Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Khensur Rinpoche examines a pivotal objection to Madhyamaka philosophy: if wisdom analyzes whether things truly exist, what analyzes that wisdom itself? In this 48-minute commentary on the ninth chapter of Śāntideva’s Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, Rinpoche presents the lower Buddhist schools’ challenge, then the Madhyamaka response. Once wisdom realizes all phenomena lack true existence, it cannot conceive of its own true existence either—no second analysis is needed. He illustrates this through the image of fingers and thumb, then applies the same reasoning to the six consciousnesses and their objects. Both exist only in relation to each other, Rinpoche explains through the father-child analogy, making true independence impossible. For serious practitioners with background in Buddhist philosophical debate.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-11-01 – Pt1 9th Chapter of Śāntideva's. Pt1 – KR.mp3
UUID: 6394213f-1fe3-4152-ba1b-d0a021dd71af
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Date: 1994-11-01
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~3,168
Few minutes meditation on kind thought, and in connection with that, we shall meditate on precious mind of enlightenment, the precious bodhicitta. Personally, we have attained human rebirth where physically we have the capability to work towards removing all sufferings and to attain happiness. Not only that, we have as well encountered the precious teachings of the Buddha, Buddha Śākyamūni, and the teachings we have encountered is in its complete unmistaken wholeness where both the foundational discourse or sūtra teachings and the advanced tantric teachings are contained in their wholeness, completeness. On top of that we have as well encountered qualified, compassionate lamas or teachers who show the path unmistakenly. Therefore, in order to introduce meaningful spiritual practice, to practice Dharma, we have all necessary factors complete.
It is at this moment that we have acquired something extremely rare, and such completeness of all factors in future would be something difficult to be together again. Therefore, when we have all these factors together, we need to do something about it and through that way make our life meaningful. How actually do we go about making our life meaningful? Well, the real way to make our life meaningful is to put efforts through which we really can remove our own and as well all other beings’ sufferings and as well we can attain our happiness for ourselves as well for all other beings. To be able to accomplish those, one needs to have in the beginning kind thought, good intention, and then in the middle what practices one does has to be as well noble, in the sense unmistaken and complete.
And through that way it is possible, quite certain, that one definitely would attain wonderful fruits on their accomplishments. When it comes to good thought, kind thought, there is nothing above the precious bodhicitta, the precious altruistic mind wishing enlightenment for others’ benefit. Therefore here at this point we try together to develop that kind thought of mind of enlightenment. What actually is mind of enlightenment, the precious mind of enlightenment, bodhicitta? Well, it is a thought which makes the determination that in order to remove the sufferings of all beings, and as well in order to get rid of the causes of sufferings of all beings, I must somehow very quickly attain the state of Buddhahood, the enlightenment.
So such thought, which is very altruistic and kind, completely absorbed into wishing removal of sufferings of all other beings is called the precious mind of enlightenment. Here at this point, please try to develop a state of mind thinking in order to participate in the study and understanding of emptiness as explained in the Mahāyāna or the great vehicle system are very altruistically engaged in the activity of our study onto the topic here. So from our last Tuesday evening teachings continuation, we are presently on the second main topic, which is about refuting the contradiction that analyzing consciousness would be endless. And to start with, this comes about from three part topics, where first one was that there would be contradiction, the truth would not be valid. The second, that there will be endlessness about analyzing consciousness.
And the third, that there are reasonings which are unacceptable anyway. We are presently on the second main topic. Now, at this point, the author of the ninth chapter, Śāntideva, says if the analyst’s mind is analysed, then there will be unending analysing mind, one analysing the other, and so forth. In brief, this point comes about from offshoot point where the highest middle way tenet, the highest Buddhist tenet explains all phenomena not existing truly, not existing inherently. And when proving that all phenomena do not exist truly or inherently, the highest tenet brings about many reasonings to substantiate their assertion that things don’t truly exist.
Now when it comes to establishing the non true existence of phenomena through reasonings, what actually is established to not truly exist? Well, as far as that goes, we can look at different ways. One way of looking at would be the two truths, that through the classification of everything into two truths, one can analyze how things are not truly existent. Or the other way would be firstly classify all phenomena into two groups: phenomena and person, and then establish the non true existence of things. Here, firstly, when such analysis about things as truly existent is done.
Obviously there is a subject which does the analysis. Who is that which does the analysis? Well, it is the person, or it can be related as the consciousness of the person, the mind of the person doing the analysis, who actually is the subject doing the analysis. Or in another word, to put plainly or briefly, the object of what is analyzed are the phenomena and person, and the one doing the analysis is the consciousness of the person doing the analysis. When it comes to the mind of the person doing the analysis, we can ask what type of mind does the analysis.
And as a fact, we would find that amongst the minds of the person it is the valid mind which analyzes whether things truly exist or not. So it is a valid mind, what is so called, scripturally called, the valid knowledge. Valid knowledge itself is of two types: direct valid knowledge and inferential valid knowledge. Through either of the two ways one does the analysis. Through either of the two valid knowledges one does the analysis.
So in a way we can say it is a wisdom, a mind with wisdom in the form of valid knowledge which does the analysis whether things truly exist or not, whether things inherently exist or not. And whenever with such wisdom-filled mind of valid knowledge, one does the analysis again and again and again, then finally there would come time when one actually would directly realize the nature of things, the ultimate nature of things, and that is the point when one has realized emptiness through valid knowledge. Well, we would find that Well, now we would find that the actual aspect of mind of a person who does the analysis is the wisdom. So in a way, when tracking down to real analyst, the real doer of analysis, it would be found that our wisdom is the one doing the analysis, and the topic of what is analyzed is the non true existence. And with reference to what the analysis is done, well, we can classify them into two groups.
Either the analysis is done on the person, the being, or anything other than person grouped as phenomena. In this way, person and phenomena are analyzed by wisdom to be existing truly or not. Now, when the highest tenet, through their analysis and later on explains that by this way, by this process of analysis into the way of things, that things do not truly exist or inherently exist, then the lower Buddhist tenets bring up the argument against the highest tenet. So we can say at this point we are going into very messy waters where there’s a lot of counter arguments and so forth from the lower tenets. Of course, these points which are to be explained very soon would make sense to you all.
Yet still, it may be interesting to relate the point through an example to make it relatable, more relatable. And the example can be this way, say, for the public, whether the public do anything wrong or not, there are overseers called police. So the police are the one who oversees the public and in that way do the checking about the illegality about people’s behavior and so forth. And then police themselves can have overseers behind them installed, posted, who does checking about the behaviors of the police. And then the overseers themselves, the supervisors, overseers themselves might have others behind them posted to check whether their behavior is going well or not.
So in this way, if let’s say there is such one after another or one behind another, then it would go on endlessly. Looking similarly in that way, the lower Buddhist tenets at this point bring the argument to the highest Buddhist tenets saying, if the argument goes this way, if, as you say, that the wisdom which analyzes about reality is the one doing the analysis whether things truly exist or not, then this would imply that wisdom as well would need another mind or wisdom doing analysis upon that very wisdom, whether that wisdom itself to start with exists truly or not. And then that another wisdom will have another one. So in this way, a lower Buddhist tenets say it could go on endlessly. So the lower Buddhist tenets bring up the argument against the highest Buddhist tenets saying, if there is that wisdom which is supposed to be analyzing whether things truly exist or not, then would you say there is another wisdom which analyzes that first wisdom during the analysis or not?
And they continued the argument saying, If you say there is another wisdom analyzing the first wisdom, it would imply that second wisdom will have another one, another wisdom analyzing itself, that first or second wisdom truly exists or not. In that way it could go endlessly without any terminating state of wisdom being the last and not more to be analyzed at all. And if you say that there is no second wisdom analyzing the first wisdom, then in that case it would mean that the very fact, the wisdom which is supposed to be doing the analysis about things itself is not found to be not truly existent because there wasn’t any analysis to it done at all, then what is the point for that wisdom to be analyzing about other external things and phenomena apart from itself. There would be no need it would be futile for it to go about analyzing others, whereas it itself has not found its own state, whether it is truly existent or not. So in this way, these two possible attacks of arguments are brought forth by lower tenets.
Now when that argument is brought forth, the highest Buddhist tenet answer or response is given by Śāntideva, the present author of the teachings. And the answer or the response given to counter their argument says, Suppose the wisdom analyzing the nature of things, whether they truly exist or not, is, say, the tongue. And what is being analyzed, which is all phenomena, are the other four fingers, they are in a row like the four fingers. So we have a scene where the wisdom is standing here and all phenomena which are the topic of analysis, whether they truly exist or not, are in a row one after another. So from here the wisdom is doing the analysis about things as if the thumb is at a distance from the other four fingers.
Now when that wisdom analyzes whether things truly exist or not, and when the wisdom through analysis realizes that things don’t truly exist at all, then because there is no concept in that wisdom that things truly exist, then there is no possibility for that wisdom to think that itself is truly existent. There is no, in other words, is no concept about its own true existence left at all in its thinking or consciousness or in its awareness because it has realized all phenomena to be not truly existent. And due to this very fact, the wisdom does not need any second wisdom to analyze whether it truly exists or not. To start with, it hasn’t got any consciousness of being it is not conscious of itself being truly existent, because it realizes all phenomena as not truly exist. The wisdom which does the analysis is the one which is the doer of the analysis.
The analysis is done upon all phenomena. And as there is a link between what is being analyzed and one doing analysis, that very link serves as the basis when what is being analyzed is found to be not truly existent and the true existence, or supposedly true existence about what is being analyzed has become negated, that negation of true existence as well is entailed upon the one doing the analysis, which is the wisdom. This briefly deals about how wisdom which does the analysis can perhaps be mistakenly seen as requiring other analysis upon it. And based on such, if there was such arguments, these would be the response to counter the arguments. Now the next part concerns other arguments by the lower Buddhist tenets put up against the highest tenet.
And this next part is the argument concerning the reasonings to establish all phenomena as not truly existent. This in brief, the part deals how it came about the argument, is the highest tenet in order to establish all phenomena not truly existent presents so many sharp reasonings, but these reasonings are seen to be unacceptable by the lower Buddhist tenets, and as a result they then bring about certain arguments of disproving or not accepting the reasonings. Well then, how does then what is the nature of the argument? Or in other words, what sort of arguments do they bring about? Well, they say there is no point to put reasonings to establish all phenomena as not truly existent, because to start with we don’t accept phenomena to be not truly existent.
In our system we believe everything does exist truly, and to support that everything does truly exist we have reasonings to substantiate that. Now, how the lower Buddhist tenets explain through their reasonings that things do truly exist? Well, there are six consciousnesses, five sensory consciousness and one mental consciousness, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, bodily consciousness and mental consciousness. So these are the six consciousnesses and each has its own object to which it engages and totaling there are five visible or tangible objects of the senses of consciousness and the mental consciousness object. And those objects are form, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental consciousness objects, the phenomena.
More Buddhist tenets say the objects of the six consciousnesses are truly existent because the six consciousnesses which engages into them are truly existent. In this way their argument rests upon the assertion because the six consciousnesses are truly existent, their objects as well need to be truly existent. But of course, in that reasoning, their whole stand rest upon the wrong premises thinking that the six consciousnesses are truly existent, because that is how they assert the six objects of the six consciousnesses are truly existent, by the very reasoning according to them, meaning lower tenets, that the six consciousnesses are truly existent. So, as a response to their argument, the highest Buddhist tenet represented here by Śāntideva, the author of the present teachings, responded saying, If you accept the six consciousnesses to be truly existent, then not only there will be no valid reasonings for you to be able to substantiate that claim. On top of that, there will be so many loopholes, discrepancies in that stance.
And that’s how Śāntideva starts to counter saying, to assert six consciousnesses to be truly existent, would mean you would make you have no reasonings to substantiate that. Not only that, there will be many discrepancies with that. Okay, we can specify the whole argument and counter response to the argument by putting it into a specific example. Say, the eye consciousness looking at an object, say a form, a form and an object. Now lower Buddhist tenets say the eye consciousness perceives the object, the form.
Now their argument says that the form, the object is truly existent and when they say that, they bring up the reasoning saying, because the eye consciousness is truly existent. And when they say that, then the highest Buddhist tenet questions them, What are the reasons, what are the reasoning through which you can substantiate that I consciousness is truly existent? But what happens as a response from them lower tenets? They say the eye consciousness is truly existent because the form is truly existent. So they start to track back to its original stand.
So they go round and round. To prove the form is truly existent, they bring about the eye consciousness as truly existent. And to prove that eye consciousness is truly existent, they bring the reasoning because the form is truly existent. And again when it’s asked how that is truly existent, they go around saying the eye consciousness is truly existent. So in this way they really go round and round.
Now in response to their whole misunderstanding and wrong argument, here the teacher from the highest Buddhist tenet’s point of view explains to the lower tenets that neither the eye consciousness nor the form is truly existent. Why the two, why both, why the both are not truly existent is because eye consciousness is presented only in relative, only in relation to the form, and form is presented only relative to or in relation to the eye consciousness. So both exist only in the fashion of relative to one another, one another, therefore they are not independent, they do not truly exist. Because each depend on the other and each exist with relative to other, the whole existence is dependent, originated existence. And the very fact that two are dependent, originated, existent, or the two exist dependent, originatedly, that itself clearly means the two do not exist truly.
If something is truly existent then it should exist without depending on cause, conditions, parts, portions and the name and label given to it. Whereas in the present case, meaning with the eye consciousness and the form, they do depend on one another, they do depend on a whole lot of factors for their existence. Therefore, they are clearly in the form of dependent existence, dependent originated existence, dependent arising in that way. Now if something is dependent arising, dependent originated, then that is exactly contrary to independent existence. So in that way, if something is dependently originated, it means it is not truly existent by the very fact that it is not independent, it is not solidly existing existing on its own.
How the two depends on each other for their existence and in that way how the two are relative can be explained in this way where the teacher meaning Śāntideva here explains that, for example, the very fact someone is called father is called with dependence on the child the father has fathered. Similarly, the very fact someone is called child in the case relative to a father is called child because of having been fathered and in relation to the father. So in that example the very label to be called father and to exist in that way is due to in relation or relative to the child. Similarly, for a child in its