Because everything is empty – a mere projection of our mind – the worlds we experience, others experience, and Buddhas experience are all different. They are similar enough that we can use the same words to describe things so we know what each other is talking about, but what appears and what is understood by these words can be quite different.

There is no point debating with people, “it is like this,” “no, it is like that.” It ISN’T any one particular way. Both are true – it is like this for me, it is like that for you. When we create the space in our mind for that to be, much of the unnecessary conflict in our life begins to melt away and we develop a more accommodating heart.

The risk, though, in understanding this is we can fall into an extreme of relativism or nihilism. Who’s to say Hitler was wrong, for example? Normally, when we grasp at things existing from their own side, we think truth is established by identifying what is “objectively true,” meaning true from the side of the object. But when we understand emptiness, we know such a thing doesn’t exist at all.

On what basis, then, can we differentiate which world view is more valid than another? The Prasangikas have two answers – a philosophical one and a practical one.

Philosophically, what is valid or true is not established on the side of the object, but rather on the side of the mind. If the mind is a true mind, the objects known to that mind are true. If the object is a valid mind, the objects known to that mind are valid. But that begs the question, how do we know what is a true or a valid mind? This is where enlightened beings come in. Their minds know only the truth. Their minds are completely valid. We can use what they understand to be the truth as the relative basis for establishing degree of validity and truth in what we understand to be true. Further, the more our mind begins to resemble theirs, the more our mind is true or valid. If Buddhas see things one way (all beings our our mother) and we see them a different way (friend, enemy, and stranger), then we can say relatively speaking their perspective is more true or more valid, and we can work to bring our mind around to their point of view.

Practically, we might not know what Buddhas think or how they see things, so how are we to navigate through life? Fortunately, both Gen Tharchin and Gen Losang explain there is a compass which always points us in the right direction, namely “what is more beneficial to believe.” A good example of this would be the Kadampa version of Pascal’s Wager. If hell exists and we believe it doesn’t, then we might think we can engage in negative actions with impunity. This will result in us hurting others and us confronting a terrible reckoning when we fall into the lower realms. But if hell doesn’t exist, but we nonetheless believe it does, then we will be extremely careful to avoid negative actions. This will mean we hurt others less and our own mind will be more peaceful because we will have a clean conscience. So it is clearly more beneficial to believe hell exists, even if it doesn’t (which it does).

The same logic can be applied to any situation. Take, for example, the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. Who’s right? They both are right from different perspectives, and both wrong from different perspectives. Believing one is right and the other is wrong is what keeps the war going. Creating the space in our mind for both to be right from different perspectives opens up new possibilities and recognizes the dignity of the other, creating the possibility for peace. We all know without inner peace, outer peace is impossible. Creating this space in our mind is the foundation for both.

Likewise, we can ask ourselves, “how would a Buddha see this?” They would no doubt see it as a powerful lesson in cycles of karma and delusion. What is most beneficial for all concerned to believe? That these are all our kind mothers killing each other and experiencing – and creating the karmic causes for – a resembling hell. When we recognize the happiness of each being is equally important, we stop rationalizing why it is OK to kill each other’s children. What needs to change is not positions on the battlefield or poltical control over different populations or territory, but how we think about these things.

If this understanding is good enough for pointing the way towards peace in such intractable problems as the millennia of conflict in the holy land, then it is probably good enough to help us navigate through our conflicts within our family, at work, or even within our Dharma communities.

More practically still, within our tantric practice, these understandings guide us on how to move from samsara first into the charnel grounds and ultimately into Keajra itself. How to move from seeing ourself as a suffering sentient being to a bodhisattva and ultimately to a Buddha. Ordinary appearances and ordinary conceptions are both less valid and less beneficial than pure appearances and pure conceptions. Our tantric practice of pure view (grounded in an understanding of emptiness) moves us from mistaken appearance to unmistaken appearance. This is not an on/off switch, but rather a volume knob as we slowly make our way to the pure land.

But in the end, it is not enough to just understand these things. We need to do the work in our mind to abandon our invalid, impure minds; dismantle our mistaken and harmful views; and come to believe and ultimately realize the world as a Buddha knows it. Dharma explains how. Sangha are those in the world trying to do the same thing. The more we enmesh ourselves in these three, the more we will naturally move into the truth, the more harmonious all of our relations will become, and the happier both we and those around us will be.