Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Kyabje Rinpoche navigates a core paradox of the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka — Buddhism’s highest philosophical view — in this 47-minute teaching on inherent versus conventional existence. If all phenomena lack inherent existence and cannot be found through analysis, why do things function? The hand grasps, the body acts, feelings arise — all working perfectly at the conventional level, despite lacking any independent existence. He contrasts this with lower Buddhist schools that claim what is not analytically found does not exist at all, an extreme he identifies as nihilism. He then applies this to meditation on selflessness of the aggregates (form, feeling, recognition, consciousness), showing how ego-grasping depends on falsely believing aggregates exist from their own side. Recognizing their lack of inherent existence cuts the root of saṃsāra. Best suited for practitioners with prior study of Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-08-09 – 9B – 9th Chapter – KR.mp3
UUID: 0f570375-aca5-4c15-bb9f-768542e34a34
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Date: 1994-08-09
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~2,554
In that way, there is no partless particle. If it is a particle, it definitely, necessarily is a partful particle a particle having relative points of directions and component parts and so forth it cannot be indestructible or it cannot be on its own without any relative point at all. And in that way, it would mean there is no there’s no particle which cannot be subdivided at all. Like with the case of the hand, if we analyze other bodily parts, head, feet, shoulders, so forth, they too would be found as not inherently existing because it is inevitable in our course of search with those other bodily parts. The analysis or the search would go deeper and deeper into breaking down of the components of the bodily parts as being made by smaller and smaller particles and finally even the tiniest of particle itself would be proven and found as not inherently existing as as not solidly existing.
Now at this point, it would be extremely important to make clear that there is a difference to be understood. One on one hand, we have a case or situation where if the mind or if the hand is inherently existing, then the time when we search for it, if it is not found, then it is comfortably to be established that it is not inherently existing, meaning or to paraphrase, on one hand we have a case where if the hand is inherently existing, then the moment when we search for it and if it is not found to be so or if it is not found, then that decisively, comfortably would mean that the inherent existence of the hand is not to be found. It is not existing. That is one point on one hand. On the other hand, if the hand is not if the hand if the hand is not inherent, then the moment when we search for it, if it is not found, that does not mean it is not existing.
So there are these two points. Now with regards to the second point, to make it clearer what it means is the second case is a nominally existing nominally what is popularly translated as the conventionally existing phenomena. In this case, conventional existing hand. With regards to the conventional existing hand, the moment when we search for it, if it is not if it is not found, that does not mean it it it does not exist because conventional or nominally existing hand is undeniably functioning functioning, undeniably feasible, undeniably there on functioning level. So even if it is not found does not mean it is absolutely not existing at all.
So these are the two differences and it would be good to please have it clear in your mind. Or the highest Buddhist tenet explains all phenomena as not inherently existing, as not existing from their own characteristic. In that line, they would say the hand is not inherently existing. The reason for saying that is if the hand is inherently existing, then the moment when one search searches for that inherent existence of the hand on when it search for either on any of the parts or wherever, then it should be found that this is when searched for, there must be a finding to be assertively be able to say, here it is, the inherently existing. But because when searched for, it cannot be found.
So that very fact that it is not found indicates that the hand is not inherently existing. For the Prāsaṇgika middle way, the highest Buddhist tenet,, although explains explains the hand has not inherently existing but it is still very clearly maintained in that highest Buddhist tenets viewpoint that if something not existing inherently and when search for is not found does not mean that it is absolutely not existing at all. This in our case in the example would mean although the inherent existence of hand when searched for cannot be found that is that should not become a reason to deny existence of the hand even conventionally or nominally because nominally there is undeniable hand such as by being nominally existing and undeniably undeniably functioning, have the whole expression as well the actual feasibility that the hand is drawing hand is doing the drawing, the hand is doing the cooking, the hand is doing the writing and so forth that this is undeniably to be there. So this is extremely clear or meaning, sorry, it’s extremely important important to to be be clear clear that although inherent existence of the hand cannot be found, but that does not mean the hand is absolutely not existing.
This becomes the exclusive feature of the highest middle way tenet, highest Buddhist tenet. The exclusive feature being the understanding that although all phenomena do not exist inherently, do not exist by their own characteristic, but nominally, in mere label, in mere name, in that way nominally, there is undeniable functioning of all things such as there is sleeping, eating, staying, there is creating of actions and there is experiencing of the results of the actions and in that way there is the experiencing of the happiness and suffering and so forth. This is how it is presented. Although things do not truly exist, although things do not inherently exist, but the whole nominal functioning of things cannot be denied. And the non inherent existence of things being compatible with the working of cause and effect, working of karma is how in this tenet, the highest middle way tenet, highest Buddhist tenet, is explained.
In Buddhism, there are four tenets and the highest tenet amongst the four is the middle way tenet and the middle way tenet itself is of two levels, the higher one being the Prāsaṇgika or the Consequentialist and the lower middle way is the Svatāntrika or the Autonomist. Now what was explained ahead was in accordance with the Prāsaṇgika middle way, the highest middle way that although things do not inherently exist, yet in that non inherent existence, normally things do function undeniably. Now let’s look at what is asserted by the other tenets apart from that highest tenet. And to go through that, let’s first list briefly what those tenets are. The autonomous middle way or the own reasonable middle way, mind only, Sautrāntika, Vaibhāṣika.
Now in their case, in those four lower tenets, in their case they explained if by searching for hand, if we do not find hand, then that means the hand is absolutely not existing at all. Therefore, there should be a part of the hand which is existing truly, which is existing inherently. In that way, the lower tenets explain. If something is when searched for not found, that means it is absolutely not existing. But that is a view which when looked at from the highest tenet is an extreme of nothingness, extreme of nihilism.
That is how it is. Now although that may be so, so from their part, the lower tenets would say that the very fact that there can be a part of hand which which when searched for is to be found that on the basis of that findability of the hand as existing inherently, that then we can present the whole working of the hand such as the hand is doing the writing and so forth. So the humor part, laughter part was where the expression went very slowly. The hand is doing the writing and so forth. As if as if there’s a 100, at least the hand would do as normally it does.
So that is how the lower tenets explain that it is due to hand being findable that there is whole working of hand becoming possible. So between the two assertion, which one you think is better to accept? One is where when the hand is to be when the hand is searched for, it is not found. And the other is when the hand is searched for, it is to be found. Which theory you would be more comfortable to accept?
Anyone go? I’m sorry? Because of the age. Oh, I couldn’t see. Yeah.
You’re with the artist. The other tenets, apart from the highest tenet, explain that when search for can be found in the case of hand when whether hand is existing or not when they search for it they assert that it is to be found and that very theory saying that it does exist and it can be found is no different than verbally saying that the hand exist from its own characteristic. The other opposite to that would be when the hand is searched for it is not to be found and that would be synonymous or in meaning hand does not exist from its own characteristic. To those disciples who like the theory that things exist from their own characteristic, Buddha has presently taught them accordingly saying that things do exist by their own characteristic because that’s what they like and they feel comfortable with. So so in that way, it would be a case where to those who like the hand to those who like the existence by their own characteristic, the Buddha would have said, yes, the hand does exist from its own characteristics.
But Buddha has very skillfully even in saying or teaching that says, hand does not exist by its own characteristic. Sorry. The hand does exist by its own characteristic, characteristics, but it is not truly existing. So there is still presses something on top. Sorry?
Yeah. That’s right. Yeah. That’s how it is explained. To the disciples who are of the highest intelligence and who could feel comfortable with the view if something is to be searched for, if not found, it is not inherently existing to them.
The Buddha has taught accordingly that things do not exist from their own characteristics and similarly things things do not inherently exist and this is the ultimate view because that is the correct view and those who understood it would feel comfortable to receive additional affirmation about such view. And when classified amongst the tenets, they belong to the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka tenet. Also, we shall leave or stop here for the tonight. Before the term break, the last session of Tuesday, we had examination on whatever was covered so far on the ninth chapter. And during the examination, the attendance was good.
So many have turned up and all else were let on when the answers were looked at, checked. What was written in most people’s case in most people’s case was good. And translating for Rinpoche, Rinpoche felt extremely happy looking at those answers. Therefore, wants to say thank you. So it would it, of course, would have been good even to participate in the examinations because that makes one do study as well review what one has learned and so forth.
So obviously it was a good activity to have done. Similarly, when this term comes to end, again, towards end, we shall have another examination. The especially, the examination makes one take interest. So it is a good thing to induce interest in people towards the topics of study. As that was first examination, therefore, there was no marking as well no giving of marks.
So, yeah, numbers, marks. So I don’t think you’re very much. Come on. Take it. If you have any questions, we shall have few minutes for the questions.
Oh, well, with regards to the meditation on selflessness of phenomena, mainly in that range of phenomena being understood and meditated as selfless would cover principally mainly the aggregates and especially aggregates oneself. So which is another way of saying one’s personality parts, form, feeling, recognition, consciousness. And that itself is extremely beneficial that would help one because there is normally not only ego grasping but there is a true grasping which is expression meaning grasping onto things as truly existing. And especially in our case say when we are not yet made up on the levels of realizations. We do have truth grasping with reference to our aggregates.
And if we look in the context of saṃsāra, our own existence in suffering or in saṃsāra, we of course no doubt say the root of saṃsāra is the ego grasping. But ego grasping from another turn of way is based on grasping of oneself on the aggregates, one’s bodily parts, one’s personality part, that by being attached and grasping at one’s bodily parts, it increases one’s ego grasping intensity. So it leads to further ego grasping of the self or the person so forth. That’s how it stands. Now with regards to overcoming, it then definitely mean there is no way one can completely overcome ego grasping unless one has overcome the truth grasping one’s own, or truth grasping at one’s aggregates.
And that’s how it would help. Says as long as there is grasping at aggregates, there will be grasping of ego and that would produce karma, that would produce rebirth in saṃsāra. Now what that means is, of course, we do get as ordinary beings born in saṃsāra. Now we ask what is the cause for that? Well, is due to karma.
But then if we ask further what is the cause of karma or ignorance based actions, it would mean it is ego grasping. But if we ask what is caused, what causes ego grasping or grasping onto eye, then it would be found that it is the grasping at aggregates for one’s personality parts as inherently existing, as existing from their own characteristic, that that itself is the cause for one’s grasping at one’s self, the ego grasping. So in this way, what’s called linked inquiry, we can say the main root cause of of saṃsāra is the grasping at aggregates as inherently existing. And that’s how the things would be found in the like a linked inquiry. For instance, we have the feeling arising: I, as well, I am feeling happy.
I am enjoying. I am suffering. I am depressed. I am being tormented and so forth. Now whenever these arise, if we look at if we look at, it would be obvious that the very feeling I or I’m happy and so forth, before they arise, there is the notion of oneself being present with the aggregate.
So there is before they arise, there is the arising of the notion of my aggregates, my body, my personality parts, or my being components. So it is quite clear that there is no way those other feelings of ego grasping as I am happy, I am unhappy, and so forth, that they would arise without firstly the notion of aggregates or notion of my aggregate arising first. For example, when there arises the notion of mind aggregates such as body, then that arises in the aspect as if the body is inherently existing. This in turn makes one have the feeling or the notion I and that as well is in the aspect of grasping eye as inherently existing. So we can say that the very ego grasping, grasping at I is dependent on firstly the arising of grasping at aggregates as inherently existing.