Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 50-minute commentary on the ninth chapter of the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, Kyabje Rinpoche teaches the subtle reasoning of dependent arising through concrete examples: flowers, tables, money, and countries all exist merely through name and conceptual labeling. He uses his own life as an illustration — born unnamed, then given a name, later becoming a monk, geshe, abbot, and eventually ex-abbot — each identity appearing only after designation. He explores the three criteria that make labeling valid, explains why dependent arising and emptiness are not contradictory (emptiness is absence of inherent existence, not nothingness), and shows how the reasoning of dependent arising directly proves things lack true, independent existence. The teaching clarifies the highest Buddhist understanding in Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka. For practitioners with philosophical background.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-09-13 – 11B – 9th Chapter – KR.mp3
UUID: 85c77268-83f4-4f28-8ac3-d33183ce82a1
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Date: 1994-09-13
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~3,140
Becomes the becomes what is meant by subtle dependent arising phenomena. What they do is they Oh, if there is there is no name as flower as well, if there is no concept thinking flower, then there cannot be an phenomenon which is flower. Similarly if there is no name as tables and the concept labeling or thinking it is stable then there cannot be an object or phenomena which is stable. Like that everything else is merely existing with dependence on name and the concept labeling it. We can look at Buddha House, the very house here, the very fact it is Buddha House, it exists in the fashion of there being the name Buddha House and the concept thinking it is Buddha House.
But if there are none of the two, then there cannot be Buddha House. So it is dependent on the name and the concept labeling it. Likewise we look at horse. The very name horse and the concept thinking it is horse are the basis on which the fashion, the horse exists in that way. So like that we can look at other things dog, cat, so forth.
Everything they exist with dependence on mere name and the concept, thinking about it or labeling it. So this very understanding about the way things exist in the subtle dependent arising which is the subtle way things exist although being not inherently existing but yet with mere name and label is the way in the highest tenet how mere conventionally things undeniably exist. At the same time this would imply then there is really no phenomena that exist apart from being apart from being dependent on its name and the concept labeling it. Likewise, it is same with Australia, America, Tibet, China, Russia that it is. With the name and the concept labeling it that the existence comes about, if there are none of the two, then all would be nonexistent.
It’s same. Similarly, Buddha, bodhisattva, Ārya or superior beings, sentient beings, all are in the same fashion existing in mere name and label being like that. We can look at any other phenomena in the same way, a book, water and cap or cake, whatever. They are all in the same, or that if there is no name and concept labeling it, that they all equally would be non existent. Money.
We put first to whatever has the five figure symbol as $5 with whatever has 10 symbol as $10 whatever has 100 symbol we say $100. So it is only after being labeled that they seem to exist in that way. And their their very existence comes about only after being labeled and that’s how it goes about with money. Also, in the understanding of the highest Buddhist tenet, Prāsaṇgika, it is explained every phenomena, all phenomena are merely labeled by name and concept labeling it, and in that very fashion of being dependent on name and label, or in other words the conceptual thought that they exist. That is the very understanding in that highest standard.
Let’s say if things, now that is the understanding, contrary to that let’s say if things do not exist with dependence on name and label it would mean the thing exists from its own side and means the thing exists from its own, by its own characteristic which in other words would be no different to saying the thing exists truly or inherently or independently. So that’s how it would mean. If we take it with particular examples say flower, if flower supposedly exists without being dependent on name and concept labeling it, then it would mean it exists from its own side. That very fashion that if it supposedly exists from its own side that is what in scriptural terms is meant by existing from its own characteristic, but we don’t find that we saw in the case of the flower or any phenomenon. That there is no phenomenon that does not depend on name and label or the conceptual thought or labeling it.
In this way in higher standard the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka it has become extremely subtle the understanding how things are merely labeled by name and label. Similarly in the context of the highest Buddhist tenets understanding everything exists relatively with dependence on with relative dependence the word actually is existing with dependence, so relative existing. How that is so is because of their being short there is long, and because of their being small there is big, because of their being high there is low, and because of their being the hill over there there is the hill over this side, or to put it old English, hill yonder and hill hither. And because of their being father there is a son and because of their being son there must be a father. Similarly because of their being a child as a daughter there must be parents and because of being parents there must be a child.
So in this way everything is existing with relative to one another. Because of their being child then there comes about the mention of the whole label. There is mother and father, the parent. Similarly when they are parents, then there becomes relative reference to the child born. Similarly, to translate third person in Rinpoche’s case, first time when Rinpoche was born, it was just there was just a concept, a child was born.
So there was none of other names so forth which subsequently came to be called. So it was just a child was born. And later on there was a need for a name to be given to the child and went the family’s lama or the main teacher who gave the name Lobsang Thubten. So then came the earlier, who was earlier the person who was just mentioned as a child, now came to be called as Lobsang Tupten. Later on when Rinpoche entered monastic training as a monk then there was a designation or the aggregates being called by others as the monk Lobsang Tupten.
And later on when Rinpoche passed his Geshe qualification, the professor of learning and practice,, he came to be called as the Geshe, the professor. Later on when Rinpoche became the abbot of the monastery, then came to be called as the abbot. And later on when the tenure of the abbotship was over and become a professor emeritus or the ex-abbot, then came came to be called as the ex-abbot. So so this came afterwards on name, label and name designated. Now it can be called as Australian.
So if Rinpoche was actually existent as all those titled, then the very time Rinpoche was born and was a small child, everyone who saw him should have the thought of thinking, oh there is the ex-abbot, there is the abbot, there is the Geshe and so forth. But that didn’t come about to people’s thought, it only came about after being designated with name and label. So it was quite clear that the whole thing depend on its existence on name and label. The cases, that is same. The time you were a child and just born, none of the titles you presently being referred and called about or addressed were not there when you were a child.
Later on and now perhaps whatever your position and work you’re doing and being called by that you are presently being called and related in that manner, some perhaps would be called as teachers, some would be called as the learned ones, some would be called as the secretaries, some would be called as the artist. So whatever work you would be doing you then came to a call. But it is quite obvious that is not so in the beginning when you were a child. So there is obvious labeling and labeling afterwards. So there was a label being given and then based on that label one thinks, yes, I’m that.
So there is no there is no thing that is not dependent on name and label. In that way it would be quite understandable that everything is merely labeled and dependent on name and label. Let’s say it is, say with the example flower, that there is existence of flower in the fashion that’s merely labeled by name and it. Concept labeling that there is the concept or conceptual thought thinking it is flower and then being labeled either through verbally speaking or in the way of thinking then there is the existence of flower. How in the first place it would have come about we can look it in this way.
Firstly somebody would have thought about the object and would have thought, oh, a name must be given to this object, what would be best, or perhaps flower is a good name to give. So there is a conceptual thought in the first place thinking about labeling the object as flower, and then that conceptual thought labeled the object as flower, and then the name or label gained momentum start calling and everyone start calling the object as flower and that’s how it exists in that way. Even in the beginning, somebody came up with the idea of thinking it should be called lemon. Then everyone afterward will relate to the flower as lemon. Yeah.
If someone came up with the idea thinking, oh, it should be called as lemon, then when it is labeled as lemon, then the thing would be related as lemon. For example, in the beginning, if speaking third person, if Rinpoche was labeled as Jampa then he would exist as Jampa. If he was in Oh, the beginning that’s how the response would be. And in the beginning if Rinpoche was labeled as then he would exist as. If given the label as would exist as.
So it is name and it is just that. But when it is being mentioned it is mere name, that does not mean just a name would do, meaning it does not mean an existence of thing is sufficient to have a name. Instead there are three criteria necessary to become labeled a phenomenon existing as merely labeled. The first criteria is that it should be a valid basis of label which is described as something as it is labeled it does have capability to function in that way. Second criteria is that the label or the name being given does not contradict, or the word actually used is the name being given is not damaged or is not contradicted by orderly convention or orderly renown.
And third criteria is that it is not subject to repudiation or subject to contradiction when analyzed by the wisdom realizing emptiness. In other words the valid knowledge understanding actual truth. So it should not be something which contradicts with the valid knowledge realizing emptiness, realizing actual truth. So there should be those three things required. What these three criteria in understanding would mean is say if flower is labeled as dog then that is obviously where the first two contradictions are present.
Firstly, if the flower is labeled as a sentient being, a living being as a dog, then it obviously would not function as a normal living being, say a dog would function. So it does not have the capability to function in that way. Secondly, it is it does not fulfill the criteria of according or being in accord with the orderly convention because in orderly convention such a thing is not called as a dog. As far as the third criteria goes, it means if the label being given as well says that the flower is truly existing then that would be something contradictory to the valid knowledge realizing actual truth because realization of emptiness or the wisdom realizing actual truth when analyzed analyzes the flower would find that it is not truly existing instead it is non truly existing. So that would contradict the third criteria.
Therefore, the label should be free of those three should should have those three criteria and free of those three criteria what fallacies. Also, just to be labeled itself is not enough. Instead, the labeling should have those three criteria, and then it would be okay. So in the case of flower, because there is the concept labeling the flower, there is the existence of flower. And because there is the flower which was labeled being existing there must be a concept labeling the flower.
In a way we then have interdependence of the flower, the labeled object, and the concept labeling the flower existing with dependence on one another. This would clearly imply if the one is present the other is present. If the other is present the one must be present. And if one is absent or non existent the other necessarily is non existent. So in essence there is existence of a relative dependence that one depends on its existence and the other depends on its existence of the one or the other.
So in that way flower does exist in the manner of being dependent on the concept labeling on it and this is the subtle understanding of a dependent arising and by this very understanding that in the present case the flower, the object exists with manner of dependent arising, dependent origination relative origination relative existence that itself implies it is not independently existing, it is not inherently existing that it exists in the way of dependent arising. Altogether, the very understanding of dependent arising altogether becomes a very sharp reasoning to prove that things do not truly exist. So it becomes a reasoning to establish non true existence of things. So this is why then we refer back to our discussion so far on the ninth chapter is what Śāntideva gives a very sharp answer to the lower tenets, saying that there are valid reasonings to substantiate non-true existence of all phenomena and reasoning with substantiate that is the reasoning of dependent arising. So tonight, in response to the question that there is no reasoning to establish non-inherent existence or non-true existence, there was the response given that there is valid reasoning to establish, and the valid reasoning is dependent arising.
This is very true because dependent arising reasoning is the best reasoning to establish emptiness. So this so far covers that point and we shall limit our discussion or stop here for the evening. I think I will stop. So Yes. It is understandable to have difficulty coming in grips with, on one hand, emptiness implying there is no existence and dependent arising implying there is existence.
But the problem starts in that case with what is called thinking emptiness means nothingness or not anything there at all. Whereas in the actual sense emptiness would mean mere absence or mere negation of what is to be negated or in technical terms the object of refutation. So first you negate what is to be negated which to interpret means the true existence or inherent existence. So the mere negation of inherent existence about something that itself gives rise to the understanding that the thing is empty or emptiness. So emptiness is actually just a mere negation being coming to understanding after having negated the thing or the attribute to be negated.
So it is not absolutely a nothingness thing, it is just something which is understood as having negated. So we’ll look at this point by way of an example and perhaps a very relatable example. Say in the case of Tibet, the people there presently do not have independence, not have freedom. Reason they do not have freedom and independence is because China restricting or the actual word is stopping them from having freedom and independence.
So this will then continue as long as China continues to stop there being freedom and independence. But later on the moment China uplifts the restriction, the stopping, then the freedom or have independence will come about. So it is mere negation of the restriction. And so that is how it is similar. So it is a very similar example with what is to be referred to the context meaning because in both cases it is mere absence of the what is to be negated that what is to be understood will come about.
In the case of the example when what is to be negated which is the restriction, when that is negated then the independence and freedom manifest or come about. Similarly in the case of the meaning when what is to be negated which is existence from its own characteristic, when that is negated then the emptiness of existing from its own characteristic comes about. And as long as there is the existing from its own characteristic which in this case means as long as one mistakenly thinks the phenomena exist from its own characteristic then they cannot for that long be the understanding of the emptiness of that phenomena because understanding of emptiness simply is the mere negation of that misunderstanding the thing exists or from its own characteristic. So there is exact similarity. So by emptiness or empty it means empty of the empty of existing from its own characteristic which is what is to be negated and that is what is meant by emptiness or being empty, devoid, lacking.
Yeah. The question has been recycled many times. Do want to add one? No. Sorry.
The child himself does not have to know what was labeled by others and what exists. In a way the question is similar to what Joan has raised many months ago. That even though the child may not know or identify the object but already the object would have been labeled designated by others. So although the child not knowing has not designated does not mean it does not exist. It would already have been labeled by others.
For example, the child does not recognize or label the flower. Similarly, the child does not recognize or label the table. And similarly, the child would not label them. But that does not mean the flower and the table are non existent. Are non existent because they would have been labeled already by others.
So again it repeats in that way the child does not have to label it necessarily. Well, smells sweet to the deluded person smelling it. Does the question still Yeah. It is with dependence on name that the smelling sweeter and so forth would come about that the whole thing in another way is say food, edible things being labeled through name as delicious and not delicious, that there is a whole there is a whole way of treating and dealing with.