Science and Philosophy in the Indian Buddhist Classics, Vol. 2

Introduction by His Holiness the Dalai Lama

– +



IN MY CHILDHOOD I had a keen interest in playing with mechanical toys. After reaching India in 1959, I developed a strong wish to engage with scientists to help expand my own knowledge of science as well as to explore the question of the relationship between science and religion. The main reason for my confidence in engaging with scientists rested in the Buddha’s following statement:

Monks and scholars, just as you test gold

by burning, cutting, and polishing it,

so too well examine my speech.

Do not accept it merely out of respect.

The Buddha advises his disciples to carefully analyze when they engage with the meaning of his words, just as a goldsmith tests the purity of gold through burning, cutting, and rubbing. Only after we have gained conviction through such inquiry, the Buddha explains, is it appropriate to accept the validity of his words. It is not appropriate to believe something simply because one’s teacher has taught it. Even with regard to what he himself taught, the Buddha says, we must test its validity for ourselves through experimentation and the use of reason. The testimony of scriptures alone is not sufficient. This profound advice demonstrates the centrality of sound reasoning when it comes to exploring the question of reality.

In Buddhism in general, and for the Nālandā masters of classical India in particular, when it comes to examining the nature of reality, the evidence of direct perception is accorded greater authority than both reason-based inference and scripture. For if one takes a scripture to be an authority in describing the nature of reality, then that scripture too must first be 2verified as authoritative by relying on another scriptural testimony, which in turn must be verified by another scripture, and so on, leading to an infinite regress. Furthermore, a scripture-based approach can offer no proof or rebuttals against alternative standpoints proposed by opponents who do not accept the validity of that scripture. Even among scriptures, some can be accepted as literal while some cannot, giving us no reliable standpoints on the nature of reality. It is said that to cite scripture as an authority in the context of inquiring into the nature of reality indicates a misguided intelligence. To do so precludes us from the ranks of those who uphold reason.

In science we find a similar approach. Scientists take experimentation and the logic of mathematics as arbiters of truth when it comes to evaluating the conclusions of their research; they do not ground validity in the authority of some other person. This method of critical inquiry, one that draws inferences about the unobservable, such as atomic particles, based on observed facts that are evident to our direct perception, is shared by both Buddhism and contemporary science. Once I saw this shared commitment, it greatly increased my confidence in engaging with modern scientists.

With instruments like microscopes and telescopes and with mathematical calculations, scientists have been able to carefully analyze phenomena from atomic particles to distant planets. What can be observed by the senses is enhanced by means of these instruments, allowing scientists to gain new inferences about various facts. Whatever hypothesis science puts forth must be verified by observation-based experiments, and similarly Buddhism asserts that the evidence of direct perception must ultimately underpin critical inquiry. Thus with respect to the way conclusions are drawn from evidence and reasoning, Buddhism and science share an important similarity. In Buddhism, however, empirical observation is not confined to the five senses alone; it has a wider meaning, since it includes observations derived from meditation. This meditation-based empirical observation grounded in study and contemplation is also recognized as part of the means of investigating reality, akin to the role scientific method plays in scientific inquiry.

Since my first visit to the West, a trip to Europe in 1973, I have had the opportunity to engage in conversations with great scientists, including the noted twentieth-century philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, the 3quantum physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, who was the brother of the last West German president and also a colleague of the famed quantum physicists Werner Heisenberg and David Bohm.2 Over many years I have had the chance to engage in dialogues with scientists on a range of topics, such as cosmology, neurobiology, evolution, and physics, especially subatomic-particle physics. This latter discipline of particle physics shares methods strikingly similar to those found in Buddhism, such as the Mind Only school’s critique of the external material world that reveals that nothing can be found when matter is deconstructed into its constitutive elements, and similarly the statements found in the Middle Way school treatises that nothing can be found when one searches for the real referents behind our concepts and their associated terms. I have also on numerous occasions had dialogues with scientists from the fields of psychology and the science of mind, sharing the perspectives of the Indian tradition in general, which contains techniques of cultivating calm abiding and insight, and the Buddhist sources in particular, with its detailed presentations on mind science.

Today we live in an age when the power of science is so pervasive that no culture or society can escape its impact. In a way, there was no choice but for me to learn about science and embrace it with a sense of urgency. I also saw the potential for an emerging discourse on the science of mind. Recognizing this, and wishing to explore how science and its fruits can become a constructive force in the world and serve the basic human drive for happiness, I have engaged in dialogue with scientists for many years. My sincere hope is that these dialogues across cultures and disciplines will inspire new ways to promote both physical and mental well-being and thus serve humanity through a unique interface of contemporary science and mind science. Thus, when I engage in conversations with scientists, such as in the ongoing Mind and Life Dialogues, I have the following two aims.3

The first concerns expanding the scope of science. Not only is the breadth of the world’s knowledge vast, advances are being made year by year that expand human knowledge. Science, however, right from its inception and especially once it began to develop quickly, has been concerned primarily with the world of matter. Unsurprisingly, then, contemporary science focuses on the physical world. Because of this, not much inquiry in science has been made into the nature of the person — the inquirer — as well as into how memory arises, the nature of happiness and suffering, and 4the workings of emotion. Science’s advances in the domain of the physical world have been truly impressive. From the perspective of human experience, however, there are dimensions of reality that undoubtedly lie outside the current domain of scientific knowledge. It is of vital importance that the science of mind takes its place among the current fields of human investigation. The brain-based explanations in contemporary science about the different classes of sensory experience will be enriched by incorporating a more expanded and detailed understanding of the mind. So my first goal in my dialogues with scientists is to help make the current field of psychology or mind science more complete.

Not only do Buddhism and science have much to learn from each other, but there is also a great need for a way of knowing that encompasses both body and mind. For as human beings we experience happiness and suffering not only physically but mentally as well. If our goal is to promote human happiness, we have a real opportunity to pursue a new kind of science that explores methods to enhance happiness through the interface of contemporary science with contemplative mind science. It is my belief that, while acknowledging the great contribution that science has made in advancing human knowledge, our ultimate aim should always be to help create a comprehensive approach to understanding our world.

This takes us to the second goal behind my dialogues with scientists — how best to ensure that science serves humanity. As humans, we face two kinds of problems, those that are essentially our own creation and those owing to natural forces. Since the first kind is created by we humans ourselves, its solution must also be within our human capacity. In contemporary human society, we do not lack knowledge, but the persistence of problems that are our own creation clearly demonstrates that we lack effective solutions to these problems. The obstacle to solving these problems is the presence in the human mind of excessive self-centeredness, attachment, anger, greed, discrimination, envy, competitiveness, and so on. Such problems also stem from deficits in our consideration of others, compassion, tolerance, conscientiousness, insight, and so on. Since many of the world’s great religions carry extensive teachings on these values, I have no doubt that such teachings can serve humanity through helping to overcome the human-made problems we face.

The primary purpose of science is also to benefit and serve humanity. Discoveries in science have brought concrete benefits in medicine, the envi-5ronment, commerce, travel, working conditions, and human relationships. There is no doubt that science has brought great benefits when it comes to alleviating suffering at the physical level. However, since mental suffering is connected with our perception and attitude, material progress is not enough. Even in countries where science has flourished greatly, problems like theft and violent disputes persist. As long as the mind remains filled with greed, anger, conceit, envy, and so on, no matter however perfect our material facilities, a life of genuine happiness is not possible. In contrast, if we possess qualities like contentment and loving kindness, we can enjoy a life of happiness even without great material facilities. Happiness in life is primarily a function of the state of the mind.

If contemporary society were to pay more attention to the science of mind, and more importantly, if science were to engage more with societal concerns, including fundamental human values, I believe that this could lead to great advancement and novel outcomes. Although science has not concerned itself with the enhancement of ethics and the cultivation of basic human values such as kindness, since science has emerged as a means to serve humanity, it should never be completely divorced from the values that are of great importance to the flourishing of human society.

In Indian philosophical traditions in general, and in Buddhism in particular, one finds many techniques for training the mind, such as the cultivation of calm abiding (śamatha) and insight (vipaśyanā). These definitely have the potential to make important contributions to contemporary psychology as well as to the field of education. The mental-training techniques developed in these traditions are uniquely potent for alleviating mental suffering and promoting greater inner peace. So my second goal for my dialogues with contemporary scientists is to see how these techniques, as well as their underlying insights, can be best harnessed to the task of transforming our contemporary education system so that our society does not suffer from a deficit in basic ethics.

Today no aspect of human life is not impacted by science and technology. Science occupies a central place in both our personal and our professional lives. It is critically important that we reflect on the ultimate purpose of science, on what larger consequences and impact science can have in our world. In the early part of the twentieth century, many believed that the spread of science would erode faith in religion. Yet today, in the beginning of this twenty-first century, there seems to be a renewed interest in ethics 6in general and, in particular, the insights of those ancient traditions that contain systematic presentations of mind science and philosophy.


In our society, all sorts of immoral acts are committed on a regular basis. We observe murder, theft, cheating, violence against others, exploitation of the weak, misuse of public goods, abuse of alcohol and other addictive substances, and disregard for societal responsibility. We also see people suffer from social isolation, from vengefulness, envy, extreme competitiveness, and anxiety. I see all these as consequences primarily of our neglect of ethics and basic human qualities such as kindness. It is essential for us to pay attention to the means that would help promote basic ethics. The profound interdependence of today’s world calls us to create a society permeated by kindness.

What kind of foundation is necessary for this? Since religion-based ethical teachings are grounded in the philosophical views of their respective faith traditions, an ethics contingent on religion alone will exclude those who are not religious. If ethics is contingent on religion, it will be ignored by those who adhere to no religious faith. We do not need to be religious to see the value of kindness; we can discern it by observing our everyday life. Even animals survive by relying on the care of others.

Furthermore, impulses for empathy, kindness, helpfulness, and tolerance seem naturally present in small infants, well before the influence of religious faith begins. Looking to these innate qualities and their associated behaviors as a foundation, I have striven to promote an approach to ethics and basic human values that does not rely on the perspectives of a specific religious tradition. My reason is simply this: we can enjoy a life of peace and happiness without religion. In contrast, if we are divorced from human love and kindness, our very survival is at risk; even if we do survive, our life becomes devoid of joy and trapped in loneliness.

We can promote ethics on the basis of a specific religion, but prioritizing the perspective of one religion over others is problematic in today’s deeply interconnected and global society, which is characterized by a multiplicity of religions and cultures. For an approach to the promotion of ethics to be universal, it must appeal to the fundamental values we share as human 7beings. If we neglect these basic human values, who can we blame for the negative consequences? Thus, when I speak of secular ethics, I am speaking of these fundamental values that are inherent to human nature, and that are in fact the very foundation of the ethical teachings of the world’s religious traditions.4

Historically, there have been societies where respect was accorded to the perspectives of both believers and nonbelievers. For example, although the materialist Cārvāka school was the object of vehement critiques from other schools in ancient India, it was a custom to refer to the upholders of that viewpoint in honorific terms. Consonant with this ancient tradition, when India gained its independence in the twentieth century, the country adopted a secular constitution independent of any specific religious faith. This establishment of a secular constitution was not to show disrespect for religion; it was to promote peaceful coexistence among all religious faiths. One of the major forces behind the adoption of this secular constitution was Mahatma Gandhi, himself a deeply religious person. Conscious of this important historical precedent, I feel no apprehension in promoting a secular universal approach to ethics.

My own personal view is that, in general, people should remain within their own traditional religions. Changing faith can lead to difficulties for oneself, and it can also undermine the basis of interreligious harmony. With this belief I have never harbored any intention to make converts or convince followers of other religions to become Buddhists. What is appropriate for believers is to contribute to the common good by practicing those aspects of the teachings that can serve humanity as a whole. Such teachings are definitely present in all the world’s main religions.

Within Buddhism, for example, I see two things with the greatest potential to serve everyone, regardless of their faith. One is the presentation on the nature of reality, or “science,” as found in the Buddhist treatises, and the second encompasses the methods or techniques for training the mind to alleviate mental suffering and promote greater inner peace. In this regard it is important to differentiate among three distinct domains within the subject matter of the Buddhist sources: the presentations (1) on the natural world, or science, (2) on philosophy, and (3) on religious beliefs and practice. In general, when one speaks of religion or religious practice, it is linked with faith in a source of refuge. In this religious sense, Buddhism, too, is relevant only to Buddhists and has no particular connection 8to those who follow other religions and those who have no religious faith. Clearly presentations rooted in religious faith are not universally applicable, especially when we recall that among today’s world population, as many as a billion human beings identify themselves as nonbelievers.

Buddhist philosophy contains aspects, such as the principle of dependent arising, that can be relevant and beneficial even to those outside the Buddhist faith. This philosophy of dependent arising can of course conflict with standpoints that espouse a belief in a self-arisen absolute being or an eternal soul, but for others, this philosophy can help expand their outlook and enable them to see things in life from multiple angles, which prevents the narrow fixation that blames everything on a single cause or condition. I see great benefit in extracting the scientific and philosophical explorations found in Buddhist texts and presenting them independently of the strictly religious teachings. This allows someone who is not Buddhist to learn about the Buddhist scientific explorations of reality as well as Buddhist philosophical insights. It also gives many people the opportunity to learn how Buddhist traditions have developed their worldview and their philosophical outlook on the ultimate nature of reality.

Take, for example, the Buddha’s first teaching, the four noble truths, which is common to all Buddhist traditions. In this teaching, we can observe a clear differentiation among the “ground” (the nature of reality), the path, and the result. The statements on the nature of the four truths, e.g., “This is the noble truth of suffering,” present the ground; the statements on the function of the truths, e.g., “Suffering is to be known,” present the path; and the statements pertaining to the agent and the fruits of the path, e.g., “Suffering is to be known, yet there is nothing to be known,” explain how the result of the path comes to be actualized. My point is that, whether the presentation is of philosophy or of ethical precepts, the fundamental approach in the Buddhist texts is to ground them in an understanding of the nature of reality.

In what is called the Mahāyāna, or Great Vehicle, too, the presentation on the two truths (conventional and ultimate) is the ground, the presentation of the two aspects (method and wisdom) is the path, and the presentation of the two buddha bodies (the form and truth bodies) is the result. All of these are grounded in an understanding of the nature of reality. Even in the case of the highest aim in Buddhism — the attainment of the two buddha bodies, or the buddhahood that is the embodiment of the four 9buddha bodies5 — the potency to actualize these aims can be found in the innate mind of clear light that resides naturally within us. The presentations found in the Buddhist sources are developed on the basis of an understanding of the nature of reality. If we look at the way the words of the Buddha were interpreted in the treatises composed by the great Buddhist thinkers of the past, such as the masters of Nālandā University, there too the subject matter of the entire corpus of Buddhist texts, including those that were translated into Tibetan running into more than three hundred volumes, fall into the threefold classification of the ground, the path, and the result.

As stated, the content of the Buddhist texts can be grouped within the three domains of (1) the nature of reality, or science, (2) philosophical tenets or views, and (3) religious practice, namely the presentation of the path and the way in which the results of the path are actualized. I see great benefits if we engage with the works in the Kangyur (the scriptures) and Tengyur (the treatises) on the basis of critically examining whether their contents present science, philosophy, or religious practice.


In brief, the presentation of the nature of reality or science in the classical Buddhist texts can be summarized in the following four major topics: (1) the nature of the physical world, (2) the presentation of the mind, the cognizing subject, (3) how the mind engages its object, and (4) the science of logical reasoning by means of which the mind understands its object. The first topic, the nature of the physical world, as well as the presentation of the philosophical outlook and methods of inquiry underlying Buddhist science, were covered in volume 1 of the series. So in this introduction I will focus my discussion on the remaining three topics, which are the topics covered in the present volume.

The Mind, the Cognizing Subject

In general, the word science refers to a body of knowledge about the world obtained through a method that is verifiable by anyone who repeats the same experiment. The term can thus refer both to the body of knowledge 10acquired and to the method used to acquire it. In other words, science can refer to a specific systematic method of inquiry. For example, when a scientist investigates a particular question, he or she first develops a hypothesis. Through experiments certain results are revealed, and these findings are then subjected to confirmation by a second or a third party, such as one’s colleagues. When the findings of different scientists converge, these findings come to be accepted as part of the canon of scientific knowledge. The way such discoveries are made is characterized as the scientific method. This basic feature of the scientific method seems to accord with two of the three criteria of existence proposed in the Buddhist Madhyamaka texts: that it is (1) known by a conventional valid cognition and that it is (2) not contravened by some other conventional valid cognition.6

Discussions of the nature of cognition or the science of mind in Buddhist sources define what is cognition, categorize the types of mind, and explore those categorized minds in detail. For example, when cognitions are differentiated, we find such twofold classifications as the division into sensory and mental cognition, which is made on the basis of whether a cognition is dependent on a physical sense faculty. There is also the twofold classification of valid versus nonvalid cognition, based on whether a given cognition is veridical. A distinction is drawn also between conceptual and nonconceptual processes, based on whether a cognition engages with its object through applying a conceptual category, such as “This is so and so,” and on whether a universal image is involved in the cognition. A distinction is also drawn between the mind, which is primary, and its concomitant mental factors on the basis of whether it cognizes its object as a whole or whether it apprehends specific attributes of its object. A differentiation is made between mistaken and nonmistaken cognition based on whether the object of that awareness exists in the way that it appears to that cognition. Also, in terms of its object, a distinction is made between reflexive awareness and objective awareness. Finally, based on the ways they engage their objects, there is the sevenfold taxonomy of cognition — (1) distorted cognition, (2) doubt, (3) correct assumption, (4) indeterminate perception, (5) direct perception, (6) inferential understanding, and (7) subsequent cognition (part 4).

The Buddhist sources on mind science also explore in great detail such topics as the nature of the mental factors and their divisions, their specific functions, the process by which they arise, and their inter-relations 11(part 2). They also explore the nature of ignorance, and the question of how ignorance that is a distorted cognition gives rise to inappropriate attention, which in turn gives rise to afflictions like attachment and aversion, and how attachment and aversion give rise to other destructive emotions like pride, jealousy, and so on, which disturb one’s mental equilibrium. Likewise, they address how attachment gives rise to mental excitation and distraction to external stimuli, and how mental laxity leads to the loss of alert awareness of the chosen object. The sources also deal with the question of how mental dullness arises, which makes the mind unserviceable and brings unclarity to the mind, as if darkness has come to settle. These sources also present ways to cultivate their counteragents, such as wisdom that helps differentiate the specific characteristics of phenomena, love, empathy, forbearance, confidence, mindfulness, and meta-awareness. In short, these texts present the techniques for enhancing qualities such as those cited and also for cultivating concentration that is characterized by single-pointedness of mind, which enhances one’s capacity to sustain single-pointed attention for prolonged periods (part 6).

In brief, these Buddhist sources identify over a hundred distinct mental factors and explain how certain types of mental factors act as antidotes to other factors, and how this law of contradiction within the mental world facilitates the possibility of eliminating certain types of afflictions through enhancing the power of their counteragents. Thus this science of mind found in the Buddhist sources is something meaningful with a potential to benefit the more than seven billion human beings on Earth.

The Buddhist sources also present various levels of subtlety of consciousness. For example, consciousness during the waking state is considered grosser, consciousness in dream state comparatively subtler, and compared to that, consciousness during deep sleep is subtler still. There is also the differentiation of consciousness into the threefold category of gross, subtle, and very subtle. Within this classification, the first encompasses the five sense perceptions, the second includes the six root afflictions as well as the eighty indicative conceptions, while the third, very subtle level of consciousness, includes the minds of the four empty states.7 Even among the minds of the four empty states, differentiations of subtlety can still be drawn. For example, compared to the innate mind of clear light, the three minds of luminosity are grosser, while the innate mind of clear light is understood to be the most subtle level of consciousness. This innate mind 12is characterized as energy-wind from the point of view of its movement toward an object, and as consciousness from the point of view of awareness (part 3).

An important set of topics within the Buddhist science of mind include how, given that the adventitious stains do not reside in the mind’s essential nature, the essential nature of mind is that of clear light; how the continuum of this luminous and knowing reality is stable since it has no beginning; and how the qualities of the mind have the potential for limitless enhancement, for once perfected they do not require exertion of new efforts.8 These above points are so critical that anyone who lacks deeper knowledge of these will only have partial understanding of the great Buddhist treatises.

Similarly, there are ideas and insights in Buddhist epistemological treatises, such as those of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, that can enrich contemporary cognitive science. These include, among others, the presentations on the nature of sensory cognitions, the logical reasoning establishing how sensory cognitions are devoid of conceptualization, how thoughts engage actual reality via the medium of universals, the characteristics of universals, how general terms and cognition of universals apply to the plurality of particulars, and the various arguments put forth to demonstrate the unreality of general characteristics.

How the Mind Engages Its Object

Based on how a given object appears to the mind, a distinction is drawn between negatively characterized phenomena and positive phenomena. Similarly, based on whether the given cognition engages its object due to the object casting its form to it, there is the distinction between cognitions that engage by way of exclusion and those that engage by way of affirmation. There is also the distinction between identity and difference based on how thoughts conceive their objects, because when the object universal of a thing appears to a thought, it does so either as singular or plural. Similarly, what is essentially a single entity can be understood to possess conceptually distinct attributes, with one serving as the basis for inferring the other; for instance, being a product can help infer something to be impermanent, although that which is a product and that which is impermanent are one and the same entity. Also when a single cognition takes 13something as an object, one can distinguish two aspects of such cognition, the way it appears and the way it is apprehended, so a distinction can be drawn between the mind’s appearing object and its object as cognized. The latter is known also as the engaged object, for when the person engages with that object just as apprehended by that cognition, he or she is not deceived. Similarly, a thing can be characterized as the object or focus of a given cognition because it serves as the basis for the mind to eliminate false conceptualizations (part 4).

These Buddhist sources also contain debates on whether sensory cognitions perceive their objects by assuming an image of the object being perceived. Those who advocate this notion of the object image state that when sensory cognitions perceive their objects, they do so by having a likeness of the object appear to the mind. If this is not the case, they argue, one will not be able to account for the diversity of perceptions that one can experience in relation to even a single object. Those who reject the notion of images argue that if sensory cognitions perceive via the medium of such images, this would mean that they do not directly perceive their objects, and furthermore, there is no evidence for the existence of external objects that are not perceptible by the senses (part 4).

The Science of Logical Reason by Means of Which the Mind Understands Its Object

The science of reasoning represents the means by which the mind engages its object, and it is like a key that helps open the doors to the secrets of reality that remain hidden from our senses. The science of logical reasoning is therefore extremely important. The basis for the application of logical reason lies in the four principles of reason, which we discussed in volume 1 (pages 10–12). The important topics covered in the Buddhist sources on logical reasoning include the characteristics necessary for a valid proof, the logical relationship between the evidence and the thesis being proven, and so on. Although, in general, one can infer the presence of something related on the basis of its relationship to something else, not all specific characteristics of that related thing can be inferred. For example, one can infer a cause from the presence of its effect, and similarly, one can draw inferences based on a shared essential nature; however, not all features of 14the cause or the thing can be inferred through such types of reasoning (part 5).

Also, based on the logical relationship that exists between the evidence and the thesis within a given syllogism, correct evidence is classified into three categories (effect evidence, nature evidence, and evidence consisting in nonperception).9 Within the category of effect evidence, depending on how the syllogism is presented in line with the intention of the person to whom it is directed, five types of effect evidence are distinguished in Buddhist sources. As for nature evidence, a differentiation is made into two types, based on whether the term that states the evidence indicates an activity of a person. Within the class of evidence consisting in nonperception also, two types are identified based on whether the nonperception takes the form of the nonperception of a fact that is logically related to what is being negated or whether the nonperception is being proven on the basis of the perception of an incompatible fact. In general, in the case of something that exists but lies beyond our perception, mere nonperception cannot prove its nonexistence. Nonetheless, even here, one can demonstrate the inappropriateness of a claim on the basis of the absence of its knowledge. In contexts where a fact under discussion is something that would be perceivable were it present, here nonperception can lead to correct knowledge of its nonexistence. Thus there are two general classes of evidence consisting in nonperception (part 5).

With this second category of evidence consisting in nonperception — namely, where what is being negated is in general perceivable — there is the nonperception of something related whose presence is necessarily dependent upon the presence of its correlate. An example of this type of reasoning is where the absence of fire, on which the existence of smoke depends, is used as a basis to infer the absence of smoke. Within this type of reasoning, through the nonperception of something related, the related thing might be its cause, its universal, or its essential nature. Thus there are three kinds. In the case of evidence consisting in nonperception based on the perception of something contradictory, there is the one where the evidence is effected by the perception of something contradictory in the sense of being contrary. There is also a second type where the evidence is effected by the perception of something contradictory in the sense of being mutually exclusive without any possible alternative, as in the law of excluded middle. The Buddhist reasoning of dependent origination used 15to negate self-existence, for example, belongs to this second type of reasoning. Within the first kind, the perception of something contradictory in the sense of being contrary, again t

Join Wisdom

This content is only available to members of the Wisdom Experience. Please log in, upgrade your membership, or join now.

Join Now
rotate left rotate right