Discovering Buddhism at Home -FAQ

Module 12 – Wisdom of Emptiness

Lama Zopa teaches that the whole of existence depends on a valid mind labeling on a valid base. But in the story about Asanga and Maitreya, no one sees anything except Asanga who sees Maitreya and an old woman who only has the karma to see a sick dog. So is there a valid base for anything? It seems like it depends completely on our mind and what our karma forces us to see.

What is “co-emerging existence” and how is it related to samsara?

Lama Zopa teaches that the whole of existence depends on a valid mind labeling on a valid base. But in the story about Asanga and Maitreya, no one sees anything except Asanga who sees Maitreya and an old woman who only has the karma to see a sick dog. So is there a valid base for anything? It seems like it depends completely on our mind and what our karma forces us to see.

A student asks:

Lama Zopa teaches: “The whole of existence, samsara and nirvana, depends on a valid mind labelling on a valid base. A vase that we can use is empty of being a vase that exists without depending on the base and the subject, the mind. And it is the same with all the rest of existence: all the respective existents exist by depending on the base and the mind that labels. They are empty of existing without depending on the base and the mind.”

Then I read what someone said about Asanga and Maitreya – something along these lines : “There is the story of Asanga who through his act of compassion of taking care of a dog saw instead of a dog, Maitreya, then he walked through town with Maitreya on his shoulder, he was carrying Maitreya, but other people saw him carrying a dog. A dog is not a valid basis upon which to impute Holy Guru – – So were the people who saw a dog wrong, or did they have completely different karmic projections? We project the base and then project upon that base.”

Now that sounds to me like there is no valid base for anything really, it depends entirely upon mind and what our karma forces us to see.

Would I be wrong to conclude in the case of Asanga and Maitreya…. Asanga when he saw a dog instead of Maitreya, at that time was under the influence of ignorance, delusions and karma, in other words there was not a valid mind labeling on a valid base, but rather an ignorant mind under the influence of karma, projecting an invalid base, and then labeling upon that base, dog, due to ignorant karmic projections??? In other words depending on our karma, we project the base and then project upon that base , but when there is a valid mind, the moment there is a valid mind, there would be no mistaken projection of invalid base, and so no invalid projection upon that base, and so no mistaken appearance, no mistaking Maitreya for a dog.???

But then if that is so why did so many people see a dog in particular ?? I mean if there was no valid basis for dog, why didn’t some see a cat, some a bird ?

Pende replies:

I sympathize with the problem you encountered with the example of Maitreya appearing as a dog. I too find such examples difficult to reconcile with explanations that apply to ordinary experience. The simple response on my part is to set extraordinary examples aside, and penetrate the meaning of instruction directed to the level of experience that most closely aligns with your own. The teachings after all are meant to help us overcome our misconceptions, replace inappropriate objectives with appropriate ones, and identify the right actions that will lead to those objectives. Sometimes I find that stories of extraordinary events, while entertaining and sometimes inspiring, are too remote from my life to be or more practical value.

The purpose of the story of how Asanga found Maitreya is to encourage perserverance with the right method, and to show the importance of loving kindness as a right method. Similarly, the example posited by Prasangika philosphers of the single object perceived as three contradictory objects is meant to illustrate the point that what appears in perception is not due to an inherently existing identifying characteristic. That example was an object that is validly perceived as a glass of water by a human, a goblet of nectar by a god, and a vessel of puss and blood by a preta. For someone who is not sure of the existence of gods and pretas, this would not be a good example, as their doubt about such beings would distract them from the main point.

In that case, it might be better to give an example of a single object that appears as refreshment to a thirsty person, a home to a fish, and a mixture of chemicals to a scientist.

A more sophisticated response on my part would have to deal with the issue of whether or not Asanga and others who saw Maitreya as a dog were viewing him with valid minds. That is, was the appearance of Maitreya as a dog, true or correct. We know Maitreya is not a dog, but Maitreya can appear as a dog, because buddhas can appear in whatever way will benefit sentient beings. They do this, by the way, without thinking about it – it happens spontaneously due to their previous accummulation of merit. Also, there is no “true” form that Maitreya appears in, as far as I know. The only true appearance I feel safe on saying is the appearance of Maitreya’s emptiness of inherent existence. His form body is more an instrument for guiding others according to their needs. Having said that, his sambhogakaya is described with certain characteristics and lasts forever, but is available only to arya bodhisattvas.

So, Asanga and others did not correctly recognize Maitreya when Maitreya appeared as a dog, but benefited from that appearance anyway. Maitreya appeared differently to Asanga when Asanga’s mind changed through the force of loving kindness. That new appearance was such that Asanga recognized Maitreya as Maitreya and obtained further benefits from communicating with that form.

All that I have said so far does not contradict the Pransangika formula that objects are identified through the interdependent process of an appearance and a designation by thought; they are not identified by perceiving an identity that inherently exists in the apparent object.

What is “co-emerging existence” and how is it related to samsara?

A student asks:

Does co-emerging existence have to do with samsara and the 12 dependent links? Or is it more to the effect of method/wisdom or bliss and emptiness?

Pende replies:

I believe that coemergence or as you stated “co-emerging existence” is an equivalent term to dependent arising, a fundamental concept in the teachings on emptiness. Translators keep coming up with new terms to translate ancient terms in their effort to keep ancient knowledge fresh and relevant to contemporary discourse.

• Tagged: faq