanding of the Two Truths contributes towards a deeper 
understanding of the Four Noble Truths. 
Let us meditate for five minutes or so. One object of meditation that would be 
quite convenient is to examine one’s own self of self. One thing that is certain for all of 
us who are here is the feeling that “I” exist that “I” as an individual exist here. So far as 
sense of self and existence is concerned it is quite incontrovertible. However underlying 
this sense of self, if we search for the true referent of that term self then we find we have 
this sense that there is something which is solid or concrete, something that is me, a core, 
my being. Now in our meditation let’s seek whether that appearance is true or whether it 
is mere illusion. 
Day Two
As we discussed yesterday one of the unique features of human beings is this gift 
of the faculty of intelligence. As I pointed out yesterday, because we posses this faculty 
of intelligence, we humans unlike species of other life forms, have the capability to 
project into the future and think about the long and short term consequences of our 
actions. Also if you look at human history as a whole, we can see that human civilization 
is in some sense the product of this faculty of intelligence. Because it is through the 
application of this faculty of intelligence that human beings progress, expand our 
knowledge and increase the body of collective knowledge that we posses. So we have 
better means to relate to the external world and deal with situations. One could say that 
the whole history of human civilization is a history of the development and evolution of 
human intelligence. 
When we examine the nature of the intelligence that we posses as human beings, 
we can see that to some extent intelligence is innate; it is there right from the beginning 
of one’s birth. We could say it is natural to the human psyche yet at the same time we 
also see that there is a degree to which this natural intelligence can be enhanced and 
developed. What seems to be true is that there is this innate or natural potential in all of 
us to be able to enhance and develop this faculty of intelligence, to be able to expand the 
scope of knowledge. 
When Buddhist teachings deal with the question of intelligence and its potential 
for enhancement, Buddhism talks about three different types of intelligence or 
understanding or one could say three levels of understanding. At the initial stage, the 
level of understanding is known as the understanding derived through listening or 
hearing. Here one’s understanding is primarily based on an explanation, an accounting by 
someone else or one has read something and one’s level of understanding is at the level 
of the intellectual understanding. When one contemplates on this level and deepens one’s 
understanding through constant reflection and analysis then one can enhance this level of 
intelligence to the second stage which is technically called in Buddhism understanding 
developed through contemplation or reflection. This is more reliable and also deeper.
If one pursues further analysis and reflection and constantly compares this with 
one’s own experience, then through meditation this intellectual understanding is 
deepened and transformed into a sort of meditative understanding. This is the third level 
of understanding or wisdom which is called the wisdom or understanding derived through 
meditation. So we see that there is a progression from the initial stage of understanding 
based purely on reading or hearing, culminating in an understanding which is more 
experiential.
Similarly when we talk about intelligence, there are different types of intelligence. 
Certain types of intelligence could be described as sharp, some people are gifted with this 
kind of intelligence where they are capable of seeing things in a very fast way, very 
sharp. Yet at the same time that sharpness need not necessarily reflect a depth of 
intelligence. Some people may have a very sharp mind but it may be only at a surface 
level but then some people may not be as sharp and quick. They may take a longer time 
to understand but once they do develop an understanding it is much deeper. This type of 
intelligence is known as penetrating intelligence, which is not only to understand a 
subject or topic in a very penetrating way but also at the same time it, is capable of 
appreciating the wider dimensions or ramifications of that knowledge. 
There are other types of intelligence where people have a vast knowledge such 
that whenever that person looks at a particular subject, that person is able to bring upon 
that understanding many different perspectives. So we find in the Buddhist literature 
discussions of such different types of intelligence such as sharp, penetrating, profound 
and vast knowledge. It is important to bear in mind that the nature of intelligence is very 
complex and varied.
When talking about the way in which we can apply this basic or natural faculty of 
intelligence that we posses in understanding the nature of reality, of course it is very 
important to apply it and probe whatever topic or subject it may be, to be able to see 
things in a very clear and correct way. It is very important to have a sort of alertness and 
precision but what is also important is to have another faculty, which is the faculty of 
single-pointedness of mind. This allows one to really be able to channel one’s attention 
fully to whatever topic one may be analyzing. If one is able to single-pointedly focus 
one’s mind on the particular subject then one will be able to in some sense fuse one’s 
mind with the subject under analysis. In some sense one identifies with it and become one 
with it, the probing intelligence of the mind becomes united and one with the object 
under analysis. One will then be able to enhance one’s understanding in a much more 
effective and powerful way. 
This is particularly true when one is dealing with a topic that is either totally 
unfamiliar to one so that one can not naturally or spontaneously deal with it at ease or it 
may be a concept which is quite contrary to one’s normal way of thinking. Under such 
circumstances then without this faculty of single-pointedness of mind, one may not be 
able to retain one’s attention, one’s focus on the subject. At the same time one may not be 
able to channel one’s energy or attention to the subject. So if on the other hand one 
possesses and has developed this faculty of single-pointedness, which by the way is a 
natural quality one has within us, then one is in a very strong position to apply the clarity 
of intelligence and its alertness with a degree of stability and focus. It is because of this 
that in ancient Indian spiritual traditions the need to unite the combined single-
pointedness of mind and penetrating insight has been very extensively emphasized. In 
other words the union of tranquil abiding and penetrating insight has been emphasized in 
most of the ancient spiritual traditions of India. 
We have by birth the natural capacity to enhance our intelligence. We posses that 
faculty naturally therefore we have the potential to enhance our intelligence, 
understanding and insight. Similarly we naturally posses within our psyche the faculty of 
single-pointedness, the fact that you can pay attention to a particular object, the fact that 
you can retain your attention or focus on to an object. This is an indication that the seed 
for single-pointedness of mind is within us. So this can be developed and should be 
developed so that you have advanced mental capabilities.
In Buddhism there are discussions and also techniques of how to enhance one’s 
philosophical view through meditative techniques. Similarly there are techniques for 
enhancing one’s meditative practices, single-pointedness of mind through a philosophical 
analysis. Now leaving this aside because these are techniques, which are described within 
the context of the Buddhist meditation, however we are talking about the practice of 
developing a single-pointedness of mind and enhancing intelligence in general. As this is 
relevant even to someone who doesn’t believe in any particular religious tradition, what 
may be more appropriate for us is to discuss how it is possible to develop a single-
pointedness of mind by choosing a particular object as the focus of your meditation, an 
object quite easy to imagine, conceive or something that is familiar to you. 
Let us take an example of an object like a flower. When we talk about developing 
a single-pointedness of mind focused on the flower, we should not have the notion that 
what is being focused at is the visual image of the flower that is in front of you, the object 
itself. Of course one may gaze at the flower in order to have a clear, vivid image of the 
flower. But the direct object of one’s meditation is not the real flower, the physical flower 
“out there” but rather the image of the flower that arises within one, not at the sensorial 
level but at the mental level. It is the image of the flower that arises within one’s mind at 
the mental level. That is the object of one’s meditation and one should be able to retain 
one’s focus and attention on this object even when not looking at the flower at that 
moment. 
When you begin the session developing the single-pointedness of your mind 
focusing on the example of the flower, you should begin by developing a very strong will 
and determination or resolve that you will maintain your attention, focused on that object, 
without any distraction. You should develop that strong resolve and then once you begin 
the actual meditation make every effort to try and retain that focus, not being distracted. 
If you make a constant effort it is possible to be able to extend your ability to 
retain focus on the object of meditation. Through this way you will be able to increase 
your capacity for stability of mind. Along with it what is also required is developing the 
luminous quality of the subjective experience of the mind itself. It is not merely enough 
to have a vivid image of the object of your meditation; there should also be a sense of 
alertness, a sense of clarity. This is such that although your mind may be stable and 
undistracted but it may be beginning to sink, beginning to lose its alertness. This should 
not be the case. Along with the stability of mind, along with the ability to retain your 
attention, there should also be a high degree of alertness and subjective clarity. 
When you are engaged in a meditation aimed at developing single-pointedness of 
mind and attempting to attain tranquil abiding, there are certain factors that obstruct your 
ability to make progress and attain single-pointedness of mind. There are two factors 
generally speaking, which are the main obstacles that prevent you from developing the 
stability of mind. These two obstacles are mental scattering or distraction, which is more 
general and then mental excitement, which is a form of attachment. These two obstacles, 
these two factors of mind are the key obstacles that hinder your development of the 
stability of mind. Similarly mental sinking is the main obstacle that hinders your 
development of alertness and clarity, subjective clarity of mind.
Among the two, mental distraction and mental excitement, generally speaking 
excitement is considered to be the more serious obstacle because it is a form of 
attachment. So for a practitioner whose primary aim or objective is to attain single-
pointedness of mind, it is important to first of all identify these two key obstacles, mental 
excitement and mental sinking, and then seek means by which the practitioner can 
confront and counteract them.
Of course when we speak of these two primary obstacles, mental sinking and 
mental excitement, they are many different levels even within these two factors of mind. 
There are subtleties and coarse levels. Generally speaking the way in which the meditator 
or practitioner should confront them and counteract them is like the following. If you find 
in your meditation that your mind is beginning to be distracted, your mind is starting to 
lose its focus then that is an indication that you may be at a slightly more excited state. 
Under such circumstances the right antidote is to try to bring the state of your mind lower 
and try to withdrawal your consciousness a bit more. 
On the other hand if you find that you are beginning to lose the clarity and 
alertness, although there is no distraction it is beginning to lose its grip and its intensity, 
then it is an indication that mental sinking is arising. So under such circumstances the 
right antidote is to try to uplift your mind; try to make your mind more alert and awaken 
yourself. 
So what we find is that the right approach is to try to find the right balance 
between the two, kind of an equilibrium. Of course what constitutes an equilibrium will 
differ from individual to individual depending upon different physical makeup of the 
person. It depends on many different factors. Age might make a difference and also the 
physical health of the individual may make a difference. In some cases even the food you 
may have eaten previously might make a difference; the diet may make a difference. 
There are many factors which need to be taken into account so therefore there is no 
standard sort of point where one can say this is the equilibrium everyone needs. 
So far as this state of equilibrium is concerned it is something that every 
individual needs to find out for themselves through experience and through practice. You 
will arrive at a point where you can in some sense intuit that this is the right balance, the 
right equilibrium for me. Once you have found it, then it is important to retain it. It is 
through pursuing such a balanced approach that you will be able to advance and make 
progress in your meditation.
What is important here is to give a caution that especially at the beginning it is 
very important not to exert too much, not to put too much exertion in your meditation. 
What is important is not to put yourself in a situation where you may end up feeling put 
off by the experience. At the initial stage even though the session may be very short, let’s 
say one or two minutes, during which one can maintain one’s focus on the object, that is 
fine. What is important is to pay more attention to the quality of the state of mind you 
arrive at in your meditation rather than trying to push yourself too hard in trying to have 
an extended period of meditation. Pushing too hard may lead to a situation where you are 
in some sense being dragged along in your meditation without much clarity but rather in 
a foggy state. This will lead you to acquire bad habits, which may in the future be quite 
difficult to overcome. So at the initial stage it is important not to put too much exertion 
but rather to pay more attention to the quality so that you can, even though initially it may 
be very short, be able to slowly extend the duration of your single-pointedness of mind. 
In this way whatever duration you manage to achieve will be of a very good quality. This 
is the way in which you should progress. 
Sometimes it is also very beneficial if one could develop single-pointedness of the 
mind focused on one’s own consciousness, the nature of one’s own consciousness. This 
will have a very powerful effect but in order to do this first of all it is important to have 
some idea or some sort of image of what the object of meditation would be like, i.e. the 
consciousness. Of course when one says meditate on consciousness and take one’s own 
consciousness as the object of meditation, one is not referring to the mere term 
“consciousness”; that’s not the object of meditation. What is required here is to be able to 
take consciousness itself and focus one’s attention upon it.
So in order to be able to do this first of all one needs to identify what the 
consciousness is. This is of course quite difficult. One technique, which can be used to 
assist one in enabling one to identify consciousness, is following a particular meditation. 
For example in one’s normal, ordinary state, one finds oneself constantly immersed either 
in a sensory state or in a conceptual state where one is totally distracted or preoccupied 
by either external sensory objects, be it colors, shapes or odors, or internal feelings and 
sensations, be it pleasurable, painful or whatever. 
In some sense one could say that since one’s consciousness, since one’s states of 
mind are so dominated by these sensorial or conceptual experiences that the basic nature 
of the consciousness itself, which is the mere luminosity, mere experience, is in some 
sense obscured or covered. This is such that it no longer becomes apparent to one; it is no 
longer manifest to one’s experience, at least to one’s conscious mind. 
So in one’s meditation, what one can do is to deliberately adopt a stance resolving 
that one will not allow oneself to become distracted by past experiences, recollections of 
past experiences nor allow oneself to become distracted about future events, with 
expectations and hopes. Rather one retains one’s focus, the focus of one’s mind and 
consciousness only on the experience of the present moment. When one starts practicing 
in this manner, of course it is difficult, but slowly and gradually one may be able to 
distance one’s mind from recollections and memories of the past as well as expectations 
and anticipations projected into the future. One will be able to retain one’s awareness 
fully to the present and through this way slowly begin to have a glimpse of a certain 
vacuity. When one takes the path and the future out of the stream of consciousness, what 
one experiences is this vacuity. 
Through one’s practice one will be able to extend that experience of vacuity. At 
the initial stage it may only be a glimpse or a momentary experience but slowly and 
gradually one will be able to extend that experience. When one extends that experience 
gradually and slowly then the basic nature of the mind, which is the clarity and the 
luminosity, will become more and more apparent to one, more and more manifest. One 
will then get to a point where when one encounters the term consciousness, it will give 
one a different meaning, a different sense. This experience is the one, which needs to be 
taken as the object of meditation when one is meditating on consciousness, developing 
single-pointedness focused on consciousness. 
An analogy used often here is the example of murky water. When water with 
sediment is shaken it becomes murky. If one then lets the container rest without motion, 
slowly one will begin to see the sediment settle and the clarity of the water becomes more 
and more apparent. This is the analogy used to describe when one separates out the past 
and future anticipation from one’s mind from the stream of consciousness. The vacuity is 
like the clarity of the water. 
So far as this meditation on identifying the nature of consciousness is concerned, 
the technique that I just described; it does not require any religious presupposition or any 
particular belief in any religious ideas. It is universal; it is something that could be 
adopted by any person even a non-believer. Even in the case of a non-believer I think that 
pursuing such a meditation and through this meditation focused on the experiential 
luminous nature of the mind and developing single-pointedness of mind, may have a very 
positive beneficial effect on the individual. This is especially in terms of helping the 
person have a certain degree of the relief of stress. 
For example in modern society the pace of life is so fast that it may be quite 
difficult to control the pace of events around one. However one possibility that the 
individual has is to take control over one’s own response to that fast pace of life. By 
engaging in such meditative practices one can in some sense slow down and have a 
respite internally so that one no longer feels driven the mechanistic pace of life. Rather 
one exerts one’s own control and one chooses to slow down the pace and also to seek 
respite. It is possible through this way to have less stress and have more relaxation in 
one’s own mind. I think this is possible. This may also have beneficial effects enhancing 
one’s natural capacity of intelligence as one can develop and enhance alertness of mind, 
clarity of thought and so on and so forth. 
In the case of a religious believer, for example a Christian practitioner … 
following single-pointedness of mind by taking the figure of Jesus as the object of one’s 
meditation or the figure of Mary. Focused on that one can develop single-pointedness of 
mind. However this type of meditation is slightly different when one talks of meditation 
on love or compassion. In that context one is not talking about taking love or compassion 
as the object of meditation but rather one is talking about generating one's mind or 
consciousness in the nature of love or compassion. There is no subject-object duality. So 
in such meditations one’s aim is to try to strengthen and enhance one’s natural capacity 
for love and compassion. For example in the case of the meditation on love as well as the 
Christian meditation on love what one is trying to strengthen is one’s own natural 
capacity for love and insure that in one’s meditation on love that one’s mind is not 
distracted or lax. 
So one could say that as far as the meditative techniques for developing single-
pointedness of mind are concerned it is truly a universal and common practice. Because 
of this in ancient India all the techniques having to do with developing single-pointedness 
of mind are known as methods and meditations common to Buddhist and non-Buddhist 
practitioners. 
When one can combine one’s faculty of intelligence with the faculty of single-
pointedness, a powerful single-pointedness of mind then one’s intelligence acquires a 
very penetrating power or ability. When we speak about the need and the importance of 
enhancing and developing one’s faculty of intelligence and having that intelligence 
penetrate into the nature of reality, it is important to bear in mind for what purpose one is 
trying to enhance this capability. It is not purely out of academic interest or out of a sense 
of enjoyment; there must be a purpose. Otherwise one’s intelligence might become 
trivial.
In the Buddhist context to the question of to what purpose does one enhance one’s 
faculty of intelligence, the answer is that in order to bring about an internal 
transformation within the mind or to bring about an inner discipline one develops one’s 
faculty of intelligence. However when we speak about internal transformation and inner 
discipline, I personally feel that it is actually the states of emotion, which directly bring 
about the transformation. For example in the case of positive transformation, it is 
emotional factors like compassion, love, trust and faith, which directly and actually bring 
about the transformation. The role of intelligence is to complement or reinforce the 
emotional factors. In the case of compassion, love and so forth, they are in some sense 
drawn out and reinforced by the factor of intelligence. Through intelligence one 
understands the value and importance of compassion and through intelligence one 
understands the need for trust. One understands the grounds under which one can trust 
one’s spiritual wellbeing to someone. Through one’s intelligence one understands the 
benefits and value of compassion and the need for compassion. One sees an intimate 
interplay or dynamic between one’s faculty of intelligence on the one hand and the 
various positive emotional factors which intelligence brings forth and enhances within 
one. 
I feel that these types of emotions are in some sense rooted in reason and are valid 
experiences. So generally when we say don’t be emotional there is the idea that emotions 
are negative. But it is important to make a distinction between two types of emotion. 
There are of course negative emotions like anger, hatred, strong attachment and so on. 
These are negative and also quite different from emotions like love, compassion and so 
on in that the former emotions are instinctual, impulsive, reactive and arise without 
reason. They are destructive as well so when we talk about emotions it is important to 
make a distinction between the positive ones and the negative ones. The positive 
emotions as I explained earlier, when these are complimented by intelligence then true 
internal transformation can take place. 
Similarly when we look at our sense of self and our sense of ego, we find that we 
have naturally within us a very powerful, strong concrete sense of a self as it is the core 
of our existence. One’s whole attitude or perception of the world in some sense reflects 
this sense of self and this strong sense of self is a grasping at the inner being or the self is 
very egoistic, projecting one’s view of the world. This sort of egoistic grasping at a sense 
of self leads to all sorts of complications. It leads to strong emotions, deluded states of 
mind, frustrations, sufferings and so on. This is definitely a negative sense of self.
On the other hand we can are positive senses of a self, which in some sense arise 
as a result of constant reflection and deep thought. For example in the context of 
Buddhism, the scriptures tell us that all sentient beings possess the Buddhanature, there is 
within us by birth this germinal seed for attaining full enlightenment. Also there is the 
fact that the ultimate nature of the mind is emptiness, the fact that clarity and luminosity 
are the essence of the mind which is totally untainted. Based on these reflections and also 
the fact that oneself at this juncture as a human being has all the intellectual and mental 
capabilities of understanding what is the correct path and by pursuing it one has the 
ability to activate the Buddhanature within one so that one can fulfill one’s altruistic 
aspiration to help other sentient beings. So based on these considerations then one can 
develop a strong sense of confidence that one can achieve full enlightenment, one can do 
this for the sake of all sentient beings. This sense of self is positive and more one thinks 
about these reasons, the more one reflect on the underlying reasons the stronger this 
positive sense of self will become which is in marked contrast to the earlier sense of self 
which is deluded, unfounded and egoistic. So one can see even within the sense of self 
there are positive and negative senses of self just as with the emotions. 
To sum up Buddhism the objective or the purpose of developing the faculty of 
intelligence is to bring about an internal transformation. The ultimate purpose of bringing 
about such an internal transformation is for a Buddhist practitioner to seek enlightenment 
or to seek nirvana, freedom from cyclic existence. Further then a Buddhist practitioner 
seeks full awakening not just for one’s own sake but also for the sake of all sentient 
beings. So what we see is that at the initial stage the motivating factor that brings about 
internal transformation is really this genuine desire to seek freedom from the bondage of 
suffering and cyclic existence. At the second stage the motivating factor is the altruistic 
attitude and aspiration to seek full enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings. In 
both of these cases it is the faculty of intelligence that compliments and makes these 
motivations effective and powerful. 
It is with this background that one should then look at the fundamental Buddhist 
teachings on the Four Noble Truths as the whole framework of the Four Noble Truths is 
setting a context within which a spiritual trainee can use their natural capacities towards 
fulfilling their spiritual aspirations. This aspiration is to obtain freedom from suffering. 
In brief the essence of the teachings of the Four Noble Truths is the following. 
What we don’t desire is suffering and pain. Where does suffering come from? From its 
origin or source. So the first two truths have to do with suffering and its origin. What we 
all seek and naturally aspire to attain is happiness. 
When we talk about happiness in the context of spiritual practice like aspiring to 
attain liberation from samsara, our conception of happiness is not confined to ordinary 
pleasurable sensations alone. In fact those pleasurable sensations which in worldly terms 
are known as happiness are in the true sense of the word not experiences of joy but rather 
transient and unreliable experiences. These experiences can easily turn into suffering. So 
the true happiness one is seeking is the total freedom from suffering and even the 
potential for suffering. This freedom is in Buddhist language is described as a state 
beyond sorrow or nirvana. The methods or the process by which an individual can arrive 
at such an ultimate joy or happiness or in other words the state beyond sorrow are called 
the true paths. Freedom and its cause, which is the path, are the last two truths, the truth 
of cessation and the truth of the path. They point out the causation between what we seek 
which is happiness and the conditions or causes that lead to such a state of happiness.
In other words the essence of the teachings of the Four Noble Truths is that it 
states that all things and events including one’s own experiences of pain, pleasure, 
suffering, happiness and so forth come into being as the result of their causes and 
conditions. If one does not desire suffering then the logical thing to do is to put an end to 
the processes that lead to suffering. On the other hand if it is happiness one seeks, then 
the logical thing to do is to seek the causes and the processes that lead to attaining that 
happiness. So this is the morale one should draw from the teachings on the Four Noble 
Truths. 
In the sermon, which is the teachings on the Four Noble Truths when the Buddha 
taught the individual truths, he taught them in terms of four characteristics each. So let us 
first deal with the characteristics of the First Truth which is the Truth of Suffering. One 
can speak in terms of three characteristics or four characteristics. For convenience sake 
let us say three characteristics. Suffering is described in terms of three characteristics of 
impermanence or transitory nature, unsatisfactoriness and selflessness. 
When we reflect on the first characteristic of suffering which is impermanence or the 
transient nature of existence, of course there are two levels, the coarse and the subtle 
levels. At the gross level from one’s own experience one knows that every aspect of 
one’s life and all the conditions of one’s existence, be it one’s own belongings, shelter 
and so on which one requires for one’s survival, are transient in the sense that they are 
finite. None of them can last eternally and this is a fact we all know. However when one 
relates to them sometimes one totally forgets their transient nature, we ignore this fact.
 For example when one desperately want something, when one covets something 
one feels as if that object, whatever it may be, holds the answer to all of one’s happiness. 
One feels as if one attains this object, all of one’s life will be no problem at all and one 
would in some sense obtain eternal happiness. There is this sense and one invests so 
much into the task of obtaining it. So in some sense one does forget occasionally the 
finite nature of one’s own existence. Not only are all these conditions, be it wealth, 
friends, health or so on, finite but also the very being for whose purpose these are sought 
itself is also finite, must come to an end. So it is important to reflect upon the transient 
nature even though it is at a gross level. 
However more powerful contemplation is to reflect on the subtle nature of 
impermanence which is to appreciate that all things and events are transient in the sense 
that none of them have the ability or capacity to endure for more than an instance. Every 
phenomenon is undergoing changes in every instance and there is nothing that endures in 
the true sense of the word. This is one understanding of subtle impermanence. More 
powerful still is to appreciate the very fact that when something has come into being that 
in itself is an indication that it has the potential to cease. In some sense one could say that 
built within the cause of something’s production there is also within the object the cause 
or mechanism for its cessation or demise. One can understand that the causes and 
conditions, which gave rise to its production, are the very causes and conditions, which 
plant the seeds for its disintegration or cessation. One should not have the notion that 
things come into being first, endure and then cease to exist. This is not the case. In order 
for a thing or event to come to an end there is no need for a further third factor to 
intervene and bring about that cessation as built within the very causal mechanism which 
produces the thing itself is the cause for its eventual demise or cessation. When one 
understands impermanence in such a profound way it will have a very liberating and 
powerful effect.
When one’s understanding of the transient and impermanent nature of existence is 
brought to such a deep level then one will be able to draw out its full implications. So 
long as an event or thing has come into being as the result of causes and conditions then 
that event or thing has no power over itself. It is not self-governing. In some sense it is 
under the power of other factors, in other words it is other-powered. It has no control over 
itself and it is governed by other factors. When this understanding is then applied in the 
context of meditation on the Four Noble Truths then one realizes that the suffering which 
is the unsatisfactory nature of one’s own existence characterized by the nature of one’s 
psychophysical existence, the five aggregates, and one’s very existence is the product of 
causes and conditions. When one examines this further one begins to identify what those 
causes and conditions are and principal among them are one’s karma, the volitional 
actions which lead to one’s existence and the underlying delusions which motivated those 
karmic actions. 
The delusory states if examined further have their roots in fundamental ignorance 
or avidya. This fundamental ignorance if one examines its nature, one finds that it is a 
distorted state of mind. It is a state of mind, which misapprehends the nature of reality; it 
conceives reality in a distorted way. 
So through following this line of thought one comes to the realization that one’s 
very existence is rooted in a distorted state of mind. Because it is a product of this 
distorted state of mind, so long as it remains chained to that cause, one will have no 
control over its forces. Just as one avoids a particular food grown from a poisonous plant, 
in one’s own life since its primary cause is ignorance and karma and as long as one 
remains in such a state of existence then one’s existence can not be characterized as 
joyful or satisfactory. Through this way one can understand the full meaning of the 
second characteristic of suffering which is the unsatisfactory nature of existence. 
When we say that our very existence is in some sense the result of delusions and 
karma, it might give the impression to some people that there are these autonomous 
forces called karma and delusions somewhere out “there”. This is a totally wrong 
impression. Let me clarify this statement that our very existence is a product of karma 
and delusion. We will leave aside for the time being the question of rebirth and previous 
lives before this present one.
Even within this lifetime we can from our own experience see the connection 
between how our varying states of existence and the delusory states with the actions that 
follow them are connected. As Chandrakirti said in his Entering into the Middle Way, 
first we have the innate sense of self and then we expand it by projecting a sense of mine. 
This is followed by grasping which then leads to the rotation of the cycle of existence. 
This process goes on without any control like a machine, which once started, is propelled 
on and on. 
For example if we examine our own very existence and our own experience we 
find that underlying all of our experiences there is a strong sense of self spoken about 
earlier. There is a grasping or clinging to this core, to this inner being within ourselves 
which is felt to be the true referent of the notion of me or self. Our whole existence, our 
whole perception in some sense springs from this grasping, this clinging. From this 
strong identity of a self then we cling to our body and mind, which are in some sense the 
basis from which this sense of “I” or self arises. We begin to embrace our mind and body 
as “mine”. In order to nurture and protect what you think is your mind and your body, 
you cling onto many factors of existence like shelter, food, companions, wealth and so on 
and so forth which you see as essential needs of the self. Thus the scope of your clinging 
becomes expanded, becoming wider and wider. Along with this your emotional reactions 
increase towards events and people who you see as posing a threat to the things you 
consider yours. You feel anger and hatred towards people and things who you consider as 
threatening and attachment towards that which you perceive as helpful to your sense of 
self. 
You can see how you fluctuate in your emotional reactions to different objects 
and persons based on what you project or perceive in their relationship to you. These 
fluctuating emotions be it attachment or hatred or anger, they impulsively lead you to 
certain actions either positive or negative. These actions then lead to further 
consequences leading to a chain reaction. So you see within this single lifetime or this 
present state that there is a complex nexus formed between your sense of self, your sense 
of “mine”, your clinging to various factors of existence and how they give rise to 
emotional responses in yourself leading to actions which cause new circumstances. You 
can see the nexus that is formed.
If this is the case we can then extend this kind of understanding of the connection 
between this type of life with the experiences of previous lifetimes and so on and so 
forth. One can in some sense apply the same scheme onto other lifetimes as well. It is in 
this way that one can understand the statement that our existence is the product of karma 
and delusions. (Break)
Question: There are numerous deities to whom one prays with great fervor. What 
is the relationship between the deities and emptiness? Do they exist only in a relative 
way?
Answer: Perhaps it important here to give a context to the position of deities in 
Buddhism as a whole. If one were to look at Buddhism in its general form, the sermons 
that the Buddha gave in public, according to these teachings there is no reference to any 
meditational deities or supernatural beings other than worldly devas like Brahma, Indra 
and so on. In the Mahayana sutras there mention of Bodhisattvas on high levels of 
realization, some of who are not in a human form.
However it is only when it comes to the discussion of tantric practice is there 
reference to supernatural beings or divine beings like meditational deities. If one looks at 
the idea of a meditational deity, tantra and the underlying reasons for it, one finds that 
one of the principal features of tantra is that in tantra one is engaging in a meditative 
practice where one’s whole purpose is based on a reflection of emptiness. This is not just 
of one’s ordinary self but also of one’s own perfected state. In some sense one 
deliberately adopt and assume an identity which is one’s own perfected state. Focusing 
on this one develops an identity, a sense of perception directed towards that image while 
at the same time acknowledging its empty nature. 
So there is a discussion of this meditative method called deity yoga where there is 
a union between meditation of the visualization of the deity and being fully aware of its 
empty nature. What this implies is that there is no autonomous, independent form of a 
deity of a particular color, totally independent of the meditator. The implication is that 
there is no such external, independent deity.
However the meditator as he/she advances along the tantric path and gains 
progressively higher realizations becoming fully enlightened, in the tantric terminology 
this experience is described as the practitioner attaining the state of the particular deity. 
For example if the meditational deity is Manjusri, one can say that the individual 
meditator has now attained the state of Manjusri. 
With regard to such a deity in relation to emptiness, there is no reason why these 
deities should have a particular relationship with emptiness. As I pointed out earlier when 
one talks of emptiness, one is talking about a dual perspective of the nature of reality, the 
ultimate nature and the relative nature. So far as this dual aspect of the levels of reality is 
concerned, it is universal, common to all phenomena both things and events. As I pointed 
out earlier as far as emptiness is concerned, it embraces the entire expanse of reality 
including the Buddha and the state of nirvana. 
Question: Inaudible
Answer: It is true that when people hear and come into contact with the Buddhist 
doctrine of no-self for the first time they often react by thinking that Buddhism denies the 
self and the very existence of the individual. If this is the case then who or what 
incarnates? This question naturally seems to arise. I would like to point out that 
personally I feel that so far as the existence of the individual or self is concerned, the fact 
that there is a being, an individual who creates karma, engages in actions, who faces the 
consequences of those actions, who perceives things and events, so far as to the existence 
of that individual being, I don’t think there is any dispute between Buddhists and non-
Buddhists. It is a universally accepted by both Buddhists and non-Buddhists that such an 
individual or being exists. 
The dispute really lies on the question of in what manner does that being or self 
exist. What is the ontological status of that being? In what sense does this self or 
individual exist? As I pointed out yesterday, Buddhism as a whole rejects the idea that the 
self or individual is something independent from the mind-body aggregate, the self or 
being as being something separate from the psychophysical constituents such as the five 
aggregates. Buddhism rejects an external agent or eternal principle. All the schools of 
Buddhism deny this sort of a conception of the self or personhood. 
Within the various Buddhist schools the highest school of Buddhist philosophical 
thought even rejects the possibility of identifying the self or the individual with any of its 
designated bases, be it body, mind or perception. However this highest school of 
Buddhism also accepts the reality of the individual or being and its continuum. The 
individual is beginningless and also endless. As far as the continuation of an individual 
being is concerned, it has come from beginningless time so there is not a denial of such a 
being or individual in any of the Buddhist schools of thought.
Since the nature of existence of the individual being or person seems to be a very 
important concern in many spiritual traditions of the world including Buddhism and since 
there are many possibilities of how to conceive of this person or self, we find in Buddhist 
philosophical literature discussions of various misconceptions regarding the true 
identification of the self. For example the Madhyamika literature lists four principal types 
of misconceptions regarding the identification of the self. The first is to conceive the self 
as something that is eternal, permanent, unitary and self-governing. This is at quite a 
gross level of mind. Another misconception identified by Buddhism is one which 
conceives the self in terms of an agent that is independent from the mind/body composite, 
something in the mode of a servant and its master. It conceives the relationship between 
the self and the mind/body aggregate as like the relationship between a master and his 
servants. 
A third misconception is where the self is conceived as part of the designated 
basis, self as ultimately identifiable either as the collective of the five aggregates or one 
of the individual five aggregates. The fourth which is the subtlest form of misconception 
is to conceive the self as having some sort of intrinsic identity that is not derived from the 
aggregates but rather has an intrinsic reality. Out of these four misconceptions, the first 
two are considered to be more gross conceptions of the self and these are more 
intellectually based misconceptions of the identity of the self. These two result from 
philosophical speculation and therefore are not found in persons who are not 
philosophically trained or in animals. They are not instinctual or innate feelings. However 
the last two forms of the misconception of the self are said to be innate and deeply 
ingrained in all of us. 
Question: Over the next few days we will be required to have some imagination. 
As I am someone not familiar with imagination but clearly familiar with illusion, please 
explain the difference?
Answer: According to one scripture it is said that apart from highly realized and 
spiritually evolved beings on the levels of Arya bhumis in meditative equipoise totally 
focused on emptiness, all other beings are always at some level of illusion. The reason for 
this is because ordinary sentient beings always have a perception of some form of 
intrinsic reality, some form of objective experience. 
So although as I pointed out earlier, in ordinary states of consciousness one is 
always at some level of illusion, however within the illusions there are differences. Some 
forms of illusion although they are illusions from the perspective of emptiness, however 
they can have beneficial effects. They can be beneficial in bringing about certain desired 
state of mind within one. Therefore these types of illusions are deliberately cultivated and 
enhanced in one so that one can achieve the desired beneficial effects. Some types of 
illusions need to be eliminated from one’s mind and so on. 
To go back to the questioner’s own concerns, over the next few days during the 
initiation one will be performing visualizations but on the part of the initiates what is of 
most importance is to continually keep in mind one’s understanding of emptiness. One 
combines this understanding of emptiness with a strong feeling of altruism, a strong 
feeling of bodhicitta. Maintaining and cultivating these two factors is of most importance 
in an initiation.
Question: Does anything permanent exist?
Answer: There is a slight semantic problem here. When we use the terms 
permanence and impermanence in the Buddhist context, the way it is understood in 
Buddhist philosophy, they are defined in terms of whether or not the phenomenon in 
question is a product of causes and conditions; whether it is a composite or a non-
composite. All things and events which are composite, i.e. products of causes and 
conditions, are said to be impermanent, transient and changeable. All phenomena, which 
are not subject to causes and conditions, are said to be permanent. So this is the basic 
definition.
So according to this definition let’s take the example of a vase or pot. The pot is 
impermanent but the emptiness of the pot or vase would be permanent. But in some sense 
one can say that the emptiness of the pot is not permanent because if the object (the pot) 
on which the emptiness is qualified no longer exists then its emptiness no longer exists 
either. The standard example found in Buddhist philosophical literature is that of space. 
Buddhists define space as the mere absence of obstructive quality. One can say that space 
is permanent and eternal. Similarly one aspect of a human being is that it is not a horse. 
This “non-horseness” quality is said to be permanent but it is a quality of a human being 
by the fact that a human being is not a horse. 
Question: You spoke of human intelligence as in some sense as the foundation of 
civilization. This would seem to imply that you believe that the mind has played a more 
important role in human evolution than the heart. Is it therefore that the reasoning faculty 
is to be valued over and above that of the creative, intuitive faculties?
Answer: To respond to the last part of the question first, it is difficult for me to 
say that there is a difference between the English definition of the term intelligence and 
the Tibetan equivalent sherab. However my premise for stating that it is the faculty of 
human intelligence which is the foundation of human civilization is the following. If we 
compare humans to other species, we know that there are other life forms on the planet 
who have had millions of years of evolution. So far as the fundamental instinct for 
seeking happiness and avoiding suffering is concerned, I would say that humans as well 
as other species are equal in having this instinctual sort of drive or aspiration. 
Similarly based on this drive both humans and other species seek ways and means 
to fulfill that aspiration, to avoid suffering and to bring about happiness. However we 
wouldn’t call the simple processes of survival and reproduction civilization. We would 
call the evolutionary process of human progress civilization because there we see the 
very direct role played by the factor of intelligence, which is not found in the historical 
evolution of other species. This is the main premise on which I base my idea.
For example one principal difference between humans and other species is that 
some marine biologists believe that whales may have a fundamental language; they can 
communicate with each other. But I would conjecture that in terms of the range and scope 
of such a language there wouldn’t be differences in the same species of whales from 
different parts of the world divided by geography. 
This is not the case with human beings. Human beings of course have the natural 
capacity for communication and develop language. But human beings by using their 
intelligence have developed a multiplicity and diversity of languages. Though all 
individuals have this capacity biologically speaking different environments and 
geographical locations has given rise to the diversity and multiplicity of languages which 
appear in some cases to be independent of each other. 
Question: If it is necessary for a person practicing meditation to have a teacher to 
orient and guide them, how does one know that one has met with an appropriate master?
Answer: First of all we be clear on what is meant by meditation practice. In some 
forms of meditation practice such as the one I described earlier, developing the single-
pointedness of mind focused on consciousness, in such a practice I feel it is possible that 
one can pursue the practice by reading on one’s own without seeking guidance from a 
guru. It is possible to make progress simply by reading, developing one’s understanding 
and practicing. 
However if one wishes to engage in more advanced religious practices then of 
course it is very beneficial to have a guru. Now as to the question of how does one know 
that one has met the right guru or is qualified, one reads in the biographies of the great 
masters of the past that when a spiritual trainee has met the guru with a karmic 
connection with the trainee, there are instances of very moving experiences. They feel 
immediately drawn to the guru, deeply inspired. They feel in some sense a deep spiritual 
experience with them. So the indications could be finding someone most inspiring, 
someone whose teachings affects you most and so on. These may be indications.
However as to the point of whether or not the person is qualified to be a guru, first 
of all it is important on one’s part to be familiar with what are the standard requirements 
on the part of a teacher. What are the basic, minimum qualifications that someone must 
possess in order to be a spiritual teacher? These one can read from texts. Once one is 
familiar with these qualifications then use that standard to judge the person to whom one 
is considering as taking up as one’s teacher. Not only test this once or twice but for a long 
time examine the person and his or her behavior. It is through such examination that one 
can make a decision whether that person is qualified or not.
Question: For what karmic reasons was it decided to hold the Kalachakra 
initiation in Barcelona?
Answer: Unfortunately as far as the answer to that question is concerned, until 
one becomes fully enlightened there is no hope to understand. Of course one can guess, 
one can speculate, one can rationalize but so far as to the detailed understanding of the 
various connections of karma that led to the holding of Kalachakra here is concerned. 
Until one has eliminated all obstructions to knowledge in one’s mind, one can not 
possible realize it. It is for this reason that in the Buddhist scriptures it is said that so far 
as understanding the minute details of the workings of karma is concerned, it can only be 
known by a fully enlightened mind. 
Question: What is the position of women in Buddhism?
Answer: When we think about the position of Buddhism about the question of 
gender as a whole it is important to bear in mind that there are various perspectives 
within Buddhism itself. One perspective is that of monasticism and as far as this 
perspective is concerned although in terms of opportunity, there is equal opportunity for 
men and women for full ordination. However in terms of seniority a fully ordained monk 
is considered in some sense higher than the fully ordained nun. So from a feminist point 
of view of course this reflects a bias based on gender. Of course there have been 
complaints about this but as I pointed out earlier, as far as the opportunities are 
concerned, there is an equal opportunity.
Being mindful of this bias and one could say male domination in the practice of 
monasticism of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition; I have wanted to convene a meeting 
attended by various members of the Sangha. I want the meeting held soon having 
representation from countries like Thailand, Sri Lanka and so on. Unfortunately although 
we have been able to collect papers for various would-be participants we have not been 
able to hold the meeting and look at these issues. Of course there is quite diversity, some 
are orthodox and some are quite progressive and liberal. However I’m very committed to 
the idea of a meeting so that some of these customs which reflect gender distinctions can 
be corrected. One of my reasons for advocating and pointing out the need to reassess 
some of the aspects of monasticism and the monastic tradition is based on the 
fundamental standpoint of Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. Since Tibetan Buddhism 
perceives itself as a complete form of Buddhism embracing not just monastic practice but 
also general Mahayana Buddhism and esoteric, tantric Buddhism, the standpoint is that 
from within the precepts of Vinaya, Mahayana and Vajrayana if there are any conflicts or 
contradictions, then it is the higher precepts such as the Mahayana and Vajrayana which 
need to take precedence and modification is to be made in the lower precepts. This is my 
premise from which I am arguing that there is a need to modify some aspects of the 
monastic tradition. 
In the general Mahayana Buddhism, from this perspective there are certain 
aspects of thought where there appears to be a gender distinction. For example in 
Mahayana Buddhism in the sutra tradition the bodhisattva who is at the point of 
becoming fully enlightened, a characteristic used to describe them is that they are male. 
Similarly in the first three levels of tantra again in the practices and beliefs are certain 
instances of gender distinction. 
However from the standpoint of Highest Yoga tantra which is considered by the Tibetan 
Buddhist tradition as being the apex of Buddhist practice and tradition, there is no bias 
what so ever. Not only both male and female can become fully enlightened in both forms 
of gender, but also during initiation or in sadhanas there is the need for representation 
from both male and female deities. Similarly in Highest Yoga tantra there seems to be a 
greater emphasis placed on respecting women. For example in the tantric vows, one of 
the root precepts is not to disparage women. The disparagement of women is considered 
to be an infraction of one of the root precepts. So there is a greater sensitivity to the 
position of women. Also according to Highest Yoga tantra both in male and female forms 
can practitioners attain full enlightenment within their current lifetime. 
Of course if one thinks about it, definitely it makes sense because in Highest 
Yoga tantra the main emphasis is placed on understanding the subtle nature of mind and 
body. So far as the gender distinction is concerned the distinctions between men and 
women are only physiologic and are relevant only at the gross bodily level. Whereas in 
the Highest Yoga tantra where one is involved in practices aimed at and developing 
perfecting the subtle level of physiologic energies, the channels and so on. At this level 
gender distinctions make no sense, as it has no relevance what so ever. Therefore Highest 
Yoga tantra makes no distinction between male and female practitioners as far as the 
potential for attaining full enlightenment in this lifetime is concerned. 
Question: Because the Buddhist deities are so strange; many colors, arms, several 
heads, how can an intelligent person regard these as anything other than superstitions?
Answer: You are quite right. Unless one is fully aware of the underlying 
philosophy of tantra and also the whole model process of procedure on the tantric path, 
the way in which various techniques are used to enhance the psychological and 
physiological aspects of the practitioner, these deities seem rather weird. In some sense 
they can be seen as mere products of imagination or superstition.
However when a practitioner who is mindful of the deeper significance and 
symbolism of the various aspects of these deities as well as their mandalas and so on, 
engages in the practice of tantra related to a particular meditational deity, what seems to 
be true is that within that practitioner’s mind a positive transformation occurs. The 
practitioner is able to enhance their compassion, tolerance, awareness, insight and so on. 
So this indicates that when these practices are engaged in with full knowledge of the 
symbolism and its significance, it does have certain power. 
Question: You have said in a book that mental suffering is worse than physical 
suffering. What do you think of Western psychiatric methods? How can one help others 
with great mental suffering? What can these people do for themselves to get out of their 
difficulties?
Answer: Generally speaking various forms of therapeutic practices which have 
evolved in the West over the last several decades in psychiatry, as these practices have 
naturally evolved as a response to coping and dealing with emotional problems, in 
general they are very beneficial. I must admit that I have not studied any of them so I can 
not claim any deep familiarity with any of these practices. I don’t have much to say either 
than making this general point. 
As to the last two questions, when one deals with how best to help people with 
psychological and emotional problems, what is most important is to be very sensitive to 
the context and how each individual case differs from another. One has to take into 
account the person’s background particularly the person’s spiritual inclinations, whether 
or not the person is a believer, whether or not rebirth figures into their world view and so 
on. It is important to be sensitive to that aspect of the individual so that one is in a better 
position to help them overcome their problems. 
First of all when practicing Buddhists think about happiness and the wellbeing of 
sentient beings, one attempts to embrace within one’s aspiration for happiness all sentient 
beings. There is an all-inclusiveness, all-encompassing aspect to one’s aspiration to seek 
happiness. Secondly there is the idea that one has had beginningless lifetimes and this 
current life is not the only one. So when one has such a world-view where the 
interconnectedness of all sentient beings is accepted, where one’s aspiration for the 
happiness of others is part of one’s outlook, where one’s outlook is not confined to this as 
the only life then when one has such a perspective a particular suffering which may be 
very real, intense or acute however within such a perspective, this suffering is seen as 
part of a wider context. One does not see it in isolation so that one does not feel to be in a 
fix where one feels that this is everything; everything is at stake as far as one’s own well-
being is concerned, a make or break situation. This sort of anxiety, this acute sense of 
suffering is lessened, the sting is taken out. 
Similarly with the idea of karma, the idea of rebirth, recognizing the destructive 
nature of karma and the delusions and recognizing the basic unsatisfactory nature of 
existence, all of these considerations play an important role in assisting the practitioner to 
cope with adverse circumstances and situations. As explained earlier as a result of one’s 
deepened understanding of the transient nature of existence, the impermanent nature of 
existence, one realizes that one's very existence is in some sense the product of karma 
and delusions. Delusions have their root in fundamental ignorance, avidya. This 
fundamental ignorance is a state of misconception, a totally distorted state of mind where 
one misapprehends the nature of reality. One apprehends things and events as well as 
one’s own self as possessing a form of intrinsic existence or intrinsic identity. One then 
clings to one’s self-existence or own-being. 
Once one realizes this then one understands that it is only by seeing through the 
illusion of this ignorant mind, in other words it is only by developing an insight into the 
nature of the emptiness of self-existence that one learns that true liberation can take 
place. In some sense the process of unwinding begins with insight into the realization of 
selflessness. It is because of this Buddha taught the third characteristic of suffering which 
is selflessness, no self or no-soul. When one understands the inter-relationship between 
impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and selflessness in such a manner that what one 
realizes is that the first two characteristics, impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, give 
rise to an insight into the suffering nature of one’s existence. One’s very existence is 
ultimately unsatisfactory; it is ultimately deluded. By then reflecting on the third 
characteristic, the characteristic of selflessness, one receives a vision of a new alternative, 
an alternative way of existing. Therefore this gives rise to hope that there is a way out. 
Otherwise if one’s understanding of existence is confined only to the first two 
characteristics, impermanence and unsatisfactoriness then it could lead to a loss of hope, 
a sense of discouragement. A sense of hopelessness, thinking that one’s existence is only 
suffering but the characteristic of selflessness shows one the way out. In some sense it 
points one towards the way of freedom. So it is through this way that one begins to 
develop a genuine sense and genuine aspiration to seek freedom from suffering.
When the entire teachings of the Four Noble Truths are summarized one can 
understand it within the formula of the Four Seals of Buddhism. First is that all composite 
phenomena are impermanent or transient. This points towards the first characteristic of 
suffering which is that all things and events are transient, impermanent or subject to 
change. The second principle or seal states that all contaminated phenomena are 
unsatisfactory and this points towards the second characteristic, which is the underlying 
unsatisfactory nature of existence, itself. As I pointed out earlier this insight is gained on 
the basis of understanding that one’s very existence is in some sense a product of karma 
and delusion. The third seal states that all phenomena are empty and absent of all self-
existence. This points towards the hope that I spoke of earlier, pointing a way out, 
showing one an alternative way of existence by pointing out the doctrine of selflessness. 
It is through the realization of selflessness, through generating the insight into the selfless 
nature of things and events that one can ultimately attain a state of freedom, a state 
beyond sorrow or nirvana. Therefore the fourth seal is that nirvana or cessation is true 
peace.
In brief all that I have said over the last two days points towards this simple 
statement that for a practicing Buddhist, what is the ultimate aspiration? The ultimate 
aspiration is the attainment of nirvana, freedom from suffering, the state beyond sorrow. 
It is towards this aim that a practicing Buddhist would employ the faculty of intelligence 
and generate insight and understanding of the Four Noble Truths, the inter-relationship 
between the Four Noble Truths and their underlying causal principle. To reach that 
understanding one needs to understand the Two Truths. So it is through the understanding 
and developing insight into the Four Noble Truths and the Two Truths while at the same 
time bringing about internal transformation that the practicing Buddhist seeks to fulfill 
the ultimate aspiration which is to attain nirvana or the freedom from suffering. 
As I pointed out earlier the ultimate aspiration or aim is to attain nirvana, the 
freedom from suffering. However when we talk about the freedom from suffering and the 
freedom from cyclic existence, we are talking of a manner of existence which is cyclical, 
situated within a cycle. The very concept of a wheel or cycle entails beginninglessness. 
One can not state that any certain point on the circle is where the circle begins. The idea 
of a circle or wheel is that there is an infinity, one can keep going around and around. In 
the idea of the samsaric cycle, the cycle of existence as I pointed out earlier, even when 
one is experiencing the consequences of an action, which one has done in the past, one 
has many instances of a sense of I or of ego arising. This gives rise to emotional 
responses which then lead to positive or negative actions. This leads to further 
consequences so there is an interlinked chain in the cycle so that even when one cycle is 
not completed, the seeds for other cycles are being planted. So there is a vicious kind of a 
cycle going around and around all of the time. 
In an ultimate sense there is no real beginning because although ignorance is seen 
as the first of the twelve links of dependent arising, ignorance itself comes from another 
factor and so on and so forth. However when one tries to understand the very process or 
mechanism which leads any individual to take rebirth in samsara and which allows the 
individual to put an end to the whole cycle, one has to try and understand in a 
manageable way. Therefore one takes a starting point and the fundamental ignorance is 
seen as the starting point. Just as ignorance leads to volitional action and then on to 
consciousness and so on and so forth, similarly when the practitioner embarks on the 
path, the task of putting an end to the cycle, it is only be ending or cutting the earlier link 
that the connections with the subsequent link is severed. By putting an end to ignorance, 
one puts an end to volitional action. By putting an end to volitional action, one puts an 
end to consciousness and so on and so forth. 
Within the idea of the wheel of life one can understand both the process through 
which one exists in samsara and also one can appreciate the possibility of a reversal of 
the cycle. One thus puts an end to the rotation of the cycle. Let’s meditate for four to five 
minutes reflecting upon what we have discussed about the Four Noble Truths. 
Day Three
During the last two days we have been talking a lot about the importance of 
bringing about within oneself internal transformation, transformation within the mind and 
heart through practice and through meditation. To sum up, in Buddhism it is stated that 
all of one’s experiences, be they pleasurable or painful, if examined for the processes 
leading to the experience of suffering and pain, one finds at the root of all those 
experiences is an undisciplined, untamed and disturbed state of mind. Similarly if one 
examines the process and causes and conditions that lead to experiences of happiness and 
joy one finds at the root of those lays a disciplined, tamed and also peaceful state of 
mind. Ultimately one’s experiences of joy, pain, suffering and happiness are results from 
either a disciplined or undisciplined states of mind. This is the crucial point that 
Buddhism makes.
Similarly if one examines the nature of all things and events, all things and events 
that either have direct or indirect relevance to one’s experience of pain or pleasure, such 
as one’s body, environment, physical universe, in other words all things and events, are 
ultimately rooted in a state of mind. For example as I pointed out yesterday, one’s 
experiences of suffering result from negative and delusory states of mind which in turn 
are motivated by volition. Volition in turn leads to actions and so on which are 
themselves rooted in a distorted state of mind. So one finds that ultimately all things and 
events, the whole expanse of reality that has any relation to one as an individual, one’s 
experiences of joy, happiness, suffering or pain are all in some sense products of mind, 
different states of mind. These do not come about without any cause and they do not 
come about by just any cause rather there is an intimate connection between causes and 
their fruits. So one finds that ultimately all experiences are products of different states of 
mind or consciousness.
To continue, what we find is that ultimately one’s experiences of joy or happiness 
are the result of a disciplined state of mind, peaceful or positive states of mind whereas 
one’s experiences of pain and suffering, the undesirable consequences are fruits of 
undisciplined, negative states of mind. One finds that in one’s everyday experience the 
mind plays a very important role in governing one’s very existence. Not only this but also 
when one engages oneself on a spiritual path trying to bring about the internal 
transformation that I spoke about earlier, even there one finds again that one’s mind plays 
an important role. It is only through using factors of the mind, different faculties of mind 
and different ways of thinking, attitudes and thought processes that one can bring about 
this internal transformation. One can transform from negative states of mind to positive 
and peaceful states of mind. So that even when it comes to the spiritual path and spiritual 
practice, mind still plays a dominant role. 
Similarly from the Buddhist point of view at the resultant stage when the 
individual eventually attains full awakening, again here mind plays a tremendously 
important role. Buddhism defines or characterizes full enlightenment in terms of a level 
of mind or the perfection of the mind. When we speak about the perfected states of 
Buddha’s body, speech and mind we are talking about the qualities of Buddha’s 
enlightened mind. What becomes crucial in understanding Buddhism be it the nature of 
one’s experience, the human condition or the nature of the path leading to cessation or 
characterizations of the fully enlightened state, what is clear is the understanding of the 
nature of mind. 
The question arises when discussing the nature of the self and the importance of 
the mind, what is meant by the mind? How is it defined? Here again it is important to 
bear in mind that when Buddhism talks about mind or sems, one needs to take into 
account that one is talking about a complex concept. There are different levels of 
consciousness or mind, many different levels of subtleties. At the gross levels one could 
say that mind or consciousness has a very intimate relationship with one’s physical body. 
Just as the scientists point out there is a close correlation between one’s brain, the 
chemical processes in one’s brain, one’s thought processes and levels of consciousness at 
the gross level. Also one can see through the evolutionary theory how the development of 
the brain goes hand in hand with the development of consciousness. There is no 
contradiction in accepting these facts. Also there seems to be a correlation between the 
size of the brain of a particular species and the level of intelligence in that particular 
species. This is a fact and there is no contradiction in accepting this fact. What seems to 
be true is that at the gross levels there seems to be a close correlation between levels of 
consciousness and the physiological/biological makeup of the body.
As I pointed out earlier, at the gross level there is a close correlation between 
consciousness and the brain or the body. In order to have a conscious event, for example 
a visual perception, it requires the collection of certain conditions like the visual object, 
the eye-organ, the sensory faculties and so on. Through the interaction or aggregation of 
these conditions it gives rise to an instance of sensory experience. This is something that 
we can know through our experience. 
However the question arises, what is it that makes this particular experience, this 
particular cognitive event to posses the nature of experience, that experiential quality or 
the clarity of the subjective experience? Of course Buddhists would explain that in terms 
of its preceding cause. When one speaks of causation here one needs to bear in mind two 
types of causes. One is known as the substantial cause and this is the particular cause that 
turned into the effect. There are also cooperative causes, which act as conditions or 
circumstances that give rise to that particular effect.
When we talk about the luminous, mere experiential quality of the consciousness, 
we need to trace its cause to its preceding moment. Otherwise if we were to accept that 
pure matter, purely a physical entity could give rise to an entity of consciousness which is 
so distinct in its nature from matter then that would lead to all sorts of inconsistencies and 
intolerant positions.
The complex question really is how do we understand the mind-body 
relationship? Of course it is an area where there are still many unresolved questions even 
from the scientific point of view. Much research is being done into the study of neurons 
and how they give rise to states of consciousness and so on. One could say that this 
research is in some sense trying to understand the relationship between consciousness and 
matter or consciousness and the body. I feel that in this area there are still many open 
questions and I feel that further research can be done. 
However one thing we need to bear in mind is that the scientific methodology that 
is used currently at this stage of understanding and the conception of scientific 
methodology is very much based on a model of investigation which is entirely based on 
the idea of physical reality. It is very much characterized by methodological ideas like 
quantification, measurement and these sorts of parameters. Therefore I wonder whether 
this current scientific methodology can fully embrace studies on the nature of 
consciousness. For example some scientists when they are asked the question, is it 
possible that conceptual thought occurs in the brain and the occurrence of that particular 
thought can then cause a chemical change within the brain which in turn leads to further 
thought processes? Strangely enough I found that some scientists hold a dogma that since 
only through the process of chemical reactions that take place in the brain that thought 
and consciousness occurs, they see no possibility of conceiving the reverse process. To 
give such an answer is not true to the spirit of scientific understanding. To be scientific is 
to be open-minded and one should leave possibilities open.
Part of the limitation I feel comes from the conception of scientific methodology, 
which is very much dominated by the idea of reality being exhausted by physical reality. 
This then leads to many complications. However when we employ such investigative 
methodology using quantification, measurements, calculations and so on, and through 
such methods when we do not find anything, this in itself can not entail that the object of 
analysis when searched for in such a manner that the object of analysis does not exist. 
For example let’s take the question of personal identity or any other abstract 
entity like in the case of Buddhism selflessness. Also let us use the example of the 
Buddhist concept of impermanence or the transient nature. There is no way that by using 
the current scientific methodology that we can measure or quantify these concepts. There 
is no way to find personal identity nor can we find impermanence nor selflessness. 
However this is not to say that these things do not exist. Of course they exist though we 
can not find impermanence per se or selflessness itself. Because they exist we reflect on 
them, we meditate on them and when we enhance our understanding of them we can feel 
within ourselves a transformation, the effect they bring in us. So these are indications that 
they do exist, not necessarily in physical terms. I feel it is important here to make a 
distinction between what is not found and what is found not to exist. This is a very 
important distinction we must make. Simply because something is not found doesn’t 
necessarily entail that thing does not exist. 
According to Buddhism as you may have surmised by now there is the notion that 
mind and body although they are dependent on each other very intimately, however in 
terms of their continuum they posses separate continuums. These are traceable through 
their substantial causes. For example if one traces the continuum of one’s physical body, 
one’s present body at this time in history, it came from the previous evolution of bodily 
forms. If one were to trace the continuum of this body, it came from a fertilized egg. 
Tracing it further back, examining its physical continuum, one can arrive at say the 
beginning of the universe. According to Buddhism at the point of the beginning of this 
particular universe, there was a form of matter, which was condensed from all the matter 
in this universe, and is called space particles. There is a notion that all the matter and 
material elements are condensed into these previous space particles. So one can trace the 
continuum of one’s physical body back to this point of space particles. 
Similarly if one traces back the continuum of one’s consciousness, it is quite 
untenable if one were to maintain that the same physical continuum of one’s body is the 
same as the continuum of one’s mind. They clearly have two distinct natures. As I 
pointed out earlier much of one’s gross conscious events, cognitive processes are in some 
sense products of one’s body, like sensory experiences. These are dependent on the sense 
organs and because of this we call our consciousness a human consciousness, a human 
mind. When the human body ceases to exist that gross human mind or consciousness will 
also cease to exist. But still this does not really account for the underlying factor, which 
enables one to have experiential events. A pure material explanation can not give a full 
account for the presence for the unique factor that allows one to have experiential and 
cognitive events. This factor according to Buddhism can again be traced in terms of its 
origin. Just as the physical continuum can be traced back through beginningless time, 
similarly the continuum of mind at the subtle level can be traced back through previous 
lives. 
It is along these lines that Buddhism accounts for its belief in rebirth as if the 
previous mind must come from a previous continuum, that earlier continuum must also 
be a state of mind or subtle consciousness. Through this way Buddhism accounts for its 
belief in rebirth. This is how one traces the continuum of an individual’s mind and body. 
Again one can not explain the continuum of the consciousness purely in terms of the 
continuum of the body, which in the case of one’s current body, comes from the fertilized 
egg from the parents. 
If one were to try to extend this to the understanding of the cosmos as a whole 
then one can see that in terms of its material constituents, a particular universe such as 
this one starts from space particles. The question arises what is it that makes the same 
continuum, the same matter like particles, evolve into inanimate objects like planets 
whereas other matter evolves into animate bodies, life forms? What is the factor, which 
makes the difference? Here I think it is important to understand from the Buddhist point 
of view the role karma plays in this process. As I pointed out earlier when one talks about 
the continuum of causation, the present continuum of a material object is a consequence 
of its previous moment. In terms of that continuum I do not feel it is the result of karma; 
it is just following a process of natural law. 
However the role karma plays is seen more in terms of a factor of circumstantial 
conditioning. Through karma for example in the case of this universe, although the 
material continuum comes from the space particles, it is the collective karma of the 
sentient beings who later inhabit the particular universe that allow the continuum of the 
matter to evolve gradually into the macroscopic world. The planet for instance will then 
have a direct effect on the sentient beings living there and their experiences of pain and 
pleasure. So one could say that at the point when the physical evolutionary process 
begins to become relevant to the experience of living beings, at that point one can say 
karma has entered into the picture.
Of course this leads to another question which is how can karma that is a non-
substantial, immaterial phenomenon have any effect to influence a material, physical 
process? This is a valid question. Here I think that perhaps some explanation could be 
found in the tantras, especially in the Highest Yoga Tantra. There it is mentioned about 
subtle matter in the form of energies and there is a particular concept of energy called the 
Energy of the Five Radiances. These in some sense can be described as the subtlest form 
of the five elements, space wind, fire, water and earth. This subtlest form of the elements 
I feel give rise to the grosser forms of the bodily elements and these inner bodily 
elements then have some relationship with the external elements. It is through this subtle 
connection one could explain the relationship between karma and the processes of the 
material world. 
A further question can be raised as to how the space particles and the continuums 
of consciousness come into being? Such an investigation would then ultimately lead to a 
point where one is forced to either believe in a beginning point where one would need to 
accept a creation at some point or one pursues a line of argument further. As to the first 
alternative of accounting for this by invoking a notion of creation, from the Buddhist 
point of view there would arise many complications. The first question to be raised would 
be what exactly is the nature of the creator? Is the creator in turn dependent upon a cause 
or is it a self-caused entity? Is it a necessary being and if so how can a causeless, self-
arisen entity have the power or potential to produce something that is in essence different 
from itself? From the Buddhist point of view this leads to all sorts of untenable 
complications and leaves many questions unanswered and unresolved. 
From the Buddhist point of view the second alternative which is to seek an 
explanation more in terms of the same causal principle is adopted. So ultimately Buddhist 
accept the possibility of infinite causes [infinite regress] and conditions, infinity in the 
continuum of cause. Of course to some people this may not be satisfactory and further 
questions could be raised such as how did the infinity come into being? How is an 
infinity of causes possible? This may seem very discomforting and unsatisfying to some 
people. To them the Buddhist would respond that it is the way it is; there is no further 
logical explanation. 
To sum up Buddhist’s understanding of the nature of human experience would be 
that many of our problems, our experiences of pain, suffering, frustrations, or anxieties 
come about as the result of certain attitudes or states of mind, an undisciplined state of 
mind. Of course there are other factors like power predispositions coming from past lives 
and also karmic influences being exert from past lives. So when we talk about trying to 
understand the nature of experience now, for a Buddhist all of these factors have to be 
taken into account. 
Within such a world-view then makes it easier to accept certain phenomena, 
which one faces. Even today there are cases of children who can very vividly and very 
clearly recollect events from a previous life. So for such a world-view there is the concept 
of rebirth and the beginningless continuum of consciousness and these phenomena 
become acceptable and understandable. Otherwise one is forced either to say that these 
are a total mystery, there is no explanation at all or one is forced to conclude that even in 
the case of someone who recollects very clearly and accurately, one is forced to say that 
it is just an illusion. 
To sum up what we find is that so far as the continuum of consciousness is 
concerned, it is ever-present. Similarly so far as the continuum of the individual or being 
that is designated upon such a continuum is concerned, it is ever-present. The question 
can then be raised that if that is the case how does one account for phenomena like death, 
birth and life? Buddhism would explain that although as far as the continuum of 
consciousness is concerned, it is always there but death, birth and life are in some sense 
different stages of the same continuum at a particular point in the continuum of the cyclic 
nature. One understands death and birth in terms of different stages in the process. 
This is similar to the processes of sleep, the waking state and also the dream state. 
According to Buddhism these different stages in one’s daily life are seen as different 
states of consciousness where consciousness abides in different levels. One could also 
say different levels of energy. For example sleep is where the consciousness and energy 
is at a deeper level. If one includes the dream state then the level of consciousness and 
energy becomes slightly grosser, this is the dream level. The consciousness’ grossest 
form is when it is awake and because of this there is a comparison made between death 
and sleep, dream and the intermediate state and the waken state with birth. 
On this view we can see that at the point of death is characterized by the point 
where the old body, the gross body is severed from the mind. However the continuum of 
the mind/body at its subtlest level will always remain. So there is not a total separation 
between the mind and body. It is only on the gross level; the gross body, which is in some 
sense, is discarded at the point of death. At the point of birth a new gross body is 
assumed. Similarly when one looks at the nature of sleep and the waking period, one can 
also see that there is a form of renewal of one’s body. For example if one is totally 
exhausted, during sleep and when one awakens one feels as if the body has been 
refreshed and renewed. If one wishes to be very exact one could say that there has been a 
renewal process during sleep. So there is a similar process going on even during the sleep 
and the waking period.
It is because of these similarities and correspondences between death, the 
intermediate state and rebirth on the one hand and sleep, dream and the waking period on 
the other that in the Guhyasamaja Tantra one finds many practices which are aimed at 
drawing out the parallels and comparisons between these stages known as the Practices of 
Mixing. It is with the knowledge of these in the background that Buddhism talks about 
many lifetimes and also talks about time scales in terms of innumerable eons. So when 
one understands the Buddhist position in these terms then when one recites prayers like 
we will be reciting shortly from the Bodhicaryavatara as “As long as space remains, As 
long as sentient beings exist” then one can really feel something. When one reflects on 
the infinity of one’s own continuum and beginninglessness, does it make one feel 
exhausted? Or discouraged? 
Although the concept of infinity and the concept of beginninglessness may seem 
quite daunting and may seem difficult to comprehend, one point to remember however is 
the reality of one’s present existence. Also as long as one exists it is important to make 
one’s existence meaningful, making it meaningful in terms of making oneself be of 
service to others. Now that one exists and so far as one’s existence is concerned one 
cannot question that along with survival so one might as well make it a meaningful 
existence by being of service to others. The fact that one exists is a natural phenomenon, 
one can not really fully account for it, why one is here but from the Buddhist point of 
view the fact of an infinity of lifetimes since beginningless time and in some sense an 
endlessness, this is also just part of nature. One might as well make these infinite 
lifetimes meaningful and useful. When one reflects along these lines then Santideva’s 
verses where he states, “So long as space endures, So long as sentient beings exist, May I 
too remain, To dispel the miseries of the world” then these lines will really be brought 
home. These lines will then begin to make real sense to you. 
So when we talk about being of service to others, we are not talking about it 
purely in a moral sense where one’s altruism is confined to mere wishful thinking. We 
are talking about something deeper than that especially in the context of Buddhist 
practice. Compassion and altruism have to be based on a clear realization and deep 
insight into one’s own unsatisfactory nature of existence, one’s own suffering. As I 
quoted yesterday from Candrakirti’s Entering into the Middle Way where he states that 
one first out of clinging at a solid ego identity, one then clings to one’s body and 
possessions as mine. Through this clinging to I and mine then one generates within one 
certain emotional responses which then lead to volitional actions which then perpetuate 
the whole cycle of samsaric existence.
When one thinks along these lines one sees that from one’s own experience one 
knows that although one does not wish to be angry or negative but one often finds oneself 
being overcome by strong negative impulses. This indicates that in some sense one has 
little control over one’s responses and one’s psyche. Similarly one doesn’t wish to act in 
a negative way, one does not wish to create bad karma but we often find ourselves acting 
against one’s fundamental wish. Again this shows one has little control over one’s 
actions. So this shows that one is in some sense being governed by the dual forces of 
karma and delusions. Through the manipulation of these two forces one is driven into the 
vicious cycle of habitual patterns of action and existence. 
Once one realizes this then one develops a strong sense of repulsion towards these 
delusions and negative karma. One also develops a genuine sense or aspiration to seek 
freedom from this type of existence. One aspires to get out of this vicious cycle and this 
is known as true renunciation in the Buddhist context. Once one has true renunciation and 
deep insight into suffering and the nature of unsatisfactory existence then when one 
extends this insight to other, fellow sentient beings. One then realizes that just as oneself 
is being propelled against one’s wishes by the forces of karma and delusions so are all 
other sentient beings who equally do not wish for unhappiness or suffering but are again 
being driven by the dual forces of karma and delusions against their wishes. 
When one reflects on such facts then of course one’s sense of abhorrence towards 
karma, delusions and the unsatisfactory nature of existence becomes so strong that it 
forces and motivates one to be concerned with the well being of other sentient beings. 
They, just like oneself, wish to be happy and overcome suffering. Thinking along these 
lines and being convinced by the power of compassion if one can dedicate one’s whole 
life for the service of others in bringing about the welfare of other sentient beings using 
all the resources available to one, bodily, mentally and verbally, then the sense of 
fulfillment and the joy one would achieve from leading such a dedicated way of life 
would be tremendous. The underlying sense of joy and fulfillment through leading such a 
dedicated way of life one is making in some sense one’s life the most meaningful in the 
best possible way. 
So when one reflects on these things then passages from the Bodhicaryavatara 
and other bodhisattva texts make definite sense. For example, Santideva says in the 
Bodhicaryavatara, “Why should I seek nirvana?” Similarly Bhavaviveka states in his text 
called the Heart of Madhyamika; “Through insight into the unsatisfactory nature of 
existence I will be freed from attachment to existence. However through the power of 
compassion I distance myself from seeking nirvana”. The implication is that once one is 
gripped by the power of compassion one’s commitment to bringing about the welfare of 
other sentient beings is such that in some sense that the thought to seek enlightenment for 
one’s own sake simply doesn’t arise. In Candrakirti’s when he summarizes the great 
qualities of the bodhisattva on the sixth bodhisattva bhumi, he states that a bodhisattva at 
such a high level of realization as a result of their deepened insight into the nature of 
emptiness and their intuitive, direct experience of emptiness will then develop 
spontaneous compassion which is at the true mode of being of that bodhisattva. 
In this regard I would like to draw an analogy which could perhaps bring my 
point into sharper focus. For example when we look at the Milky Way Galaxy and when 
we have a concept of cosmology, which embraces a universe where there are so many 
stars and planets, our earth then becomes just a speck. So once one has such a vision or 
image of the cosmos then of course it will reveal that all the divisions we fight for, such 
as national boundaries leading to bloodshed and conflict, from the larger perspective 
seems so insignificant. They appear to be insignificant squabbles. The issues and disputes 
are really something trivial, not really worthy of such emotional investment. So this will 
definitely have an impact on our global consciousness.
Similarly in the Buddhist context when one has a view or vision of existence 
where one’s understanding or conception of life is in terms of infinity and one’s 
conception of fellow sentient beings is of an infinity in number, and one’s commitment is 
to bring about the welfare of this infinity of sentient beings then once starts along these 
lines it will have enormous impact on one’s attitudes towards one’s immediate concerns 
and interests. Something which previously would have seen so important, maybe dealing 
with one’s own self-interest in this single lifetime and dealing with a particular point in 
one’s life which may seem to be very important, when seen from the wider perspective 
these temporary self-interests and needs seem insignificant. One will not feel so attached 
and bound with the preoccupations of trying to achieve these limited goals. 
Even in conventional terms we know that people who have a greater sense of 
security, small incidents are less likely to effect them whereas people who have a deep 
sense of insecurity are more prone to be easily effected by minor incidents. This shows to 
what extent that if one has a greater sense of security it makes a difference in how one is 
emotionally effected. I would say it is these expansive and in some sense broad ways of 
thinking in Buddhism that assist practicing Buddhists in dealing with their problems of 
life. I would say that Buddhism does not have a single formula or one remedy as it were 
to deal with adverse situations in life. It is all these ways of thinking, these spiritual 
orientations which embrace such infinity and magnitude that really help give a broader 
perspective on life. 
Since there is certainly benefit for the individual by adopting such an outlook, 
such a spiritual orientation the question of whether these things are actually true or not 
really isn’t primary. As they are truly beneficial, that is what matters. If at the beginning 
it may seem difficult to comprehend, may seem difficult to digest however through 
constant reflection, thinking and meditation it is possible that one will gradually begin to 
understand. This will definitely have a tremendous effect on one’s mind and on one’s 
psyche. In some sense they will have a kind of liberating effect and will make one’s mind 
more resilient, providing one with a greater capacity to cope with the adverse 
circumstances and problems of life. 
To some this may seem very idealistic and also unrealistic. Some may feel this is 
impractical as for instance when one suggests that this kind of approach, this kind of 
solution to people they may reject it offhand. (Break)
Question: It seems it is not enough to simply understand the absence of self and 
others or enemies and friends based on understanding the transient or impermanent nature 
of existence. What seems to be required also the need to develop an altruistic sense to 
help other sentient beings. However since we do not have such a capacity to be of help 
and service to other sentient beings, what can we do to give us this capacity or ability to 
help others?
Answer: From the practicing Buddhist’s point of view the full potential for 
helping other sentient beings becomes perfected only when one has totally overcome 
one’s own personal limitations and have attained full knowledge of the needs and 
dispositions of all sentient beings. Such knowledge can only be obtained at the fully 
awakened state. However this is something that needs to be kept as the ultimate objective 
and while one is aspiring towards that objective, one needs to engage in various practices. 
For example bodhisattvas have as their main practices consist of the Six Perfections 
which are aimed primarily at bringing about internal transformation within the 
practitioner. In terms of assisting to bodhisattva-to-be in assisting others, the teachings 
talk about the Four Factors for Helping Other Sentient Beings such as giving material 
needs to fulfill the immediate needs of others, providing protection, setting an example 
for others by living the teachings oneself and teaching others. These are the types of 
activities that a bodhisattva must engage in.
In our day-to-day lives even in our ordinary state of course there are many things 
we could do in implementing these bodhisattva ideals. I would personally say that for 
example in our modern professions like teaching which involves educating others and 
also the health professions along with social work and so on, if one adopts the right 
attitude and motivation, these activities become the implementation of the bodhisattva 
ideals. It is through these activities that one enhances one’s capacity to be of service to 
others.
Question: You say there is no end, there is a continuity. How can we set 
ourselves free and more than anything how can we free other beings who are suffering? If 
we leave samsara then we are abandoning these others to their fate.
Answer: When we speak of nirvana we need to bear in mind that there are 
different conceptions of it. One type of nirvana is known as the isolated peace of nirvana, 
which refers to the type of goal that non-Bodhisattvas like Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas 
(Solitary Realizers) seek. What they seek is more the peace and tranquility of the freedom 
from suffering which is motivated primarily out of self-interest. 
However this is not the type of nirvana or freedom from suffering that the 
bodhisattva is seeking. In fact the bodhisattvas’ quest for full enlightenment is in some 
sense not for themselves but rather the motivation arises out of altruism. The bodhisattva 
sees the need to attain full enlightenment as a requirement in order to utilize their 
potential to help others fully. Therefore the nirvana or the freedom of suffering that the 
bodhisattva seeks is described as the state which is free from the extremes of the isolated 
peace of nirvana and free from the extreme of uncontrolled cyclic existence. So it is a 
freedom from both existence and nirvana. Those who are gathered here among those I 
know, I can not say anyone here has such realizations but if you do come to India, I can 
give you the names of people who I think may have had experiences of such a type. 
Question: Is the Long-Life puja announced part of the Kalachakra initiation or is 
it something different? Is there a commitment with the Long-Life initiation or daily 
practice?
Answer: The Long-Life empowerment ceremony is not part of the Kalachakra 
initiation itself. There are no commitments by attending the empowerment however I can 
assure you that if you come then you can take the long-life pills.
Question: In samsara time is relative and we can speak of the past, present and 
future. For the Buddhas is there still a past, present and future times? Does time have a 
cause and if so what is it?
Answer: This is a complex question. In Buddhism when we talk about the nature 
of the Buddha’s enlightened mind and the nature of its perception of reality, we need to 
take into account in some sense a dual perspective. It is said that so far as Buddha’s 
perception of the ultimate unity of all phenomena is concerned, in other words Buddha’s 
perception of ultimate reality or the truth of all phenomena there is no sense of time or 
sense of the passage of time. Buddha’s perception is all-pervasive yet at the same time a 
Buddha is fully aware of the multiplicity of the world of dependent origination, the 
relative world. Within the relative world there are many appearances which are primarily 
the results of illusions. Of course Buddhists would accept that as far as a Buddha’s own 
conception is concerned there is no level of deception or illusion within a Buddha’s own 
perception. However what appears to us as sentient beings to our delusory minds also 
appears to a Buddha not because a Buddha has the causes or conditions for deception or 
illusion but rather Buddha sees the deceptive appearances, the deceptive perceptions that 
we have as they appear to us. 
So when we talk about the question of what is the nature of a Buddha’s 
knowledge, it is a very complicated question which needs to take into account this dual 
perspective which is operating always at the same time. Therefore the fully enlightened 
mind of a Buddha is said to perceive the Two Truths simultaneously without any passage 
of time.
As to the second part of the question which is whether time has a cause, of course 
the Prasangika-Madhyamika standpoint, which is considered to be the highest 
philosophical standpoint of Buddhism, accepts that time is a relative phenomenon. Time 
is not permanent, is eternal and is a relative phenomenon and is in some sense a mental 
construct. Therefore it has a cause and is a product.
Question: When we die and are born again do we choose the place and the 
parents? If not who or what determines where we are born? Is it possible once one is 
human to be born again as an animal? How can we gain control over the process and cut 
the cycle?
Answer: Where do we take rebirth and in what form are governed by one’s own 
karmic imprints. When it comes to the question as to which parent, one needs to again 
take into account the karma also of the parents; it is not just the karma of the individual to 
be born. Even though this is the case if we examine in more detail we find that karmic 
imprints are planted by our volitional actions. An individual who is motivated to act in a 
particular way commits volitional actions. So ultimately it is ourselves who are 
responsible.
Perhaps an example may clarify the process or mechanism of karma. Take the 
example of someone flying back to India. By you buy your plane tickets you have the 
choice whether to go or not and also when to go. After this you buy your ticket your 
choices are now limited but you still have a choice as to whether to go or not. You are 
then at the airport and even there you still have a choice even though the cancellation 
becomes more difficult. If you choose not to cancel, have boarded the plane and it is 
taking off then your choice not fly is gone. So unless you hijack the plane, you have no 
choice left. The closer you get to the action or objective the narrower the range of your 
choices becomes and the more determined is the course of events. 
Similarly in the case of karma, which literally means action, volitional act, at the 
stage of motivation or intention one has tremendous choice of whether to act or not. As 
one gets closer and has committed the act then the karmic imprint is implanted and then 
the imprint needs to be activated, needs circumstantial conditions to activate it. Once 
further conditions acting as ripening factors activate the karmic seed then one’s control 
and choice over the causal events becomes narrower and narrower. But until that point 
one does have a choice, one does have the choice to reverse the cause of the karmic 
determination.
We will proceed with the ceremony for generating the mind of enlightenment. In 
the following ceremony among the audience those who have been practicing Buddhists 
for several years can fully participate in the ceremony for generating the mind of 
enlightenment. For those who are non-Buddhists and for those who are Buddhist but do 
not feel fully committed to the practices of bodhicitta, they need not fully participate in 
the ceremony. One thing however that you could do is to use the opportunity to develop a 
strong determination and resolve to be a warm-hearted person, to be a kind person and 
resolve never to hurt or harm any other person or sentient being. 
Now for those who wish to fully participate in the ceremony for generating the 
mind of enlightenment, you should visualize in the space in front of yourself the Buddha 
Shakyamuni as in the thangka behind me. He is surrounded by many bodhisattvas and 
imagine yourself as being surrounded by all other sentient beings. 
Having visualized the Buddha in front of you surrounded by all the bodhisattvas 
and yourself being surrounded by all sentient beings, you should develop the following 
thought, reflect in the following manner. Reflect that just as you instinctually and 
naturally aspire to achieve happiness and overcome suffering, so do all the limitless and 
countless sentient beings. Just as you are driven by this fundamental and instinctual 
desire and engage in all sorts of activities to fulfill this basic aspiration so to do all other 
sentient beings. However up until now you have lived throughout many lifetimes 
pursuing only your own self-interest and your whole existence has been characterized by 
pursuing self-centered interests and ends. Even though this has been your primary 
motivating force you still haven’t been able to achieve what you wished to achieve which 
is the fulfillment of your own well-being. 
On the other hand all the Buddhas’ and Bodhisattvas’ lives have exemplified the 
virtue and value of altruism. They have reversed that self-centered way of existence and 
way of thinking. They have put other’s interests as more important than theirs and have 
pursued a way of life where they have been dedicated to bringing about the well-being of 
other sentient beings. So though this process you should reflect upon the fact that all 
problems, anxieties, frustrations and miseries are either directly or indirectly the result of 
egocentric, self-centered ways of thinking and ways of living. However all positive 
events of happiness, joy, sense of fulfillment and so on are all directly or indirectly the 
result and consequence of altruism. 
Reflecting in this way on the benefits of altruism and the destructive nature of 
selfish and self-centered attitudes, you should now resolve to follow in the footsteps of 
the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas who have dedicated their lives to the fulfillment of the 
altruistic ideal. Make a resolve to follow in their footsteps and follow their example from 
now on regarding others’ well-being and happiness as more important than one’s own. 
This is such that you are never again imprisoned in your own egocentric, self-centered 
way of thinking and way of living. 
When we talk of generating the mind for enlightenment or bodhicitta, one should 
understand that bodhicitta is a state of mind which arises as the result of two principal 
aspirations. One is the aspiration to fulfill the welfare of other sentient beings and the 
other is the aspiration to attain full enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings. 
Through these two aspirations when one attains a very strong sense of confidence and a 
very strong sense of resolve to seek full enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings 
that is the point when one has attained genuine bodhicitta or the mind for enlightenment. 
Of course to be able to have a true realization of bodhicitta is very difficult. It 
takes a long period of meditation and practice. However today at this point we can at 
least have developed an intellectual understanding of what bodhicitta means and also try 
to develop a sense or intuition of bodhicitta. At least for this ceremony we can have a 
simulated state of bodhicitta within us so therefore now on the part of all of you, generate 
this aspiration and resolve to seek full enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings. 
Before we do the actual generation of bodhicitta let us participate in some 
preliminary practices such as the Seven-Limbed Practices. There is no need to perform 
any recitation of this but you can now reflect in the following way. For the sake of 
generating bodhicitta for the benefit of all sentient beings I shall now prostrate to the 
Buddha and Bodhisattvas in front of me. What do we mean by prostrating to the 
Buddhas? By reflecting upon their qualities one develops a strong sense of admiration 
and faith in them. Then with one’s folded hands at one’s heart, one performs the gesture 
of paying one’s respect and acknowledging the Buddhas’ great qualities. 
The second limb is making offerings to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. When one 
does this one should imagine that one is offering all forms of articles and substances 
which are beautiful and things which one would offer as a gift. One should visualize 
making these offerings to the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. The best type of offering is 
one’s own practice and realization so one should reflect that up until now one has tried 
one’s best to engage in a serious practice and shall now make an offering of whatever 
progress one has made in one’s practice. One resolves to continue to pursue one’s 
practice in the future with commitment and single-pointedness. 
The third limb is purification and here one should reflect in the following manner. 
In the past one has committed many negativities either knowingly or out of ignorance, 
not only in this lifetime but also have committed many negative actions during past lives. 
The fact that one finds oneself committing negative actions in this life, falling prey to 
negative impulses with little choice on one’s part, is an indication that one has many 
habits developed in past lives of acting in a negative way. One needs to fully disclose and 
confront all these negative actions committed in the past and focused on them one 
develops a deep sense of regret and repentance for having committed those acts. This 
should then be followed by developing a strong resolve that in the future one will never 
engage in such negative actions again. 
The fourth limb is the limb of rejoicing. Here one rejoices not only in all the 
positive actions that one has done, all the wholesome deeds one has engaged in but also 
one rejoices and admires the wholesome activities performed by others as well. 
The fifth limb is requesting the Buddhas to turn the wheel of the Dharma, to give 
teachings. To put it simply Buddha Shakyamuni is the teacher and if the teacher does not 
speak then we will not be able to learn. So we are requesting the teacher to teach and 
show us the way so that we can understand.
The sixth limb is requesting the Buddhas not to enter Nirvana. This is analogous 
to a teacher who having come to the class is prepared to leave. This is not of any use to 
the students as the teacher must not only come to the classroom but also need to spend 
time with the students so that the students will benefit from the teacher’s presence. Of 
course this is from the perspective of a good student, as the lesser student would rejoice 
at the teachers leaving!
The seventh and final limb is the limb of dedication. Here one is praying and 
dedicating all of the positive energies just created, the positive karmic imprints created 
and one is not dedicating them so that one may have a successful life, health and so on 
but dedicating the positive potential towards the attainment of liberation for all sentient 
beings. 
Now we will recite these verses in Tibetan but you should recite in your own 
language. Out of these three verses the first verse is the formula for taking refuge in the 
Three Jewels, the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. The second verse is the formula for 
generating the mind for enlightenment, bodhicitta. The third verse is give one a sense of 
encouragement and also reinforces one’s determination and strength to be able to fulfill 
the Bodhisattva ideals. We will recite the first verse now three times.
With a wish to free all beings
I shall always go for refuge
To the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha
Until my full awakening.
So when we do the recitation, which is the formula for generating the mind for 
enlightenment, those who are fully participating in the ceremony should reflect upon the 
meaning of the verses and resolve to seek full enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient 
beings. Retain this mind throughout. Those who are not participating please use the time 
to reaffirm your resolve to be a warm-hearted person, a kind person and never engage in 
actions, which are harmful to others. 
Enthused by wisdom and compassion
Today in the Buddha’s presence
I generate the mind for enlightenment
For the sake of all sentient beings
As long as space endures
As long as sentient beings exist
May I too remain
And dispel the miseries of the world.
Those who are fully participating keep these verses with you and use it as a daily 
practice. At appropriate times such as when you are relaxed or in a calm state of mind 
then read these verses to reaffirm your bodhicitta but do not do this if you are in a 
disturbed state of mind or feeling a strong negative emotion.
We will now perform a dedication constituting the conclusion of this ceremony 
generating bodhicitta. You should think in the following way. If we examine the nature of 
our own experience we find that an instance of a deluded state of mind like clinging to 
the false sense of self or strong ego-identity, leads to afflicted emotional responses which 
then lead to negative actions creating a negative energy. Similarly I feel that by even a 
very short period of time when we develop within ourselves the seed for positive 
thoughts, an altruistic mind fully aimed at helping other sentient beings, I am certain that 
this in itself creates a tremendous power and potential for positive energy. 
So today in this gathering by participating in the ceremony of generating 
bodhicitta and in some sense reaffirming our resolve to pursue the ideals of altruism we 
have created a tremendous positive energy and imprints. It is important to dedicate this 
positive potential, imprints and energies towards an altruistic cause. The verses which I 
will recite are verses of dedication at state that just as the great bodhisattvas like 
Manjusri, Samantabhadra and so on have dedicated their positive potentials and virtues 
with tremendous creative imagination, we shall to follow their examples. We will 
dedicate the positive energy and potentials created today towards the attainment of full 
enlightenment for all sentient beings. 
Question: Is there any special diet to follow in order to receive the Kalachakra 
initiation?
Answer: There is no special diet. Generally for a practitioner whose main 
emphasis and foundational practice is that of universal compassion vegetarianism is the 
best diet to follow. So long as you are not vegetarian then I do not feel that any other 
special diet makes much difference. I feel that vegetarianism is really admirable and if 
you can’t be vegetarian then as to the other forms of diet there is not grounds for a 
preference. Once an Indian asked me if I was a vegetarian and I said, “No”. He then 
asked what special diet did I have and I told him that being a fully ordained monk I don’t 
eat after noon but other than that I am like a pig in that I eat everything!
If the initiation ceremony you are attending belongs to Kriya Tantra which is 
Action Tantra as well as Carya and Yoga Tantra then of course you need to follow a very 
strict diet that is vegetarian. You also cannot eat onions, garlic and so on. The Long-Life 
empowerment, which you will be given, belongs to the Kriya Tantra class. On that day if 
it is possible don’t eat any non-vegetarian food. 
Question: If everything is a dependent arising are space particles also? If they are 
not dependent arisings then what are they?
Answer: Of course the space particles would be considered as caused because as 
I spoke earlier even these space particles themselves are infinite in terms of their 
continuum so current matter is an product of its earlier instance. There is a causal 
continuum. From this point of view they also have a cause. 
However when we talk about dependent arising or dependent origination in the 
Buddhist context, our understanding should not be limited to dependent arising only in 
terms of causes and conditions. Rather our understanding must embrace a broader and in 
some sense deeper understanding of dependence. Dependence need not necessarily be 
understood only in terms of causes and conditions; one can talk about dependence in 
relation to parts and the whole. The very concepts of parts and a whole are interconnected 
and interdependent. In some sense one emerges only in relationship to the other. 
Still there is a further and deeper understanding of dependent origination which is 
to understand dependent origination in terms of a designated basis and the designation 
that involves a labeling process. This view understands things and events in the form of 
mental constructs. Of course this is a very subtle point and is very difficult to understand. 
For example if one were to examine the content of one’s consciousness, one’s perception, 
what one sees is the designated basis not the designation. For instance one sees things or 
objects but if one were to examine the content in a specific way, what is the content of 
one’s consciousness? One sees a certain shape or color but these are the basis of the 
designation of that particular object. These in of themselves do not constitute the object 
itself. When one analyzes in such a way then the very idea of objectivity, the entity itself 
begins to dissolve. One begins to find that it is non-substantial, there is no substantiality, 
no entityness. Of course this is a very complex issue but as pointed out earlier when one 
discusses dependent origination one needs to embrace these three levels of understanding 
of dependent origination. 
Question: How do we obtain knowledge of reality or emptiness when all we 
perceive is appearance?
Answer: When we of different forms of knowledge and the nature of our 
perception, it is important to understand the complexities behind the issue. For example 
when we talk about knowledge we have means through which we gain knowledge. Some 
of the knowledge is from direct experience like sensorial experiences such as vision and 
so forth and some knowledge is non-sensorial; they are mental or conceptual. So there are 
different types of knowledge and similarly the mode of engagement of the object between 
sensory perceptions and mental perceptions are quite different. Also conceptual thoughts 
are quite different.
For example when conceptual thoughts engage with an object it does so in some 
sense by a process of elimination. It is selective; it does not embrace the totality of the 
object rather it hones on a particular aspect of the object and focuses on that aspect of the 
object. So in that sense it is exclusionist whereas sensory perception does not make such 
distinctions rather it reflects. There are different ways in which sensory perceptions and 
mental perceptions operate. 
Because there are different types of knowledge and different forms of perception, 
similarly when we talk about objects of knowledge there are different meanings to the 
term object even from the perspective of one instance of knowledge. One can talk of the 
appearing object of that consciousness, the apprehended object of that consciousness or 
the intended object of that consciousness. So even from the perspective of one 
consciousness one can talk about different levels of the object of that consciousness. 
When we talk about reality and our knowledge of reality we have to understand 
that there are different levels of reality. The doctrine of the Two Truths reflects in some 
sense two levels of reality. One can talk about reality within the context of the relative 
world and also the underlying reality of the ultimate world. Again the meaning of reality 
differs according to the different levels in which one is operating.
Even then it is important to understand that when we talk of the two levels of 
reality we are not talking about two different entities or two entirely distinct things. As I 
pointed out earlier the two realities are in some sense dual aspects of one and the same 
thing or event based on two different perspectives. For example when we speak of the 
ultimate truth, we are talking about emptiness and when we talk of emptiness we should 
not have the notion that there is some thing called emptiness “out there” which is 
independent and autonomous of the relative world. Emptiness can be understood only in 
relation to a particular instance of an object. When one takes a particular instance like an 
object and examine its nature, analyze its ontological status, what one finds is the absence 
of its substantiality. What one finds is the absence of intrinsic reality, inherent existence 
and this absence is the ultimate nature, ultimate reality. So there is no separate thing 
called emptiness other than a quality or mode of existence of the object under analysis. 
Also it would be useful here to recall a distinction I made earlier between negative 
and positive phenomena, phenomena, which can only be understood by a negation or 
some phenomena, which can be known in affirmative or positive terms. Emptiness 
belongs to the first category; emptiness is a phenomenon only understood through a 
process of negation. It is the mere absence or negation of intrinsic existence or intrinsic 
identity. (End of talk)
COLOPHON
Transcribed and typed by Phillip Lecso from audiotapes obtained from QED Recording Services 
entitled Kalachakra for World Peace: Kalachakra Initiation Preliminary. I take full responsibility 
for all mistakes that have occurred, through hearing and writing incorrectly what was taught, for 
these I apologize. May all be auspicious. May any merit from this activity go to the long life and 
good health of His Holiness. May all sentient beings quickly attain the state of the Glorious 
Kalacakra even through these imperfect efforts. 
categoria:Ensinamentos
categoria:Dalai Lama