Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 46-minute commentary on Śāntideva’s Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra chapter 9, Kyabje Rinpoche analyzes emptiness through logical argument. He examines four possibilities for how things could arise—from themselves, from a cause, from both, or neither—and why each fails. The core teaching refutes a widespread error: that emptiness means nothingness. Using simple examples (an empty cup has no contents; an empty cushion no person), Rinpoche clarifies that emptiness means the lack of inherent existence, not absence of conventional function. He demonstrates how this understanding avoids two extremes: eternalism and nihilism. The teaching culminates in comparing Buddhist schools to show why Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka alone upholds both the absence of inherent existence and the infallibility of karma. Pitched at advanced practitioners already familiar with Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-09-20 – 12A – 9th Chapter – KR.mp3
UUID: 8ecfc43b-bef1-41fa-9bc3-02b464a7dda7
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Date: 1994-09-20
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~2,963
If there is if there is a birth in so the word birth in this case is no different to be seen as production, existence, so forth. So if there is a birth, then it should be in any of the four possible fashion that it is birth by way of birth from itself, or it has to be birthed from a cause existing by its own characteristic, producing a result existing by its own characteristic, or it has to be a birth in the fashion through depending on oneself and others, or it can be a birth by way of no cause. And apart from these four possibilities, meaning apart from these four hypothesis, there is no way of any other other fashion of birth. But there is no birth through any of those four possible hypothesis because birth happens with dependence in other way such as birth happens with dependence on its own causes and conditions and the very fact that something gets born or is produced or comes into existence with dependence on its own causes and condition implies the thing or the phenomena is empty, is of emptiness in nature. This so far is what is in essence is explained in the previous quote in the beginning part.
When there is mention of emptiness, mostly it is possible those who are not familiar with this understanding may take the meaning of emptiness no different to nothingness, therefore they would think by emptiness and the very explanation all phenomena are in the nature of emptiness would be taken as there is nothing even conventionally or nominally functioning at all. So they would take emptiness as no different to nothingness. But that is not so, because emptiness is the mere negation negation of what is to be refuted, what is to be proven as not there. And that mere negation of what is to be proven not there is inherent existence. When inherent existence is negated, then that is emptiness.
So emptiness is used in the sense of lack of, devoid of inherent existence. There is great danger otherwise to fall into the extreme of nihilism if one thinks emptiness as meaning nothingness. Then at the request of Rinpoche, I will repeat the four possible birth hypothetically, birth from itself, cause existing by its own characteristic, producing result existing by its own characteristic, characteristic and birth from other and oneself and birth from no cause. It would be quite good if one takes the meaning of emptiness by way of looking at a popular line from discourse, Essence of Wisdom Discourse, what is popularly known as Heart Sūtra because there we come across the lying saying, I should look at the five aggregates as by nature empty. So there is a mention that the five aggregates are empty by nature or empty by nature is no different way of rendering the original as empty of inherent or inherently empty or empty of inherent existence.
The five aggregates are the form, feeling, recognition, activity and consciousness and here it means the each of these five aggregates are empty or lack or devoid of inherent existence. So emptiness there very clearly is relatable as not nothingness but emptiness or empty or lack of inherent existence. The reason for that is if something exists inherently then there cannot be emptiness of that phenomena or there cannot be emptiness. Whenever inherent existence is negated or is proven as not the nature of the phenomenon in question, then that becomes emptiness. So it would be good then to not just say in one’s expression emptiness, instead it would be good to say emptiness of inherent existence.
So it seems that is good way to say. Cup is empty, then it indicates that the cup doesn’t have any contents in it, be it water, be it tea, or any other contents of edible or drinkable thing. So the very expression, the cup is empty, is used when there is no content at all. So it is absence or negation of the contents, then it becomes possible that the cup is empty, and the expression says the cup is empty. Contrary to that, if inside the cup there are edible or a drink and a tea, water and so forth, then it cannot be said the cup is empty.
There is no empty or void, so forth. So one cannot say the cup is empty. So in that case, the empty is the negation or the absence of the or lack of the content in the cup. For example, another example, let’s say, if there is inquiry about whether there is an empty cushion, an expression no different in meaning saying, is there a vacant cushion one can sit on? So there would be a check through and if one finds that one of the cushion is without anyone sitting on it, it would be called the empty cushion or alternatively the vacant cushion.
And in that case the vacant cushion or the empty cushion is an expression used where the absence of the person sitting on it takes place and then the empty cushion or the cushion becomes that. So in that example empty cushion is mere negation of the person who or where is supposed to be sitting on the cushion. In the Heart Sūtra, essence of wisdom discourse, there firstly the opening part directly dealing with emptiness starts with that line should look at the five aggregates as by nature empty or alternatively translated as empty of inherent existence. Therefore, later on, when the part of the discourse or the sūtra reads there is no form, there is no sound, there is no smell, there is no taste and so forth, what one actually has to understand and apply is that there is no what one has to understand and apply is one has to bring here the already briefly detailed meaning of what is emptiness from the previous line then understand the whole part as there is no inherently existing form, there is no inherently existing sound, there is no inherently existing smell and so forth, which then becomes that the very absence or negation of inherent existence of form becomes the emptiness of form.
And the very negation or the absence of inherent existence of sound becomes the sound in emptiness of sound, similarly with smell and so forth. If one is not able to relate emptiness in connection with emptiness of true existence or emptiness of inherent existence then it is a mistaken understanding of what actually emptiness or devoid means in the context of understanding view. So it is appropriate when one thinks about form being emptiness in nature, one has to think that form is empty or devoid of inherent existence. Similarly, sound is empty or devoid of inherent existence. Similarly, table is empty or devoid of inherent existence.
Similarly, flower is empty or devoid of inherent existence. So it is necessary to apply devoid of inherent existence as meaning of emptiness, and that very devoid of inherent existence is what is to be negated or technically called the object of negation or what is to be proven not there. Or if emptiness is non existent, or in alternative way, if emptiness is not there absolutely, then that would mean that there as well will be no realization of emptiness. This then would imply that there will not be possibility of removing the ignorance, the ego grasping or grasping at true existence. This then in turn would mean that there will be no possibility of overcoming all impure thoughts and acquiring excellent qualities of mind, and in turn that would mean there is no possibility of attaining liberation and omniscience and so forth, because going back to the previous initial point it would mean that emptiness itself was not there in the first place absolutely, then all subsequent things or the facts related with that as well becomes negated.
If emptiness is non existent or if emptiness is not there at all then that would mean that there as well are none of the two truths, the ultimate or actual truth and deceptive truth. That in turn would mean that there is no method and wisdom to be practiced, and that in turn would mean there is no possibility or there is no possibility at all of attaining the result, the two Buddha bodies, the form body and formless or the truth body. Emptiness and the instruction about it is to be received by trainee with the awareness or with conscientiousness. As well later on when one has understood emptiness that becomes the source through which one attains conscientious state of mind. As regards what is conscientious, well it in brief means not engaging into unwholesome actions or bad actions, not engaging into unwholesome actions.
Whoever engages into unwholesome actions is a person without conscientiousness and whoever engages into wholesome actions is a conscientious person. And that is the brief meaning of what is meant by conscientiousness. And here when one has understood emptiness one attains that quality of mind to always engage into meaningful wholesome actions. In the case of lower Buddhist tenets, starting from bottom upward, specific exponents, discourse schools, mind only, and Svatāntrika or Svatāntrika middle way, the lower middle way tenet, they all present an assertion where while they accept inherent existence of phenomena, they as well accommodate the presentation that there are actions and results producing from actions, in other words, that there is infallibility of karma, as well they present on that basis that there is happiness and suffering to be experienced depending on one’s actions. And on that basis they as well accommodate the presentation that it is a fact, there was previous lives and there will be now future lives.
So in essence what in lower Buddhist tenets the assertion goes is although they accept inherent existence of things, they together accommodate the presentation of the truth of karma and the fact that there is a continuity of the mind from previous life to next life and so forth. Whereas in the case of Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, the foremost middle way, the highest Buddhist tenet in that case or in their case, they present all phenomena as not inherently existing and that is the main meaning of emptiness and based on that premise that nothing exists inherently, they as well comfortably are able to present the infallibility of and effect, in other words, infallibility of karma, and as well infallibility of happiness and suffering resulting from their respective causes, as well the fact that there was previous lives and the fact that there would be future lives and the fact that there is infallible object, subject and action being done on the three circles of activity or three circles of action then they are able to present a whole lot although the basic premise is that nothing exists inherently. Or if we are to ask which is the better between the two?
On one hand, it is on one hand is the assertion that while phenomena or all things exist inherently, yet there is infallibility infallibility of cause and effect, happiness and suffering, past and future lives. On the other hand is the assertion while all phenomena do not exist inherently, yet there is infallibility of cause and effect, suffering and happiness resulting from their own causes and conditions so forth, as well as the fact that there was previous lives and there will be future lives, or in other words there is continuity of consciousness, well we can respond comfortably that well, follow the other, to follow the assertion that while nothing exists inherently, yet all functioning of things is valid, that karma cause and effect infallibly functions, that happiness and suffering results from their causes infallibly happens, and there was past life and future lives is fact, to accept that is better. Not only it is better, it is the ultimate perspective and understanding in Buddhist tenet. It is the tenet understanding of the Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika, the Consequentialist, Reasoner, middle way. So one would be more comfortable and would be following the ultimate view if one follows that follows that.
Therefore, Śākyamūni had advised that if one understands emptiness one would become a conscientious person and here the understanding of emptiness is in has to be what is in accordance with the Prāsaṇgika middle way tenet and that very tenet or that very understanding is the understanding of the great teachers of the highest tenets such as Nāgārjuna, Śāntideva, Candrakīrti, Buddhapālita, Tsongkhapa and subsequent in his Three Principal Aspects of the path says, furthermore, one needs to understand that through emptiness one negates the extreme of eternalism or absolute existence, and through emptiness one also will negate the extreme of nothingness or nihilism. What that part means, firstly, as regards with as regards with the working of cause and effect, happiness and suffering, past and future lives and so forth, it means that when one understands emptiness nature of all phenomena, then the very understanding that all phenomena are in the nature of emptiness that itself is the ground through which one comfortably can relate that there is undeniable karma or cause and effect or functioning, that there is undeniable while being emptiness in nature, that there is undeniable experience of happiness and suffering from their respective causes and past and future lives and so forth.
Because that understanding would mean if there is no emptiness then that as well would mean that there is none of all the others. There is none of the karmic infallibility, there is none of the past and future lives and so forth. So that very line would then mean when one understands emptiness nature of everything, that is the very source through which one realizes the undeniable functioning of karma and so forth. Also, can relate the whole thing in this way that the very fact that there is a doer, a person or being doing the action implies that there must be basis of deed, basis of the doing. And very fact that there is the basis of doing implies there must be an action, a deed, no, a deed.
So if there is a deed or a doing then that also implies then that there can be any of the three types of doing: good doing, bad doing, and neutral doing. So this leads to the infallible infallible fact that the three types of actions are valid there. Beings we engage into three three types of actions through our three doors. And so we are then we we sentient beings are then the doer and as a doer we engage into the basis of doing or basis of action. And through through engagement into the basis of action we then have action and that is we then have action and action can be any of the three types and in terms of happiness and suffering are more to be related as good actions and bad actions or wholesome actions and unwholesome actions.
As a fact, through such way as a conclusion, we can we can then present infallible working of karma or action, that karma or action is relatively functioning thing. There are many people who come up with the doubt thinking that doesn’t work, that there is no such thing as a karma. Well, if that is case, then that would mean that there is no wholesome and unwholesome actions. Then in that case, it would mean mean that there is no results of those wholesome and unwholesome actions and in that case it would mean that there cannot be lower rebirths, higher rebirths, happiness being experienced, sufferings being experienced, liberation being attained, becoming a bodhisattva, attaining Buddhahood and so forth because there was to start with no action which causes of such result. So if there was no karma or no action, validly functioning or to be presented as functioning, then that would mean that one cannot cannot achieve achieve Buddhahood, one cannot become bodhisattva, one cannot.
So that is reversing the explanation backward that one cannot as well attain liberation, one cannot as well attain higher rebirth and fall to lower rebirth, experience suffering, experience happiness, and so forth. If we are to be doing good Dharma practice then we first need to establish in our mind a great conviction and ascertained belief in the infallibility of actions, karma of wholesome actions and unwholesome actions. The reason for that is if we have, if we don’t have a good ascertainment or good ascertain belief in the two types of action then that would mean we not believe in the resultant happiness and suffering. We would think that suffering and happiness comes about randomly as chance, nothing to do with their causes. And one would be doubtful, one then will have doubt regarding happiness and suffering relative to their causes, the wholesome and unwholesome action.
If one has doubt to happiness and suffering as a resultant of that, then one will have doubt in the fact there was previous lives and there won’t be future lives. If one has doubt in that, then that would lead to doubting the valid existence of the Three Jewels. One then would doubt as well whether there is Buddhahood or enlightenment at all, whether there is state of bodhisattva to be attained or not, whether one would doubt one can become a realized hearer or as well one would doubt whether one can become realized solitary enlighteners or solitary realizers. In that way, it would then mean one would then end up not accepting anything at all and doubting everything.