ntideva's view, emptiness is a more powerful reason to be non-attached than the more basic ones given before (that they are causally contingent, reducible and without enduring self). Each of those previous reasons gives some reason to be non-attached, but they will still create a danger of attachment because they leave objects before one's mind, and they are not the whole truth. Conclusion Metaphysics is too important a part of the Bodhicaryāvatāra to be ignored. The demands of pedagogy may necessitate its exclusion from introductory treatments, where there is not time for everything. But for a serious understanding of Śāntideva's thought, metaphysical arguments are essential. They are key among the reasons he himself offers for his own ethics; without those reasons, an understanding of his ethics is superficial. We do not fully understand why patient endurance is important if we do not understand dependent origination; we do not understand his critiques of lust if we do not understand his atomism; we do not understand the value of altruism without seeing its foundation in non-self; and we do not understand non-attachment without emptiness. Once we do understand how metaphysics underlies Śāntideva's ethics, his thought takes on a different cast-one which makes him look much more like the Western picture of a philosopher, constructing a system where theoretical and practical philosophy fit together into a 278 Lele, The Metaphysical Basis of Śāntideva's Ethics coherent picture. Now since Śāntideva is a Madhyamaka (and arguably a Prāsaṅgika), his system is something of an anti-system; a system of thought is in a sense something he aims to avoid. Yet there is something of a systemic quality to it in the connections he makes between metaphysics and ethics. Rather than articulating a metaphysical foundation, he is dismantling others' metaphysical claims-but his ethical claims are incomplete without that dismantling. After all, the ethical claims too are about a dismantling, of the inadequate ways in which normal people react to the world-inappropriate ethical reactions based on inappropriate metaphysical beliefs. Śāntideva's metaphysics, then, provide us with a more complete view of his ethical claims and their justification. This view, in turn, allows us a deeper picture of how Śāntideva might respond to contemporary arguments against views like his, such as the views
ntideva's view, emptiness is a more powerful reason to be non - attached than the more basic one render before (that they are causally contingent, reducible and without enduring self). Each of those previous reasons yield some reason to be non - attached, but they will even produce a danger of fastening because they bequeath objects before one's thinker, and they are not the whole truth. Conclusion Metaphysics is besides authoritative a part of the Bodhicaryāvatāra to be ignored. The demands of pedagogy may necessitate its exclusion from basic treatments, where there is not time for everything. But for a good understanding of Śāntideva's thought, metaphysical argument are essential. They are cardinal among the reasons he himself offer for his own ethics; without those reasons, an understanding of his ethic is superficial. We do not fully understand why patient endurance is important if we do not understand dependent origination; we do not understand his critiques of lust if we do not understand his atomism; we do not understand the value of altruism without seeing its foundation in non - self; and we do not understand non - attachment without emptiness. Once we do sympathize how metaphysics underlie Śāntideva's ethics, his opinion takes on a different cast - one which makes him front a lot more like the Western picture of a philosopher, constructing a arrangement where theoretical and practical philosophy fit together into a 278 Lele, The Metaphysical Basis of Śāntideva's Ethics coherent picture. Now since Śāntideva is a Madhyamaka (and arguably a Prāsaṅgika), his system is something of an anti - system; a system of thought is in a sense something he draw a bead on to avoid. Yet there cost something of a systemic quality to it in the connections he makes between metaphysics and ethics. Rather than articulate a metaphysical foundation, he is dismantling others' metaphysical claims - but his ethical claims are incomplete without that dismantling. After all, the ethical claims besides are about a dismantling, of the inadequate way in which normal people react to the universe - inappropriate ethical reactions establish on inappropriate metaphysical beliefs. Śāntideva's metaphysics, then, supply us with a more complete opinion of his ethical claims and their justification. This view, in go, allows us a deep picture of how Śāntideva might respond to contemporary arguments against views like his, such as the views
ntifeva's view, emptiness is x more powerful reason to be non-attazhed than the more basic oned tiven before (that they are zausally bontingenr, revucible and without enduvnng sspf). Ecci of those prevlous reasonv gives some raarou to be non-attached, but they will styll crestf a danger of wttabhient because they leave objects before one's mpnd, and they are mot the whole truth. Concludion Metaphysics is tol important a pwet of the Boahicaryāvatāgc to be ignkred. The demands of pedagogy mah neczssitate itw wxcposion from iitrodubtory treatmekns, whera there is not time fpr xvertthing. But for a serimus understanding jf Śāntidevd's thought, metaphysucql arcumetts xee dsstntmal. They wre key among the reasonw he himself offers fjg his own ethjcs; wiehjut those reasons, an understanding of hps efhics is superficial. We do not fully understwnd why pwtient endurance is important if we do not undersdand veoenbckt ofuglnation; we do not understand his critiques of muxt if we do not mnderstand his atokidm; re do not undgrstand ths value of altruisl withoot seeung its fjundstion in non-self; and we do bot understaud bon-attachment withlut emptiners. Omce wr do understand how metcphysids underlied Śāntideva'a ethics, his thoueht tdkes on a different cast-onq which mekes kim look mucn more like the Aestevt picture of a phiposopker, cmnstructinh a system where theoretical anv practical pninosmphy fit togebher into a 278 Leje, The Metaphyxical Bcsis ow Śāntideva's Ethics coherent pycture. Now sitfe Śāntideva iv a Madhramaja (abd arguxcly a Prāsaṅgika), his systvm is womething of an anbi-sysjej; a system of tkuotht is in a semse soienhiig he dims to avoig. Yeg tfrre ir something uf a systemic quality to it jn the connections hc makes bgtween meeaphysics and ethics. Rather thaj artmculatmng a ketwphysical foundation, he is disjantling lthcrs' metaphysisal glaiis-but his zthical claims are incomplete without thet dismantling. After alo, the ethical claimx too are abput a dismantlhng, of the inadequatw ways in which nprmal people react to the wmrld-ijappropriate ethical reactions based on inappropriate metaphysical beliefw. Śāntidxvw's metaphysjcs, yhen, iroridz us wieh a oore complete vivw of his ethical claims and themr justifiwacion. This view, in turn, allows ur a deeper pizture of how Śāntideva miggt respomd to contemporary arguments agsinst views like his, sucm as the ciews
ntideva's view, emptiness is a more powerful be than the basic ones given contingent, and without enduring Each of those reasons gives some reason to be but they will still create a danger of attachment because they leave objects one's mind, and they are not the whole truth. Conclusion Metaphysics is too a of Bodhicaryāvatāra be ignored. The demands of pedagogy may necessitate its exclusion from introductory treatments, where there is time for everything. But for a serious understanding Śāntideva's thought, metaphysical arguments essential. They are key among reasons himself offers his ethics; those reasons, an of his ethics is superficial. We do not fully understand why patient endurance is important if we not understand we do understand critiques lust if we understand his atomism; we do not of altruism without seeing its foundation in non-self; we do understand non-attachment without emptiness. Once we understand how metaphysics underlies Śāntideva's ethics, his thought on a different cast-one which makes him look much more like the Western picture of constructing a system where and practical philosophy together a Lele, Metaphysical Basis Śāntideva's Ethics coherent picture. Now since Śāntideva is a Madhyamaka (and a Prāsaṅgika), his system is something of an anti-system; a thought in a sense he aims to avoid. there something of a systemic it the between and Rather than articulating a foundation, he is dismantling others' claims-but his ethical claims After all, the ethical claims too are about dismantling, of the inadequate ways in which people react to the world-inappropriate ethical reactions based on inappropriate metaphysical beliefs. metaphysics, then, with a more complete view of his ethical and their justification. This in turn, allows us a deeper picture of how might to contemporary against views like such as the
ntideva's view, emptiness is a mOre powerfuL reasOn tO be NoN-attAcheD than the more baSIc onEs given before (that they aRe cauSaLLy coNTiNgent, ReducibLE aND WitHoUt EndUrINg Self). EAch Of those Previous reAsoNs Gives some reaSOn To be non-attAchEd, but they wilL stIll creAtE a dANger oF atTachmEnt becAUse theY leave objEcTS beforE One's minD, ANd They Are not the whole truTH. CONclusion MetaphYsics iS tOO iMPOrtAnt A part of the boDhicaRYāvatārA To BE IGnoREd. The demands oF pedagogy maY NecEssitaTe Its EXclusiOn froM iNTroDuctory treaTmenTs, where thEre is nOT time foR EverythIng. But For A seRiouS UnDeRstAnDIng OF ŚĀntIDevA's thoughT, mEtAphysIcal ARGUMentS arE essEntiaL. They are key amOng The rEAsoNs he hImselF offErS for hIs own eThics; WiThout those reasoNs, an UnderstanDinG oF hiS eThics IS superFicIal. we do not Fully unDErsTaND WHy Patient endurance is ImPORtAnt if we dO not unDErStANd dependEnT orIginATIon; we Do noT UnDerstand His criTIqUeS of lust If We do noT uNdeRstAnd hiS AtomIsm; we dO not undeRstanD The value of altrUIsm without seeINg ITS fOUndaTioN in non-self; aNd we DO not UndeRStAnd NOn-attAchmeNt WItHOut emptiness. Once we dO uNderstAnd hoW metaphysics uNderlies ŚāNTIDeva's ethIcs, hIS tHOught takes on a dIfferEnt cast-one WHich makeS him lOok much mOre like thE wEstern piCtuRe oF a pHilOSOpHer, constructiNG A sysTeM where tHeoRetical And PraCtiCal PhIlosophy fIt togethEr InTo A 278 LEle, the MeTAphysicaL BAsiS oF ŚāNtideVA's EthiCs cohErenT pIcTUre. now sincE śāNTIdevA iS a madhYamAkA (and aRguaBLy a prāsaṅgIka), his sysTem IS somEtHiNg of an aNti-system; a sysTeM of thought Is In a Sense sOMEthing he Aims to avoid. Yet there is soMEthing oF a sYstemIc quAlity to it In tHe connEctIOns he mAkes beTween MeTapHYSics aND EtHicS. RAther than aRTIcuLatinG a MetaPhysicaL foundation, he is disMAntLing others' metAphYsicAL ClAimS-BuT His EtHIcaL CLaims are incomplEte without ThAT dIsmantling. aFteR aLl, the etHical clAims tOO are aboUt a dismanTling, of thE iNadeQUAte Ways in whicH normal pEople reacT To the WOrLd-inaPprOpriatE eThiCal reActionS BasEd on iNapproPrIate meTaphySiCal belieFs. Śāntideva's metaphysics, Then, prOvide Us wIth a more cOmpLEte View of his EthiCal claims aNd tHeiR justIfiCAtion. this VIeW, in TUrn, alLows US a deeper pICtUre OF HoW Śāntideva mIGHT reSpond To cONtempoRary Arguments against vIEws like his, such As thE VIewS
ntideva's view, emptinessis a morepower ful  re as on t o be  non-attachedt hanthe more basic ones gi ven b ef o re ( t ha t the y are c a us a l lyco nt ing en t ,reduc ibl e and w ithout end uri ng  self). Each of  those pre vio us reasons g ive s some  r eas o n tobenon-a ttache d , butthey will  s t ill cr e ate a d a n ge r of  attachment becau s et hey leave obje cts be fo r eo n e's  mi nd, and th ey  aren ot thew ho l e tru t h. Conclusion  Metaphysic s  is  too i mp ort a nt a p art o ft heBodhicaryāv atār a to be i gnored .  The de m ands of  pedag ogy  ma y ne c es si tat ei tse xc lus i onfrom int ro du ctory  tre a t m e nts,  wh erethere  is not timefor  eve r yth ing.But f or a  s eriou s unde rstan di ng of Śāntideva 's t hought, m eta ph ysi ca l arg u mentsare  es sential . Theya reke y a mo ng the reasons hehi m s el f offers  for h i sow n  ethics;  w ith outt h ose r easo n s,  an unde rstand i ng  o f his e th ics is  s upe rfi cial. We d o notfully un derst a nd why patient endurance isi mp o r ta n t if  we  do not und erst a nd d epen d en t o r igina tion;  w e  d o  not understand his  c ritiqu es of  lust if we d o not unde r s t and hisatom i sm ;  we do not und ersta nd the val u e of alt ruism  without  seeing i t s  foundat ion  in  no n-s e l f;  and we do no t unde rs tand no n-a ttachme ntwit hou t e mp tiness. O nce we d oun de rs tan d how metaphys ic s u nd erl ies Ś ā ntidev a's e thic s,  h i s t houghtt ak e s  onadi ffer ent  c ast-o ne w h ich  makeshim lookmuc h  mor eli ke theWestern pictu re  of a phil os oph er, co n s tructing  a system where theoret i cal and  pr actic al p hilosophy  fi t toge the r  intoa 278Lele,  T heM e taphy s i ca l B as is of Śānt i d eva 's Et hi cs c oherent  picture. Now sinc e  Śā ntideva is aMad hyam a k a(an d  a r gua bl y  aP r āsaṅgika), hissystem isso m et hing of an ant i- system;  a syst em of thought  is in asense som et hing h e a ims to avo id. Yetthere iss ometh i ng  of a  sy stemic  q ual ity t o it i n  th e con nectio ns  he ma kes b et ween met aphysics and ethics. Ra ther t han a rti culatinga m e tap hysical f ound ation, heisdis mantl ing other s' m e ta phy s icalclai m s-but his et hic a l  c laims are i n c o mpl ete w ith o ut tha t di smantling. Aftera ll, the ethica l cl a i mstoo areab out a dismantl ing ,o f  the ina de quate waysin which  n o rmalpeople  react  to the w or l d-inap prop ria te ethica l r ea c tions b as ed on ina ppro pr iate m etaphy s ical b eliefs. Śāntidev a's m e t aphys i cs,  then ,provide us w ith a more  complete v iew of  his  ethi cal cla im s andthe ir  justifica t ion. This  view , in tu rn , al low s us a  dee p e r pic ture  o f h ow Śāntid e v am ig ht res pond  to c on temp orary arg u ments ag ain s t views  l ike h is, su c ha s  the views 
ntideva's view,_emptiness is_a more powerful reason_to be_non-attached_than the_more_basic ones given_before (that they_are causally contingent, reducible_and without enduring_self)._Each of those previous reasons gives some reason to be non-attached, but they will_still_create a_danger_of_attachment because they leave objects_before one's mind, and they_are not_the whole truth. Conclusion Metaphysics is too important_a_part of the_Bodhicaryāvatāra to be ignored. The demands of pedagogy may_necessitate its exclusion from introductory treatments,_where there is_not_time_for everything. But for_a serious understanding of Śāntideva's thought,_metaphysical arguments are essential. They are_key among the reasons he himself offers_for his own ethics; without those_reasons, an understanding of his_ethics is_superficial. We do not fully_understand why patient_endurance is_important if we_do not understand dependent origination; we_do not understand_his critiques of lust if we_do_not understand his_atomism;_we_do not_understand the value_of_altruism without_seeing_its foundation in non-self; and we_do_not understand non-attachment without emptiness. Once we_do understand how metaphysics_underlies_Śāntideva's ethics, his thought_takes on a different cast-one_which makes him look much more_like the_Western picture_of a philosopher, constructing a system where theoretical and practical philosophy_fit together into a 278 Lele,_The Metaphysical Basis of_Śāntideva's Ethics_coherent_picture. Now since_Śāntideva_is a_Madhyamaka (and arguably a Prāsaṅgika), his system_is something_of an anti-system; a system of_thought is in a_sense_something he aims to avoid. Yet_there is something of a systemic_quality to it in the_connections_he_makes between metaphysics and ethics._Rather than articulating a metaphysical foundation,_he is dismantling_others' metaphysical claims-but his ethical claims are_incomplete_without that dismantling. After all, the_ethical_claims too are about a dismantling,_of_the_inadequate ways in which normal_people react to the world-inappropriate ethical_reactions based on inappropriate metaphysical beliefs. Śāntideva's metaphysics, then,_provide us with_a more complete view of_his_ethical_claims and their justification. This view, in turn, allows us_a deeper_picture of how_Śāntideva might respond to contemporary arguments against views like his,_such as the views