A teaching summary podcast of Shantideva Ch9 Wisdom 1994 by Khensur Rinpoche, recorded at Buddha House, Adelaide.
Shantideva’s Bodhicharyavatara Chapter 9: Wisdom 1994
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Tradition: Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism
Venue: Buddha House, Adelaide
Recordings: 13 teaching sessions (March–December 1994, Tuesday evenings)
Source: Corrected transcripts from the Bodhi Archive
Overview
These thirteen sessions constitute a systematic commentary on the ninth chapter of Shantideva’s Bodhicharyavatara (Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life) — the “Wisdom Chapter” — presented by Khensur Rinpoche in the tradition of the Prasangika Madhyamaka (Consequence Middle Way school), the highest Buddhist philosophical tenet according to the Gelug tradition. The series was delivered as an ongoing Tuesday evening course, with students sitting written examinations periodically.
The teaching opens mid-chapter, taking up the debates between the Prasangika view and the assertions of lower Buddhist schools regarding the nature of emptiness (the non-inherent existence of all phenomena). Rinpoche methodically works through the philosophical objections raised by the Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, and other lower tenets, demonstrates how Shantideva answers them, and then proceeds to the positive exposition of how emptiness is established. The series covers the selflessness of phenomena through the framework of the four foundations of mindfulness (body, feeling, mind, and phenomena), the three great objections of the lower schools to the Prasangika view, the three major reasonings for establishing selflessness of phenomena (Diamond Pieces reasoning, the reasoning of dependent arising, and the reasoning negating absolute existence and non-existence), and finally a detailed guide to how to identify the object of negation and actually meditate on the selflessness of person.
Throughout, Khensur Rinpoche balances technical philosophical precision with vivid illustrations — mirrors and reflections, the story of the monk who ate sampa mixed with excrement to overcome food attachment, the telephone caller who accuses you of theft, and many others. The tone is warm, methodical, and deeply practical: the point of all this analysis is not intellectual exercise but the actual uprooting of the ignorance that is the root of all suffering.
Key Teachings
The Context: Prasangika Madhyamaka and the Lower Schools
Rinpoche opens by situating the ninth chapter within the debate structure of Indian Buddhist philosophy. The Prasangika Madhyamaka (Thrust Reasoner Middle Way) — the highest of the four Buddhist philosophical schools — asserts that all phenomena lack inherent existence (existence from their own side, by their own characteristics). The lower schools — Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, and Chittamatra (Mind Only) — cannot accept this and assert that at least some phenomena exist truly or by their own right. The bulk of the early sessions is devoted to the sequential refutation of these lower schools’ objections, each of which represents a genuine philosophical challenge that Shantideva must address before the positive teaching on emptiness can proceed.
The key objections addressed include:
– The sense-object objection: Lower schools argue that the five objects of the five senses (form, sound, smell, taste, touch) must exist truly because we directly perceive them. Answer: sense perceptions are valid only conventionally, not as proof of inherent existence. If ordinary beings already perceived things truly, there would be no point in meditating on emptiness.
– The Buddha’s teaching objection: Lower schools point out that the Buddha himself taught things exist by their own right. Answer: the Buddha taught this skillfully, like a doctor prescribing what is appropriate for each patient’s condition; it was a temporary teaching for those not yet ready for the ultimate view.
– The illusion objection: If things are like illusions, there is no purpose in accumulating merit or attaining Buddhahood. Answer: on a conventional functioning level, even illusory appearances support the accumulation of merit and the working of karma — just as a television image one dislikes can still generate anger in the viewer.
– The rebirth objection: If beings are like illusions, they should cease at death like a spell that has expired. Answer: the continuation depends on the presence of karma and impure thoughts; when these are exhausted, the cycle ceases — exactly as an illusion ceases when the substance and spell are no longer present.
– The virtue/non-virtue objection: If beings are like illusions, striking them should accumulate no karma. Answer: with an illusory being there is still the negativity of effort (intention to harm) but no negativity of basis (no living being harmed); with actual sentient beings, both the negativity of effort and the negativity of basis apply, making the act unambiguously harmful.
The Uniqueness of the Prasangika Position
A central repeated teaching throughout the series: the Prasangika view’s unique and exclusive feature is holding both that things do not exist inherently (ruling out the extreme of permanence/eternalism) and that things are not absolutely non-existent (ruling out the extreme of nihilism/nothingness). The lower schools fail to make this distinction — for them, if something is not findable when searched for, it simply does not exist at all. Only the Prasangika can present the full meaning: phenomena are dependently arisen and conventionally functioning, yet utterly empty of inherent existence. “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form” — the form exists dependently and therefore is empty; the very emptiness of inherent existence is the ground upon which dependent arising can manifest.
The Two Selflessnesses
All emptiness can be classified into two types: the selflessness of person and the selflessness of phenomena. The person (the mere “I” labeled upon the five aggregates) lacks inherent existence — this is the selflessness of person. The aggregates themselves (and all other phenomena) lack inherent existence — this is the selflessness of phenomena. The root of suffering is the ego-grasping that regards the “I” as solidly, independently existing. But before the ego-grasping can arise, there must be grasping at the aggregates as inherently existing. Therefore the root of all samsara is the grasping at phenomena as truly existent: “As long as there is grasping at aggregates, there will be grasping at ego, and that will produce karma, that will produce rebirth in samsara” (Nagarjuna).
The Selflessness of Phenomena: The Four Foundations of Mindfulness
Shantideva proves the selflessness of phenomena by systematically analysing each of the four foundations of mindfulness:
1. Mindfulness of body: When we search for an inherently existing body among its parts (head, shoulders, hands, lungs, intestines, bones, skin…) we find that none of the parts is the body, and the body is not to be found among them. The bodily parts are the basis of label upon which the label “body” is given; the basis of label and the attribute of label cannot be identical. Going further: even each individual part (the hand, the finger) dissolves under the same analysis into its own components, and those into particles, and those particles themselves are not partless atoms (as the lower schools claim) but are themselves part-bearing and dependently existing.
2. Mindfulness of feeling: If feeling (pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral) were inherently existing, it would be permanent and unchanging. But our experience directly contradicts this: feelings arise and pass away depending on causes and conditions. The moment the causes and conditions cease, the feeling ceases. Furthermore: if unpleasant feeling were permanent, a bodhisattva who attains the “Very Joyous” first ground could not experience immeasurable joy; if pleasant feeling were permanent, one could never experience grief at the death of a loved one. Feeling is not inherently existing. Rinpoche also teaches the five types of feeling (expanding three into five: pleasant bodily and mental, unpleasant bodily and mental, neutral), and explains how from pleasant feeling arises craving, from unpleasant feeling arises anger, and from neutral feeling arises closed-mindedness — the three poisons that bind beings to samsara.
3. Mindfulness of mind: Mind is not the brain or the nerves (which are matter composed of particles and cannot perceive external objects). Mind is that which perceives objects — the capacity for awareness. It is not found in the inner organs, not in the external senses, not on the limbs. The sensory consciousnesses depend on their respective object factors (eye consciousness on form, ear consciousness on sound, etc.) and arise after those objects — they are therefore dependent, and therefore not inherently existing. The mental consciousness too is found neither to precede phenomena it cognises, nor to exist simultaneously with them on equal footing; it is produced afterwards, proving its dependent nature. If the mind were inherently existing, impurities could never be removed and excellent qualities could never be cultivated — liberation and Buddhahood would be impossible. It is because the mind is not inherently existing that it can be purified and transformed.
4. Mindfulness of phenomena: All phenomena — compounded (products, dependent on causes and conditions) and uncompounded (emptiness, space, etc., not produced by causes and conditions but dependent on parts and on being labeled by concept) — are not inherently existing. Compounded phenomena: if truly existing, they should abide from moment to moment without changing; but they perish the very next moment they are produced, proving they are impermanent and dependent. Uncompounded phenomena: even emptiness, as an uncompounded phenomenon, exists only with dependence on its parts and locations — the emptiness of the thumb is not the emptiness of the index finger; they do not overlap.
The Three Major Objections of the Lower Schools to the Prasangika View
Following the four mindfulnesses, three major objections are raised by the lower schools:
Objection 1: If phenomena are not inherently existent, the two truths do not exist. Answer: the lower schools confuse “not inherently existing” with “absolutely not existing.” Conventional phenomena exist as dependently originated and merely labeled; their conventional existence is not denied. The two truths — conventional truth (dependently arising, nominally functioning phenomena) and ultimate truth (emptiness) — are complementary: understanding emptiness actually grounds and clarifies the presentation of conventional phenomena.
Objection 2: Analysing consciousness would be endless. If wisdom analyses whether phenomena are truly existent, does a second wisdom then need to analyse whether that first wisdom is truly existent, and so on forever? Answer (Shantideva): when wisdom realises all phenomena as not truly existent, it simultaneously has no residual concept of its own true existence. The analysed and the analyser are linked: once all phenomena are realised as empty, the wisdom itself does not require a separate analysis, because the realisation of universal non-true-existence already entails the non-true-existence of the analysing mind.
Objection 3: There are no valid reasonings to establish non-inherent existence. The lower schools argue that the six consciousnesses and their objects are truly existent and support each other. Answer: the lower schools argue in a circle — form is truly existent because eye consciousness is truly existent, and eye consciousness is truly existent because form is truly existent. In fact, both are dependently arisen relative to each other (as father and child are relative to each other), which means neither exists independently or truly.
The Three Major Reasonings for Establishing Selflessness of Phenomena
Reasoning 1: Diamond Pieces Reasoning (analysis of causes). Any product is supposedly produced in one of four ways: from no cause, from itself, from an other (such as a creator deity Ishvara), or from both itself and another. Each is refuted: production from no cause is refuted (even the sharp point of a thorn or the motley feathers of a peacock have their own causes and conditions); production by Ishvara is refuted (Ishvara turns out to be simply the elements under a different name, or, if permanent, is unable to produce anything, or, if a deity, ought not to be the creator of suffering as well as happiness); production from itself is refuted (the result would already have to exist during the time of the cause — one would be drinking vomit when drinking tea; one hundred future-elephant rebirths would have to be present on a blade of grass). Production from both is refuted by combining the previous two refutations. Since no coherent account of how a product could be produced inherently holds up, the product does not exist inherently.
Reasoning 2: The King of Reasonings — Dependent Arising. Rinpoche devotes considerable time to this, calling it the “king of reasonings” and citing Tsongkhapa’s praise of dependent arising as the matchless reasoning of the Buddha’s teaching. The formal syllogism: “Let the sprout be the investigative referent. It is not inherently existing, because it is a dependent arising phenomenon.” The power of this reasoning is that it eliminates both extremes simultaneously: thinking that the body is dependent on its causes and conditions rules out the extreme of nothingness (it clearly exists and functions), while simultaneously ruling out the extreme of permanence (it clearly cannot exist independently). Nagarjuna: “There is not any phenomenon that is not dependent arising, and therefore there is not any phenomenon that is not emptiness.” Buddha Shakyamuni: “Whoever sees dependent arising sees reality; whoever sees reality sees Buddhahood.”
Rinpoche also explains the three levels of understanding dependent arising: (i) dependence on causes and conditions (accepted by all four schools); (ii) dependence on parts and portions (accepted by the Autonomous Madhyamaka and above); (iii) dependence on being labeled by concept (the exclusive insight of the Prasangika). It is only by incorporating the third level that one reaches the full depth of the meaning.
Reasoning 3 (anticipated but not reached in detail): The reasoning negating absolute existence and absolute non-existence — this third major reasoning is mentioned at the end of the series but the sessions conclude before it is fully expounded.
How to Meditate on Emptiness
In the later sessions, Khensur Rinpoche provides direct instruction on actual meditation practice. The most important preliminary is clearly identifying the object of negation — the apparently inherently existing “I” or phenomena that ignorance projects and grasps at. Without clearly seeing the target, no arrow can hit it. Rinpoche describes two vivid ways to isolate this feeling: (1) in daily life, when accused of something — the instant “I am being blamed!” that arises with a feeling of solid, independent, self-sufficient “I” — and (2) the mirror analogy: the reflection of one’s face appears in the mirror, but there is no face there.
The actual meditation on the emptiness of person uses the “reasoning of lack of one and many” (also called “reasoning devoid of one and separate identity”), approached through four important points:
1. Ascertain clearly that which is to be negated (the solidly, independently existing “I”).
2. Ascertain the entailment: if the “I” exists from its own characteristics, it must exist either as truly one with the aggregates or as truly separate from them — there is no third option.
3. Ascertain that the “I” does not exist as truly one with the aggregates (if it did: the aggregates and the “I” would be inseparable; there would be five “I”s because there are five aggregates; the acquirer and what is acquired would be the same; the linguistic convention “my aggregates” — which implies a separation — would be impossible).
4. Ascertain that the “I” does not exist as truly separate from the aggregates (if it did: the “I” would be entirely unrelated to the aggregates; it would be subject to no birth, aging, sickness or death; there would be no “I” that goes to future lives; the “I” would be permanent — but it clearly is not).
Having established through this fourfold analysis that the “I” neither truly exists as one with nor as separate from the aggregates, one rests in the absence — the emptiness — of that solid “I” one had identified at the beginning. This is emptiness realisation. Rinpoche notes that for practitioners of blunt faculty, a feeling of fright or shock may arise at this moment (illustrated by the story of Tsongkhapa’s disciple Jetsun Sherab Sengge grasping at the hem of his robe in shock upon realising emptiness); for practitioners of sharp faculty, there is instead immeasurable joy — the recognition that the very means to liberate all beings is now at hand.
Why Emptiness Realisation Is Indispensable for Liberation
Rinpoche quotes Dharmakirti: “Without expelling its object, it [ignorance] cannot be forsaken.” The ego-grasping holds onto a supposedly truly existing “I”; to remove the grasping, that object — the apparent true existence — must first be expelled, i.e., decisively understood to not be there. No other wholesome practice — compassion, generosity, patience, concentration — can by itself terminate the root ignorance. Only the direct realisation of emptiness can cut the root. As Tsongkhapa teaches: “All the destitution in the universes is produced by ignorance. To overcome it, one needs to realise dependent arising.”
The practical sequence: listen to instructions on emptiness → reflect and analyse until one is decisively convinced → combine this understanding with calm abiding (single-pointed concentration) → through the union of calm abiding and special insight (vipassana), one obtains the direct realisation → through meditatively familiarising with this realisation, one progressively abandons the afflictive and knowledge obstructions → liberation and Buddhahood are attained.
Two Aspects of the Buddha’s Teaching
Rinpoche summarises the entire Buddha Dharma as having two principal aspects: the view of dependent arising, and the conduct of non-harming. These two together completely cover the essential features of the Buddha’s teaching. The view of dependent arising is common to both vehicles; the conduct of non-harming characterises the lower vehicle, while the bodhisattva of the great vehicle additionally actively helps others. A practitioner can measure their own practice by checking whether their daily behaviour accords with non-harming others.
Subsidiary Teachings
- Dreams: Rinpoche distinguishes three types of dreams (first part of the night — influenced by daytime habits; midnight — influenced by non-human beings’ activity; predawn — the only dreams potentially useful for prediction and accomplished through specific practices). Dreams in general are unreliable, like the Tibetan saying “It is not true, like a dream.”
- The nature of mind vs. the brain: Mind is not the brain or nerves (which are matter, cannot perceive, and are absent in form and formless realm beings). Mind is defined by its capacity to perceive and know objects.
- Origins of humanity (Buddhist view): The first human in each world-cycle descends from the celestial realm as a vast, radiant, meditation-sustained being; over time, through increasingly non-virtuous actions, humans shrink, lose their radiance, and become dependent on gross food. This contradicts the evolutionary model.
- Imprints and karma: The karma of an action is stored as an imprint on the consciousness (like a seal pressed into wax), and remains there until conditions for its ripening gather, at which point the result is experienced.
Key Terms
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Prasangika Madhyamaka (Thrust Reasoner Middle Way) | The highest of the four Buddhist philosophical schools; asserts all phenomena lack inherent existence |
| Non-inherent existence | Phenomena do not exist from their own side, by their own characteristics, independently; they exist only dependently and through labeling by concept |
| Inherent existence / true existence | The apparent mode of existence that ignorance projects onto phenomena — as if things exist solidly, independently, from their own side — which is the object of negation |
| Object of negation | That which is to be proven not there: the apparent inherent or true existence of phenomena |
| Two truths | Conventional truth (dependently arising, nominally functioning phenomena) and ultimate truth (emptiness of inherent existence); complementary, not contradictory |
| Selflessness of person | The emptiness of the “I” — it does not exist from its own characteristic; it is merely labeled upon the aggregates |
| Selflessness of phenomena | The emptiness of the aggregates and all other phenomena — none of them exist from their own characteristics |
| Four foundations of mindfulness | Body, feeling, mind, phenomena — analysed through the lens of emptiness as a structured meditation on the selflessness of phenomena |
| Dependent arising | The fact that all phenomena arise in dependence on causes, conditions, parts, and conceptual labeling; the “king of reasonings” for establishing emptiness |
| Diamond Pieces reasoning | Reasoning establishing that a product is not produced from no cause, from itself, from another, or from both — thus refuting inherent production |
| Reasoning of lack of one and many | Reasoning establishing that if the “I” existed truly, it would have to exist either as truly one with the aggregates or as truly separate from them; both are shown to be impossible |
| Fourfold important points | The four steps for applying the reasoning of lack of one and many: (1) identify the object of negation, (2) ascertain entailment, (3) rule out true oneness with aggregates, (4) rule out true separateness from aggregates |
| Calm abiding (samatha) | Single-pointed meditative concentration; the mental basis for effective meditation on emptiness |
| Special insight (vipassana) | Analytical meditation that, combined with calm abiding, produces the direct realisation of emptiness |
| Ego-grasping / ignorance | The mind that grasps at the “I” as solidly, independently existing; the root of all samsara and suffering |
| Knowledge obstructions (obstructions to omniscience) | The latencies (imprints) left by former afflictions, which are not consciousnesses themselves but obstruct simultaneous direct perception of both truths; abandoned from the eighth bodhisattva ground through Buddhahood |
| Afflictive obstructions | The actual afflictions (desire, anger, ignorance, etc.) that obstruct liberation; abandoned on the paths of seeing and meditation |
| Three doors to complete liberation | The three wisdoms that realise the lack of true existence of phenomena from the perspective of their entity, their cause, and their result; so called because all who attain liberation must pass through these three |
| Compounded phenomena | Products — things produced by causes and conditions; subject to momentary disintegration |
| Uncompounded phenomena | Things not produced by causes and conditions (e.g. emptiness, space) — yet still not inherently existing, as they depend on parts, portions, and conceptual labeling |
| Mere label / nominal existence | The mode in which all phenomena actually exist: not from their own side, but established through being labeled by name and concept upon a basis of labeling |
| Arahat (arhat) | One who has overcome all afflictive obstructions and attained liberation from samsara |
| Five aggregates | Form (body), feeling, recognition, activity (karmic formations), and consciousness — the basis upon which the person (I) is merely labeled |
Practice Points
Opening meditation on bodhicitta: Every session begins with a short guided meditation on loving-kindness, compassion, and universal responsibility (bodhicitta). The sequence: reflect that all beings do not want suffering and want happiness just as I do → generate compassion (may all beings be free of suffering and its causes) → generate loving-kindness (may all beings have happiness and its causes) → develop universal responsibility (I alone will take responsibility for this) → recognise one’s own incapacity and develop the determination to attain enlightenment → engage in the study of emptiness as the means to accomplish this.
Why study and reflect on emptiness: The purpose is not philosophical sophistication but the uprooting of ignorance, which is the root of all suffering. Without realising emptiness, there is no liberation. Rinpoche is explicit: “Apart from this [meditation on emptiness], whatever other means one may approach, one will never attain peace.”
Identifying the object of negation first: Before attempting to meditate on emptiness, one must have a vivid and personal sense of the object to be negated — the apparently solid, independent “I” that flares up when accused, threatened, praised, or in any emotional extremity. Watch for this feeling. It is not the ordinary “I am sitting, I am eating” — it is the “I” that seems to exist completely from its own side, without depending on anything at all.
Using the telephone-accusation exercise: When someone accuses you of something or blames you, notice the intense “I am being accused!” that arises. That feeling of solid, self-sufficient “I” is exactly what is to be investigated. Rather than simply reacting, retain that feeling and analyse: does this “I” that seems to exist so solidly actually exist as truly one with the body, or as truly separate from the body? Walk through the fourfold analysis. Discover for yourself that neither is coherent.
Applying the reasoning of dependent arising: Take any phenomenon — the body, the hand, the sprout, the table, the “I” — and consider in what sense it depends on its causes and conditions, its parts, its name and label. As this understanding of dependence deepens, the assumption of independent existence automatically weakens. This is why dependent arising is the king of reasonings: thinking deeply about it simultaneously removes both extremes.
Combining calm abiding with the view: Analysis alone cannot produce direct realisation. One needs single-pointed concentration (calm abiding) on the basis of ethical discipline. Once calm abiding is attained, the analysing wisdom is applied to the identified object of negation. The bulk of the mind rests concentrated on the object; a fine portion does the analysis. When the analysis is decisive and the object of negation is clearly negated, one rests in that absence — the emptiness — without distraction.
Practising serial meditation on the four mindfulnesses: Begin with the mindfulness of body (establishing that the body lacks inherent existence). When that is stable, shift to feeling. When feeling is established, shift to mind. When mind is established, shift to phenomena. These are not separate meditations but a systematic broadening of the scope of emptiness realisation across one’s entire experience.
Importance of consistent study and review: Rinpoche repeatedly urges students to retain what was covered in each session as the foundation for the next. “Whatever is gone over, one needs to retain them, not forget them. And then in the next part, additional instructions and insight gained add on top.” The mind is the field; instructions and realisations are the seeds; consistent study waters the crop. Examinations were set periodically precisely to encourage review and consolidation.
Selflessness practice applied to oneself: The most powerful application is turning all these reasonings onto the “I” itself. The formal syllogism: “Let the person — the I — be the investigative referent. It is not inherently existing, because it is a dependent arising phenomenon. For example, like a reflection in a mirror.” Meditate on this again and again until the conviction becomes direct experience.