Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Kyabje Rinpoche addresses a foundational Buddhist debate: must you realize emptiness to achieve liberation, or does understanding the four truths suffice? In this 48-minute talk, he anchors the discussion in a striking image — a magician who knows his illusory horse is empty versus a spectator who clings to it as truly real. He then compares how Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka and lower Buddhist schools define ego-grasping and interpret the four truths, arguing that Prāsaṇgika’s subtler understanding — that the person exists only through conceptual labeling, not independently — is indispensable for liberation and Buddhahood, while lower schools’ accounts, though useful for practitioners starting out, prove insufficient for full realization. Pitched at serious practitioners already grounded in Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-06-07 – 4A – 9th Chapter – KR.mp3
UUID: 9e2c637f-5010-45c7-b800-d000e444a978
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Date: 1994-06-07
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~3,406
Yeah. I mean, Buddha Śākyamūni advises in a line where the line says, those who have materialistic perspective will not have liberation. Therefore, and in the next part of the continuation of line says, therefore you the hearers and individual enlighteners if you need to attain liberation continue to train on perfection of wisdom. Now in brief the first part of the lines in meaning says if as a trainee one still has a materialist view in the sense one still has a clinging that things exist inherently then liberation is not possible. This advice when put into perspective in a day to day context it means if although things appear as in existing to our senses such as to eye senses and so forth that so far is okay but on top of what appears to be inherently existing if one’s mind clings that things exist inherently and through that way if one has still a matter existing there solidly, that perspective one has, then there is no way for such person to attain liberation.
For example in the classical period when a magician charms a substance of magic and then through the charming a portion of the spell is picked up by the spectators eyes. Having picked up the portion of the charm, the spell, to the spectators eyes the substance whether it was a piece of a rock or a piece of a twig would appear as a horse or an ox or elephant whatever the charm was supposed to work and was supposed to produce the illusion on the basis of the charmed substance. Now being ignorant the spectators not only has to its eyes the vision that there is a horse, but also the spectators clings, clings intensely thinking that there is a horse to be seen and a horse actually there. So in that case we find that there is appearing of an illusory horse which is not there but as well there is a clinging from the part of the spectators. Likewise in our normal case of course to our eye consciousness, to our eye sense things do appear as inherently existing but that’s no ground for us to cling on to with our deliberation deliberate mental perspective that things are inherently exist.
So there is no need to cling on to the things inherently exist. Now as far as the things appearing as inherently existing to the eye consciousness. Why that happens so is because as ordinary person onto our eye consciousness there is an imprint from previous previous times of the inevitable appearing of things as inherently existing because we have had ignorance based imprint carried over from previous times on our mind stream. So that part as far as the appearing of it goes. Anyway, as a conclusion, although things appear to our eyes as inherently existing, if we do cling onto it then there is a clinging part as well and that clinging part in brief and put in say in the case of a magical or illusory horse that means one sees the horse as inherently existing which means there will never be possibility if one has that perspective there will never be possibility to see the horse as not inherently existing.
So that mistaken attitude or perspective that horse exists inherently will never be overcome. Because such mistaken perspective can never be overcome it is understandable to go back to the previous line why there was advice that for such perspective, there is no liberation. So that’s how we connect back to the previous line. Now in the case of magician self or himself, yes, the illusory horse does appear to the magician, but because magician knows that it is just an illusion and not really to be found, so magician knows that the illusory horse which although appears is empty of inherent or truly existing horse. And in that way in magician’s case there is combination of the two appearance and emptiness and that’s how it is explained.
Like magician in the case of those who have realized emptiness who scripturally are called the aryas in Sanskrit the superior beings because they have realized emptiness. In their case too it is exactly same that things appear to them but although things appear to them from their side they don’t have slightest clinging that things inherently exist or truly exist. So in their case there’s a combination of the appearance and emptiness. Now of course to us things appear as inherently existing yet we must make a attempt to stop the clinging that things inherently exist that things exist by their own characteristic because unless we are able to stop that then it is not possible to start with half an understanding that things do not exist inherently, that things do not exist by their own characteristic as well it is not possible for us to overcome that misconception that things exist truly. And as consequences then it would be not possible for us to attain liberation free of all impure thoughts and suffering.
And further up it is as well not possible for us to attain the state of Buddhahood, the state of Buddhahood which is the state of mind freed of all mental shortcomings and complete with all excellent qualities. So in both, in terms of both goals, liberation and Buddhahood realization of emptiness is indispensable requirement and this point is very much very much a one of the major point emphasized by the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka School, the highest Buddhist tenet. Now when that point was emphasized by the highest Buddhist tenet Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka then there were counter question put forth by the lower tenets such as by the master or the teacher Vasubandhu who previously in the past first held or first pioneered pioneered the interpretation in accordance to specific exponent school and who later on pioneered the interpretation of the teachings in accordance with mind only school, mind only tenet. Now in brief the counter question put forth by master was the point that it is not necessary to realize emptiness in order to attain liberation and state of omniscience, Buddhahood, because it is enough through realizing the four truths that one can attain liberation. Such points as counter question is raised.
What that means is generally as you would be aware there are four truths about our impure existence and pure existence are true suffering, true origin of suffering, true path, and true cessation or true termination of suffering and causes of suffering. Now each of these four truths can further be classified into a group of four each thus there are 16 attributes inclusive to the four truths and they are called the 16 attributes of the four truths and in accordance to the lower tenets as represented by Vasubandhu the point raised is if one firstly through one’s analysis and contemplation later on directly realizes these 16 aspects, 16 attributes of the four truths then gross impure thoughts will be overcome. And then when one repeatedly meditates and familiarize on the realization of these 16 aspects then through that repeated meditation or familiarization it would be possible that one would even overcome subtle shortcomings of the mind and through that way, one eventually through that way alone can attain liberation. Also in this way we do find there is obviously two conflicting differences between these two camps. The highest and the lower tenets and for us as a trainee on the path it is necessary that we first understand what are the differences between these two camps and try to thoroughly very well understand the differences.
The Buddha, when Buddha gave teaching on the four truth at the present day place called Banaras, the four truths were taught in great details but later on when the four truths were understood in accordance by the understood individually in accordance with their own understanding by the four Buddhist tenets there came out to be great difference in the subtleness and approximation of understanding of the four truths. For example, let’s first split the camps into two the lower tenets and the highest tenets. In the lower tenets belong the three tenets as well the fourth being split into autonomous and Prāsaṇgika schools. So then we have in the lower tenets came the Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, mind only and autonomous middle way school or Svatāntrika middle way school. Now the four truths explained in their scriptures and understood by these tenets were very much far from the actual description as it should be of the four truths.
So in that way we can say their understanding of the four truths is very approximate. This when when compared with the four truths understood by the highest tenet, the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, it is extremely subtle. Big difference that their understanding is extremely subtle. So there is such a difference. Again, within the four truths we have its classification into 16 aspects or 16 attributes.
Again there there is a difference of approximation and subtleness between these two camps. The understanding of the lower tenets being very gross, very approximate, and the highest tenet being profound Here the author of the ninth chapter Śāntideva belonged to the highest tenet Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka School and coming from that keeping that stand of that that tenet, Śāntideva explains that the four truths being being explained and understood by you who belong to the lower tenets are is very approximate, it’s very distant. Therefore by understanding and realizing the four four truths in accordance with your system will not lead to actual attaining of liberation. The attaining of liberation is only possible if a trainee realizes the four truth in accordance with the highest middle way tenet, the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka tenet. So that’s how in response to to the previous counter question, the answer is given.
Now, obviously this now this discussion of the counter question and the response very much hangs on the point that there is a difference of approximation and subtleness of the four truths understood by the two camps. So then let’s look at how diff how what what is the difference between the two understanding of the four truths. Well looking at that point generally speaking first we have amongst the four truths. The first two truths, true suffering and true origin of suffering which which is a clear concerning saṃsāra and overcoming saṃsāra that it is saṃsāra and being circling in saṃsāra that it is explained it is through the causes of suffering, the impure thoughts and ignorance based action that one receives through suffering which is continued experience or circling in cycle in the saṃsāra. So that’s why first there are those two truths explaining about samsaric circle.
Then the third truth which is true termination of suffering and its causes is explained by way of the fourth which is true path that it is by actualizing true path, true realizations and experiences within one’s mind that one would attain true termination of suffering and impure thoughts, that one would attain liberation. That’s briefly what’s called general explanation in terms of one’s path and overcoming of suffering, the four truths are explained. Now there came about the different opinions which results in the difference of approximation and subtleness of the four truths. Well that came about because there firstly was a difference as to the understanding of what is meant by true origin, the second truth. What is referred by the true origin of suffering the second truth.
Now because there was already differences regarding its description there then came about the differences between the two camps about the description of the suffering which resulted from that true origin and consequently also there came about the differences in the description about true termination and about the true path. Also we then have that due to the very difference in the explanation of the second second truth that the whole difference came about. Now my second truth which is true origin, simply called true origin, but to describe it means true origin of suffering. With that, what it means is or what it refers to is it refers to karma and impure thought. Karma here meaning ignorance based activities.
And between karma and impure thought, true origin or specifically in its fundamental meaning refers to impure thoughts. But impure thoughts again are so many then ultimately we have to track down what is the original impure thought. Tracking it down we can that it is the ignorance, the ego grasping grasping onto a concrete identity or ego or notion of self. So that is the original or the basic reference of what’s called true origin. Now because there is a huge difference in the understanding by various schools about what actually is ego grasping grasping onto self that we can speculate that there is bound to be subsequent differences in the explanation of the rest of the four truths.
On this point when what’s going to explain further let’s look at say what is meant by ego grasping in accordance to the lower tenets. Well in their understanding first we have ego grasping as not separate from ego grasping of person or to interpret the term or the phrase grasping onto the notion that the person truly exists as an independent or solid self or ego. So let’s look according to lower tenets what is ego grasping of person? Well in their explanation they say the ignorance of the ignorance which grasp on which grasp on to the notion that person exists separately from aggregates and the continuity of aggregate that is ego grasping. This point obviously will need cross reference back to our Thursday evenings class on tenets because there are couple of weeks ago we found that the lower tenets when they come to defining what a person what a being is after all they pinpointed down the referent of a person or being as their five aggregates according to one opinion or the continuity of five aggregates according to other opinion.
So basically in their understanding by person or by being it means the five aggregates or the continuity of the five aggregates. So based on that description they therefore say, now if one misconceives to the misconceives with the notion that a person exists independently of the five aggregates or the continuity of five aggregates therefore self sufficient entity and that such notion such perspective is ego grasping of a person. Such perspective is mistaken perspective seeing the person exist truly as such ego or identity or self. When one has such ignorance, the ego grasping of person, then through it one becomes attached to oneself and one becomes disliking, hateful towards others. Through such way, one and through such way, all other impure thoughts, attachment, hatred, so forth arises and these consequently So if one has such ignorance, the ego grasping of person, then this leads to being attached to oneself and having dislike hate and being hurtful to others and in this way it gives rise to all impure thoughts attachment hatred and so forth.
Consequently this then will lead one to engage in activities harmful to others, hurting to others, and through that way one creates karma to use the term or phrase one accumulates karma, one creates karma and this creation of karma makes one let one to assume continuity of five contaminated aggregates on the basis of which one receives all the suffering such as suffering of birth, aging, sickness and death. So in that way we see in this process how the two truths come about. How true origin of suffering, the impure thoughts and karma leads to true suffering itself. In that way one circles in saṃsāra meaning one continuously remain in the in an endless cycle of rebirth after another with sufferings and tormenting experiences. And then to overcome these two, the true origin of suffering and true suffering itself, the means, the the antidote, the measure one applies is the path or the mental qualities leading to the realization of selflessness of person where the selflessness of person is defined in their limited lower vehicle understanding as the person devoid of self sufficiently existing in substance.
So selflessness of person is realized and having gained such realization of selflessness of person one attains liberation the state free of all impure thoughts. So we can say that according to the lower tenets explanation about four truths, the beginning explanation of the true origin of suffering itself is very distant, very approximate, very gross understanding as well the true suffering which resulted from that as well would have to be not that exact. Similarly the true path and the true termination or true cessation as and explain in that way as well a very distant understanding. So overall the four truths explained by the lower tenets is are very approximate, very distant explanation, very distant understanding. Buddha Śākyamūni being very skillful in leading various trainees in accordance to their mental capacity here in this case very accordingly has taught such such distant yet suitable approach and this explanation of the four truths to the lower vehicle trainees.
So lower vehicle is interchangeable interchangeable in this case as lower tenet and through that we explained the way to attain liberation which is acceptable suitable to that mentality mentality of of training. Training. Now in the case of the Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika, the highest tenet, their explanation of the four truths is very subtle compared to the previous by the lower tenets. How that is so is let’s look first at the two truths, two first truths, the true origin and the true suffering. Regarding the true origin as in the earlier case we can say that true origin in its ultimate reference would refer to the ego grasping because by true origin it means impure thoughts and ignorance based actions or karma and between the two it is more the impure thoughts which are the main causes and amongst impure thoughts principally they all can be found as having source in the ego grasping.
Now in accordance to this tenet’s explanation of the ego grasping a person what it is it is explained that ego grasping of a person is misconception or clinging that the person exists from its own side independently of the five aggregates which is the basis of labeling. So that’s the ego grasping of person. To clarify this point we would need to look at what is a person in accordance to the highest tenets explanation. While in this tenet person is merely labeled on the basis of labeling, the five aggregates that is the person. Now when contrary to that if one thinks that there is a person independently or existing from its own side independent of the basis of labels that is ego grasping of a person that is misconception that person exists as independently as existing by its own characteristics without depending at all on the basis of label.
So there is the basis of label is there but the notion of the ego grasping of person is such that it is independently there. So in one’s appearance of course as an ordinary person in one’s appearance that’s how it appears. But there is the inner grasping which is the ego grasping of a person. So this then is the understanding explanation of what is meant by ego grasping a person in accordance with the highest and its view. Explanation of ego grasping as explained by Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, the Prāsaṇgika middle way, the highest tenet, and the one explained by the lower tenets.
Now the reason why there is this enormous difference as to the explanation of ego grasping, in this case ego grasping a person, is because the person which is to be disproved is not there or what in popular translation called the object of negation. The person which is the object of negation or the person which is to be disproved or which is to be proven as not there. Understanding of that itself is of huge difference between the Prasangikas and the lower tenets. The very reason that there is a huge difference of this understanding of what is to be negated as regards person, there comes about huge difference in the understanding of the ego grasping of person itself.