T H E COMPOSITE 52 the space inside the car really exist? Both are just dependently arisen mere appearances This is something Nagarjuna explains in verse thirty-four, the last verse of the chapter-how it is not illogical for arising, abiding, and ceasing to exist as dependently arisen mere appearances that have no inherent nature: Like a dream, like an illusion, Like a city of gandharvas, That's how birth and that's how living That's how dying are taught to be Dreams, illusions, and cities of gandharvas are all examples of "empty forms"-things that appear without having any real exis tence-and these examples help us to understand how it could be possible for something to appear vividly at the same time that it is not real in the slightest way Gandharvas are a type of spirit They live together in large com munities, and when you look at them from far away it seems as if there is a whole city of them, but once you get close to them, they seem to vanish They are a very good example of the big cities we live in these days-when we not analyze, there seem to be a great many people there, but as soon as we look more closely, we cannot find any one of them that truly exists Therefore, all those people are just mere appearances, like gandharvas In his Guide to the Bodhisattva's Conduct, the bodhisattva Shanti deva teaches: Then wanderers, these dreamlike beings, what are they? If analyzed, they're like a banana tree One cannot make definitive distinctions Between transcending misery and not Sentient beings who wander in samsara are like sentient beings who appear in dreams Once we analyze, we find that they are like ba- THE COMPOSITE 53 nana trees-when you look at a banana tree, it seems solid, but once you peel away the layers of its bark, you not find any core The bodies of sentient beings are the same-they appear to be solid, truly existent things, but we can apply the analysis of composite entities that we have undertaken in this chapter to sentient beings' bodies as well and find that they are not truly existent after all, that they have no real substance, because they not really arise, abide, or cease Thus, sentient beings are illusory appearances In the Mahayana, the meditation that one practices in between formal meditation sessions is called the samadhi that sees everything to be like an illusion IS In the Vajrayana, this is called impure illusory body practice The names are different, but the instructions for practicing them are the same: View all appearances of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and thoughts as appearing while empty, empty while appearing; understand all your experi ences to be the union of appearance and emptiness, like illusions and dreams These days, the samadhi that sees everything to be like an illusion is easier to practice than ever before, because modern technology has produced so many new examples of empty forms Movies, tele vision, telephones, faxes, e-mail, the internet-all of these are won derful examples of how things can appear due to the coming together of causes and conditions, while at the same time being empty of any inherent nature In big cities, there are all kinds of flashing lights and moving billboards outdoors, and when you go into any big department store, there are huge mirrors on the walls, filled with reflected images So the city is a wonderful place to train in the samadhi of illusion 15 Samadhi refers to a state in which one is concentrated and not distracted Paradoxically, it seems, the samadhi that sees everything to be like an illusion is the meditation one practices in the midst of all the distractions of thoughts and the objects that appear to the senses When one remembers that all of these distractions are illusory, however, this constitutes the practice of this samadhi, and all the distractions are in fact friends of and enhancements to the meditation rather than hindrances or obstacles 8 An Examination of Actors and Actions In the Sutras of the Mother, the Buddha taught: No actor is perceptible and no action is perceptible, either IN THIS CHAPTER, Nagarjuna will prove the validity of this state ment with logical reasoning Nagarjuna composed this chapter in answer to those who thought that composite things truly exist because the actors and actions that produce them truly exist In order to demonstrate to these people that their belief was flawed, Nagarjuna had to examine actors and actions and demonstrate that they not truly exist after all The way to analyze actors and actions is to examine the possible ways they could exist in relation to each other If they exist, they exist sequentially or simultaneously? They cannot exist sequen- ACT O R S A N D ACT I O N S tially, because, first, the actor cannot exist before the action If the actor did exist before and therefore independent of the action, then there would be a performer of an action even when the action was not being performed For example, if the action was to write a letter and the actor was the letter writer, then there would be a letter writer who did not perform any action of writing a letter Further more, the action cannot exist before and independent of the actor, for if it did, it would be an action without an actor performing it, which would be impossible Since the actor can exist only if there is an action, but the action can exist only if there is an actor, they exist only in mutual dependence, and therefore they have no nature of their own They not truly exist Then one might ask, "I can see why the actor can't exist before the action and why the action can't exist before the actor, but why can't they exist at the same time?" The reason they cannot is that if they did, and each had its own inherent nature, there would not be any connection between them-they would be two independent things To say that things exist inherently means that they not exist in dependence upon each other Here, though, the only reason we can say there is an actor is because there is some action, and the only reason we can say there is an action is because there is some actor They have a relationship in which each is the cause of the other; they are dependent upon each other for their existence This is why they cannot exist simultaneously as independent entities-if they did, they would not have that relationship of mutual depen dence Like a horse and a cow, each would be able to go its own way without any effect on the other at all We can put this in a form of a logical reasoning by saying: Neither an actor nor an action has any nature of its own, because for an actor to exist there must be an action, but that action can exist only in dependence upon the actor herself Since they can exist only in mutual dependence, they not truly exist Thus, actors and actions not truly exist because they cannot exist independent of each other They do, however, exist as depen- AC T O R S A N D AC T I O N S 57 dently arisen mere appearances that manifest due to the coming together of causes and conditions To explain this, Nagarjuna writes in verse twelve: An actor exists in dependence upon an action, An action exists in dependence upon an actor, And apart from that, No reason for their existence can be seen It is very good for us to know the root verses of this text, as opposed to merely receiving a general explanation of their meaning, because then we can be certain of what the text actually says In fact the Sanskrit version of this text exists, as does the Tibetan transla tion, and now there are translations into English and other lan guages If you like, you can compare these different versions in order to gain a better understanding of their meaning To have at least one version to refer to helps us to have a good and stable understanding of what this text is about There are three ways of understanding actors and the karmic ac tions that they perform When explanations are given to beginners about karma and the actors who perform karmic actions, these things are explained as if they really exist We have to understand, though, that this is from the perspective of no analysis, the perspec tive of just taking appearances to be real, without analyzing them The next step is to analyze with precise knowledge, and when we that, then we see, as we have done here, that actors and actions are not real, that they not really exist at all The ultimate understand ing is that the true nature of actors and actions is beyond any con ceptual notion of them, whether it be a thought that they exist or that they not exist Their actual nature transcends both of those concepts, and this third stage presents the ultimate way to under stand reality It is important for us to distinguish these three stages ... because, first, the actor cannot exist before the action If the actor did exist before and therefore independent of the action, then there would be a performer of an action even when the action was... if there is an actor, they exist only in mutual dependence, and therefore they have no nature of their own They not truly exist Then one might ask, "I can see why the actor can't exist before the. .. is because there is some action, and the only reason we can say there is an action is because there is some actor They have a relationship in which each is the cause of the other; they are dependent