W H AT C O M E S F I R S T specific actions themselves? I f the one who acted positively and the one who acted negatively did exist before those actions, did they exist at the same time, in the same individual as different selves? How did they exist? If someone is going to go for refuge, we can ask the question, does the one who goes for refuge exist before the act of going for refuge, or not? If she does so exist, then the self who goes for refuge and the self who has not gone for refuge exist at the same time, or not? This is a very profound and subtle way to analyze, and it is also an easy way to analyze, so we should use it a lot! We can apply it to a worldly situation, to someone who is out of work and then gets work There is the self who is out of work and then the self who gets work-are they the same self? Are the out-of-work self and the working self the same, or are they different? Does the out-of-work self exist at the same time as the working self, and if so, are they one and the same, or are they different selves existing at the same time? Or are they different selves existing at different times? When we analyze in this way, we can come to an extraordinary certainty in the emptiness of the self of the individual and in the union of appearance and emptiness that is beyond conceptual fabri cation To put this into verse for you: When you think, "I exist" or "I don't exist," That's how you fall into realism or become a nihilist To know your true nature, think of a clear sky at night And on a beautiful lake, a moon that shines so bright! Appearance and emptiness, no one can separateThis is how you have to meditate! 10 An Examination of Fire and Firewood In the sutras, the Buddha explained: When one's hands, two sticks, and one's effort of rubbing the sticks come together, From these conditions, fire arises, And after arising and performing its function, it quickly ceases But when the wise ones ask, "Where did it come from and where did it go?" They look in all directions, but never find any occurrence of its coming or going So it is with the aggregates, sources of consciousness, and potentialsThey not exist inside and they not exist outside; All are free of self-entity, And they not abide anywhere The defining characteristic of phenomena is that they are of the essence of space FIRE AND FIREWOOD 66 W HEN O U R HAND S rub two sticks together, that produces a fire that will eventually cease, but this fire does not come from anywhere to the sticks when it first begins to burn them and it does not go any where when it goes out Fire is empty of coming and going Similarly, ignorance, clinging to the belief in self, mental afflic tions, and suffering not come from anywhere and they not go anywhere We can apply this to the experience of dreams as well and see that whatever appears in dreams, whatever happiness or suffering, it does not come from anywhere and it does not go any where In the very same way, all phenomena are empty of coming and going Nagarjuna composed this chapter in answer to those who did not accept his refutation of the self of the individual from the last chap ter These people claimed that the self exists in relation to the five aggregates in the same way that fire exists in relation to the wood that it burns Just as the fire is the burning agent and firewood is the object burned, so it is that the self is the appropriator and the aggregates are the objects that it appropriates In order to help these people abandon their belief that the self was real, Nagarjuna there fore had to examine fire and firewood and demonstrate that they not truly exist One way that Nagarjuna does this is by showing that two things like fire and firewood!? that must depend upon each other for their existence cannot truly exist This is the topic of verse ten: If something exists in dependence upon something else, But that thing upon which it depends Must also depend upon it, Then which one of these exists in dependence upon which? 17 The term firewood here means wood that is actually being consumed by fire F IRE AND FIREWOOD If fire and the wood that it burns truly exist, they have to exist either independently or dependently-there is no third alternative The fire and the wood that it burns cannot exist independent of each other, however, because if they could, then fire could exist even in the absence of anything to burn, and burning wood could exist without any fire burning it So the first possibility is eliminated The fire and firewood cannot actually exist dependently either If they did, then one of the two would have to first exist and then serve as a cause to bring the other into existence Neither fire nor the wood that it burns can fulfill that function, however, because each depends upon the other for its own existence Fire can exist only if there is something burning, but that burning substance (the firewood) cannot exist unless there is some fire burning it! So even though the fire relies on the burning wood for its existence, the burning wood itself cannot exist first and then bring the fire into existence, because for it to exist there must be a fire burning it in the first place Similarly, the fire cannot first exist and then serve as a supporting cause to bring the burning wood into existence, be cause the fire itself cannot exist unless there is some wood burning in the first place In his commentary, Mipham Rinpoche gives the example of two rocking boats-since neither boat is steady to begin with, it is impossible for either one to be the cause of steadying the other Similarly, when one thing must depend upon another for its existence, but that other one must in turn depend on the first for its own existence, in genuine reality it is impossible for either one to be the support for the other's existence Therefore, neither one of them truly exists-they are mere interdependent appearances Another way to prove that fire and firewood lack inherent exis tence is to examine the five possible ways that fire and firewood could exist in relation to one another, and see that in fact none of them are possible This is what Nagarjuna does in verse fourteen: The firewood itself is not the fire, There is no fire that exists apart from the firewood, 68 FIRE AND FIREWOOD The fire does not possess the firewood, The fire does not support the firewood, and the firewood does not support the fire The first possibility is that fire and the firewood it burns would be the same thing This would be illogical, however, because actors and the objects of their actions are not the same thing For example, an ax is not the same thing as the wood it chops, a pen is not the same thing as the letters it writes, and so forth Second, it is impossible for the fire and the firewood to be differ ent things, because if they were, they would exist independent of each other Fire could burn in the sky without burning anything at all, and wood would burn without any fire burning it The last three possibilities-that the fire possesses the firewood, that the fire supports the firewood, or that the firewood supports the fire-all depend upon the fire and firewood being different entities, because there have to be two different things in order for one to possess or support the other Since fire and firewood cannot be dif ferent entities, however, these last three possibilities are also im possible Thus, all five relationships that fire and firewood could possibly have with each other are logically untenable, and therefore, fire and firewood not truly exist The next step is to apply this analysis to the self, the appropriator, and the five aggregates that it appropriates Then we can apply it to all other phenomena as well Nagarjuna does this in verse fifteen: This examination of fire and firewood Refutes the self and the aggregates it appropriates in all five ways Similarly, examining vases, blankets, and so forth, It is perfectly explained that none of them exist in any of these five ways ... potentialsThey not exist inside and they not exist outside; All are free of self-entity, And they not abide anywhere The defining characteristic of phenomena is that they are of the essence of space... reality it is impossible for either one to be the support for the other's existence Therefore, neither one of them truly exists-they are mere interdependent appearances Another way to prove that fire... dependently-there is no third alternative The fire and the wood that it burns cannot exist independent of each other, however, because if they could, then fire could exist even in the absence of anything