Established Base - 03

Explanation of definitions of more basic dharmas.

སྐྱེ་འགག་གནས་གསུམ་རུང་བ། འདུས་བྱས་ཀྱི་མཚན་ཉིད།

That which is possible of the three: arising, ceasing and abiding, is the definition of the conditioned.

The term “conditioned” literally means “formed through the aggregation of causes and conditions.” From the standpoint of definition, it refers to dharmas that are possible of arising, abiding, and ceasing. Any dharma that possesses these three stages is called a conditioned dharma.

The three stages of arising, abiding, and ceasing are explained from a coarse analytical perspective: Arising refers to the stage of coming into formation; abiding refers to the stage of relative stability or continuity; ceasing refers to the stage of disintegration or destruction. Any dharma that possesses these three stages qualifies as a conditioned dharma.

དོན་དམ་པར་དོན་བྱེད་ནུས་པ། དོན་དམ་བདེན་པའི་མཚན་ཉིད།

That which is able to perform a function ultimately, is the definition of ultimate truth.

The phrase “able to perform a function” is exactly the same as the one used earlier in the definition of entity; the only additional qualifier here is “ultimate.” In Tibetan grammar, this involves a particle meaning “in the manner of.” Thus, “able to perform a function in the ultimate manner” constitutes the definition of ultimate truth.

According to the Sautrāntika system, “ultimate” refers to evident perception, while “truth” refers to the appeared object. Therefore, ultimate truth means that which appears to evident perception and possesses the ability to perform a function.

Evident perception is non-mistaken. Only impermanent dharmas can appear clearly to evident perception. Thus, the appeared object of evident perception and impermanence are equivalent.

རྟོག་པས་བཏགས་ཙམ་མ་ཡིན་པར་རང་ངོས་ནས་གྲུབ་པ། རང་མཚན་གྱི་མཚན་ཉིད།

Not being only imputed by the conceptualizer, while being established from one’s own side, is the definition of individual characteristic.

First, we explain “imputed by the conceptualizer.”

“Conceptualizer” refers to conceptual consciousness. “imputed” refers to the conceptual imputation made by such consciousness upon a given basis. This is an extremely important concept in Buddhist philosophy and is closely related to the establishment of selflessness and emptiness.

The bases upon which conceptual imputation operates include permanent dharmas, impermanent dharmas, and even non-dharmas (non-existent “objects”). For example, a conceptualizer can construct the meaning-generality of “rabbit’s horns.” Rabbit’s horns themselves are non-existent, but the meaning-generality of rabbit’s horns is not non-existent; it is a permanent dharma fabricated by conceptualizers.

The first condition of this definition is “not merely imputed by the conceptualizer.” This involves two levels of exclusion:

1. Exclusion by “merely imputed”: This excludes all impermanent dharmas and some non-dharmas. Although conceptualizers can impute impermanent dharmas, impermanent dharmas do not depend on such imputation to be established; therefore, no impermanent dharma is merely imputed. Conceptualizers can also impute non-existent objects, but some non-existent objects are not merely imputed. For example, although the conceptualizer imputes rabbit’s horns, a mistaken visual perception may also misperceive rabbit ears as horns. Thus, “merely imputed” excludes only some non-dharmas, such as the offspring of a mule.

2. Exclusion by “not”: After excluding impermanent dharmas and some non-existent objects, what remains are permanent dharmas and the remaining non-dharmas. The word “not” then excludes these, leaving impermanent dharmas and the remaining non-existent objects.

The second condition is “established from its own side.” In the Sautrāntika system, all dharmas are established from their own side. Thus, this condition excludes all non-dharmas.

Combining the results of both conditions, only impermanent dharmas remain.

དེ་རྣམས་དོན་གཅིག

Those are equivalent.

Therefore, individual characteristic is equivalent to impermanence, product, entity, and ultimate truth. Their definitions are likewise equivalent.

སྐད་ཅིག་མ་མ་ཡིན་པ་དང་ཆོས་ཀྱི་གཞི་མཐུན། རྟག་པའི་མཚན་ཉིད།

The common locus of being non-momentary and being a dharma, is the definition of permanence.

If we stated only “non-momentary,” non-dharmas such as rabbit’s horns would qualify. Since rabbit’s horns are not dharmas, the qualifier “being a dharma” is necessary.

“Common locus” means a single instance that satisfies both conditions. Anything that is both non-momentary and a dharma is permanent.

དོན་བྱེད་ནུས་སྟོང། དངོས་མེད་ཀྱི་མཚན་ཉིད།

That which devoid of being able to perform a function, is the definition of non-entity.

This definition is established in opposition to the definition of an entity, namely “that which is able to perform a function.” The word “devoid” functions as a negation, excluding “being able to perform a function,” without asserting whether the object is a dharma.

Since “being able to perform a function” includes all impermanent dharmas, “devoid of being able to perform a function” excludes all impermanent dharmas. Therefore, the category of non-entities includes not only all permanent dharmas but also all non-dharmas, such as rabbit’s horns.

མ་སྐྱེས་པ། མ་བྱས་པའི་མཚན་ཉིད།

Not arisen, is the definition of non-product.

“Not arisen” is the definition of not being produced.

The negation “not” directly negates arising. Consequently, non-dharmas such as rabbit’s horns are also not arisen and thus qualify as non-products.

Therefore, non-product and permanence are not equivalent; they have a threefold logical relationship:

• Whatever is permanent is necessarily a non-product.

• Not everything that is a non-product is permanent (e.g., rabbit’s horns).

སྐྱེ་འགག་གནས་གསུམ་མི་རུང་བ། འདུས་མ་བྱས་ཀྱི་མཚན་ཉིད།

That which is impossible of the three: arise, cease and endure, is the definition of the unconditioned.

The negation excludes the possibility of “arising, abiding, and ceasing.” Anything that meets this condition is unconditioned.

When speaking of the conditioned, adding the word “dharma” makes no difference. However, in the case of the unconditioned, adding “dharma” matters. “Unconditioned” alone merely excludes all conditioned dharmas, leaving items that may not be dharmas at all—rabbit’s horns also qualify. Only unconditioned dharmas are necessarily existent.

དོན་དམ་པར་དོན་བྱེད་མི་ནུས་པའི་ཆོས། ཀུན་རྫོབ་བདེན་པའི་མཚན་ཉིད།

Dharma of not being able to perform a function ultimately, is the definition of conventional truth.

“Conventional” refers to the conceptualizer, and “truth” refers to the appeared object. The appeared object of the conceptualizer is equivalent to permanence.

The Sanskrit term translated as “conventional” also carries the meaning of “that which conceals.” For example, when a conceptualizer apprehends a vase, it engages with the vase, yet the vase itself is not its object of appearance. Rather, the meaning-generality of the vase—fabricated by the conceptualizer upon the basis of the vase—is what clearly appears. This meaning-generality conceals the clear appearance of the vase itself.

All Buddhist schools posit two truths: ultimate truth and conventional truth. These two are mutually exclusive, and together they necessarily encompass all dharmas.

Both ultimate truth and conventional truth are existent dharmas. Ultimate truth refers to the appeared object of evident perception, whereas conventional truth refers to the appeared object of conceptualizers. The Sautrāntika system distinguishes the two truths on this basis.

རྟོག་པས་བཏགས་ཙམ་དུ་གྲུབ་པའི་ཆོས། སྤྱི་མཚན་གྱི་མཚན་ཉིད།

Dharma of being only imputed by the conceptualizer, is the definition of general characteristic.

Earlier, in the analysis of individual characteristics, “merely imputed by conceptualizer” excluded impermanent dharmas, leaving permanent dharmas and some non-dharmas. Here, by adding “dharma,” non-dharmas are excluded as well.

Thus, general characteristic and permanent dharma are equivalent.

---

Previous post in this series:

---

The next post in this series:

---