One should not think, as is ordinarily done, that there exists an abiding motionless substance at the center, around which its qualities exist, moving and changing. If you suppose noumenon to be such an abiding substance, you will be misled altogether. Even the Mahayanistic people who maintain the doctrine of two truths—the worldly or popular truth and the higher truth—are often mistaken by a dichotomic idea of argument. The Tendai School, therefore, sets forth the threefold truth; i.e., the truth of void, the truth of temporariness and the truth of mean. All things have no reality and, therefore, are void. But they have temporary existence. They are at the same time mean or middle, that is, true state, Thusness.

According to the school the three truths are three in one, one in three. The principle is one but the method of explanation is threefold. Each one of the three has the value of all. Therefore, when our argument is based on the void, we deny the existence of both the temporary and the middle, since we consider the void as transcending all. Thus, the three will all be void. The same will be the case when we argue by means of the temporary truth or the middle truth. Therefore, when one is void, all will be void; when one is temporary, all will be temporary; when one is middle, all will be middle. They are otherwise called the identical void, identical temporary and identical middle. It is also said to be the perfectly harmonious triple truth or the absolute triple truth.

We should not consider the three truths as separate because the three penetrate one another and are found perfectly harnlonized and united together. A thing is void but is also temporarily existent. It is temporary because it is void, and the fact that everything is void and at the same time tetnporary is the middle truth,

Buddhism assumes no substance, no abiding individual self, no soul, no Creator, no root principle of the universe. But this by no means implies that all beings and things do not exist. They do not exist with a substratum or a permanent essence in them, as people often think, but they do exist as causal relatives or combinations. All becoming, either personal or universal, originate from the principle of causation, and exist in causal combinations. The center of causation is one’s own action, and the action will leave its latent energy which decides the ensuing existence. Accordingly, our past forms our present, and the present forms the future. This is the theory of self-creation.

We are, therefore, always creating and always changing. Men are ever floating on the waves of dynamic becoming called ‘samsara,’ the stream of life. Creating and changing ourselves as a whole, we go on. There should no fear of the loss of identity, for our present self as a whole is an effect of the cause which we may call our past self; similarity in the future it is impossible that our self will be lost since we are necessarily self-creating beings. It is unreasonable to seek an unchanging essence in an all-changing being.

The seed-elements are assumed to be four—Earth (hardness), Water (wetness), Fire (warmth) and Air (motion)—and all matters or forms are one or another combination of these four.

The formation of a personality and of the universe is similar, both consisting of matter and mind, the difference being that in a personality, mind is prevalent while in the universe matter is prevalent. Personality consists of five groups (skandha)–Form (body), Perception, Conception, Volition and Consciousness (mind). The Form or body, again, consists of earth, water, fire and air. Man is therefore to be considered as one who has a form, perceives, conceives, wills and thinks. These are his actions (karma) which altogether form his personal existence, which has no other reality. A man is a temporary entity, and is only living in the contiguity of momentariness. In order to change his personality for better, the cultivation of his knowledge and wisdom is necessary, because the perfection of wisdom is the perfection of personality—Enlightenment.

In Buddhism there is no actor apart from action, no percipient apart from perception; therefore, no conscious subject behind consciousness. Mind is simply a transitory state of consciousness of an object. There is no permanent conscious subject, for no fabric of a body remains the same for two consecutive moments as the modern physicists say. Buddhism contends that the same is true of the mind as well.

First of all let us consider what the word ‘dharma’ means in Buddhism. It is derived from the verb dhri (to hold, or to bear), and its noun form, dharma, would mean ‘that which is held to,’ or ‘the ideal’ if we limit its meaning to mental affairs only. This ideal will be different in scope as conceived by different individuals. In the case of the Buddha it will be Perfect Enlightenment or Perfect Wisdom (Bodhi). Secondly, the ideal as expressed in words will be his Sermon, Dialogue, Teaching, Doctrine. Thirdly, the ideal as set forth for his pupils is the Rule, Discipline, Precept, Morality. Fourthly, the ideal to be realized will be the Principle, Theory, Truth, Reason, Nature, Law, Condition. Fifthly, the ideal as realized in a general sense will be Reality, Fact, Thing, Element (created and not created), Mind-and-Matter, Idea-and-Phenomenon. In the Realistic School of the Abhidharma teachers, the word dharma is mostly used in the fifth and last meaning.

Now we are in a position to understand what Abhidharma means. The prefix ‘Abhi-‘ gives the sense of either ‘further’ or ‘about.’ Therefore, Abhidharma would mean ‘The Higher or Special Dharma’ or ‘The Discourse of Dharma.’ Both will do for our purpose. While the Dharma is the general teaching of the Buddha, the Abhidharma is a special metaphysical discourse brought forward by certain elders.

To the Buddhist mind Nirvana did not contain any idea of deification of the Buddha. It simply meant the eternal continuation of his personality in the highest sense of the word. It meant returning to his original state of Buddha-nature, which is his Dharma-body but not his scripture-body as the formalists take it to be. Dharma means the ‘ideal’ itself which the Buddha conceived in his perfect Enlightenment. The idealists hold that the Buddha has Dharma-body — the body identical with that ideal. The ideal was expressed in the Buddha’s preachings but these preachings were always restricted by the language and the occasion and the listeners. Therefore the idealists hold that the scripture is not the Buddha’s ideal itself. This ideal ‘body’ without any restricting conditions whatever is Nirvana.

The formalists, on the other hand, hold that the scripture is the perfect representation of the ideal of the Buddha. Hence their opinion that the Buddha lives forever in the scripture-body, Nirvana being his entire annihilation and extinction otherwise.

Concerning the principle of Totality (Dharma-dhatu) much has been said already in connection with the discussion of the Principle of Universal Causation. We have seen that there were four kinds of universe to be considered, namely; (1) the world of actual life, (2) the world of ideal principles, (3) the world of the ideal principles realized, (4) the world of actual life harmonized. The first, second and third can be easily understood, but the fourth is a rather uncommon idea. In the actual world individualism is apt to predominate, and competition, conflict, dispute and struggle too often will disturb the harmony. To regard conflict as natural is the way of usual philosophies. Buddhism sets up a world in which actual life attains an ideal harmony. …

According to this principle no one being will exist by itself and for itself, but the whole world will move and act in unison as if the whole were under general organization. Such an ideal world is called ‘the World One-and-True’ or ‘the Lotus-store.’

The idea of an abiding substance with changing qualities is very deeply rooted in our habits of thought. Buddhist schools, no matter what they are, Hinayana or Mahayana, realistic or idealistic, are utterly free from such a habit of thought and all maintain the theory of pure change without substratum. When any Buddhist speaks of the true state of reality he means the state without a specific nature. According to the general views of the Hinayana, the state without any special condition is Nirvana, because Nirvana is perfect freedom from bondage. The Realistic School (the Sarvastivada), belonging to the Hinayana, goes a step further and assumes that selflessness, impermanence and Nirvana (flamelessness) are the true state of all things. The Nihilistic School (the Satyasiddhi) holds that all things, matter and mind, are void or unreal and that nothing exists even in Nirvana.

The Mahayana teaches, on the one hand, that the truth can be discovered only by negative views of becoming, and, on the other hand, holds that true perfection can be realized negatively in the denial of the illusory and causal nature of existence. The ‘Wreath’ School of the Mahayana thinks that the ideal world, or the World One-and-True, is without any independent individual. The ‘Lotus’ School identifies the manifested state as it is and the true entity immanent-in-nature.

On the whole, to see only the fact that a flower is falling is, after all, a one-sided view according to the theory of impermanence. We ought to see that immanent in the fact of a flower’s falling there lies the fact of a flower’s blooming, and also immanent in the blooming of the flower there is the fact of its falling. Thus the opposition of falling (extinction) and blooming (becoming) is synthesized and we form the view of reciprocal identification which is an unbiased view of the mean, or Middle Path.

This amounts to saying that we see inaction in action and action in inaction, immotion in motion and motion in immotion, calm in wave and wave in calm. We thus arrive at the true state of all things, i.e., the Middle Path. And this is what is meant by Thusness or Suchness.

When the view is negatively expressed it indicates the true negation or Void, because any special state of things is denied altogether. Such is considered to be the ultimate idea of Buddhist philosophy. When the ultimate principle is considered from the universal point of view, it is called ‘Dharma-dhatu’ (the Realm of Principle), but when it is considered from the personal point of view, it is named ‘Tathagata-garbha’ (the Matrix of Thus-come or Thus-gone). Other ways of expressing this same idea are: ‘Buddha-to’ or ‘Buddhasvabhava’ (the Buddha Nature), and ‘Dharma-kaya’ (the Spiritual or Law-body). These are all practically synonymous. Without knowing the principle of Thusness or Void in the highest sense of the word, one can in no way understand the Mahayana doctrine. The word ‘void’ in its highest sense does not mean ‘nothingness,’ but indicates ‘devoid of special conditions,’ ‘unconditioned.’

To see the true nature or the true state of all things is not to find one in many or one before many, nor is it to distinguish unity from diversity or the static from the dynamic. The true state is the state without any special condition. It is, in fact, ‘the true reality without a reality,’ i.e., without any specific character or nature. It is very difficult for the human mind to understand this idea of a reality in which there is no ‘sub-stance’ at all.

If you do not insist on the existence of a central principle or absolute ego, you may define yourself in any way you please. When speaking roughly, it is quite correct to say that you exist and to describe yourself. But in minutely definite and exact language, it is impossible to define your own self or to describe yourself. However, there is no danger of losing yourself, for no one can extinguish the influence of your action, or latent energy. A particular manifestation of that energy in human form is yourself and the whole of you—for the present.

A substance may become energy and energy may become substance, but one must not think that the energy is preserved always in one and the same substance. By virtue of your own action you will get your next life and so on along the long line of lives. Having no permanent center, a living being changes itself as time goes on, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Your self does not exist apart from the changing manifestations, but the cycles of the changing manifestations as a whole constitute yourself. Therefore there is no possibility of the disappearance of your identity.

While practically all the schools of thought begin with a static first principle, Buddhism begins with the actual, dynamic world, and the individual, by cultivating oneself, strives to realize the ideal in the end. Samsara (the rise and fall of life) is not an onward flow, but a ‘wavicle’ circle, each wave being a cycle of life appearing on the great orbit of Samsara. It has no beginning nor end, just as one cannot point out the beginning of a circle.

There is, therefore, no room for the idea of a First Cause or Creation which might determine things. In the Dhamma-pada (Book of Religious Verse) the idea is described as follows: “All that we are is the result of what we have thought; it is founded on our thoughts; it is made up of our thoughts.” We must remember, however, that though the will is free or undetermined in the human world, it may appear as abstract energy-instinct or animal desire which is not un determined among the beasts and lower forms of life which are the lesser waves in the continuity of self-creation. The individual is self-creating and freely so, largely because he has no determinate nature or character.