Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Kyabje Rinpoche opens this 49-minute teaching on Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra Chapter 9 with a striking modern scenario: a phone call in which someone accuses you of being a thief. The shock and immediate defensiveness that follows captures something crucial—how a solid, self-existent I spontaneously arises in the mind, not as abstract concept but as lived grasping. He then teaches the fourfold analytical meditation for realizing emptiness: identify what must be refuted (this solid I), exhaust the only two possible ways it could exist (as one with or separate from the aggregates), and show both lead to logical contradiction. The practice applies this analysis back to the original feeling of self, gradually bridging from intellectual understanding to lived realization. He concludes with stories from great teachers—notably Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen realizing emptiness at Sera Monastery with transformative shock. For serious practitioners grounded in emptiness theory and ready for detailed analytical work.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-12-06 – 19B – 9th Chapter – KR.mp3
UUID: e7735757-6bee-466e-9f89-40fe4d6c2930
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Date: 1994-12-06
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~3,556
The statement that phenomena or things are emptiness of existence from their own characteristics that one would hear that person does not exist from its own characteristic. But that is mere following of the sound and in that way mere following of the concept concept of of the the lack lack of of existence from their own characteristic. Now in one’s practice one really needs to in one’s realization the experiences need to come to ascertain that the existence from their own characteristic is not to be found. So in that way one needs to experientially come to realize that which is to be negated is so. Now how one needs to realize through experience is, say, for example, here, especially in the West, people use telephone so many times.
And telephone does in the house ring ring ring makes the ringing tone. So when such happens, let’s look at an instance of one telephone call where the phone rings, and then one has to say hello from this side. And on the other end, the respondent says hello. So is it true that that’s what happens? Yes.
Okay. Now say when there is a phone call and one response, and then each of the two sides checks whether the right person is on the other side of the line, and the introductory bit all happens. Now in one incident, if it happens where the other person confirms who who the other person is talking to, meaning in if you are on this end, then if the other person confirms that they got the right person talking to, then following that, if that person says, you are thief on the line, then instantly at that time, you get a shock. I’m being accused as a thief. And then you just look up in dramatic, like animation, in the air with glaring eyes.
Something like I said, how can I be the thief? So that happens. At that point, one then thinks, oh, I’m being accused. I haven’t done anything. So there is immense buildup of a resistance, retaliatory strategy from one’s thinking, And there’s a whole puff up of some resentment, irritation, anger, so forth.
So that’s what happens. So then at that time, there comes about the experience, the puffed up feeling in one’s mind thinking, I am being blamed at. I am being accused. So there is an intense feeling of I and with relation to it being blamed and so forth. The nature of such feeling, experience, notion about I at that time is not something where one thinks I is being blamed at on the basis of one’s mind, meaning one does not relate I at that moment as one’s mind and it being blamed at.
As well, the moment experience of that moment is not where the blame at I is being perceived as if it’s one’s body or the aggregate. At that moment, on the mere congregation of the mind and the body, that there is the notion I, and I’m being blamed at. So that very moment, the experience, the notion, the feeling of the I and it being blamed at, and I, I is what in scriptural language called very solid solid. So it is very solidly solid because it is a experience of the eye or the notion of oneself as if it exists independently without depending on anything at all. So in that way, there does arise at that moment such an arising of I arising. So that is the notion at that time. So it is not the feeling of I which is in the case of I’m sitting, I’m staying, I’m going and so forth. Instead, it is far more in excess beyond that notion of I where the notion or the feeling about I is as if it exists without depending on anything at all, as if it is completely self sufficient. So that very is the I for which here one has to disprove as not there. Therefore, it is the one which is to be negated.
It is what is called the what is to be refuted, to be proven not there. Proven not there, arises in on on the occasions of immense fluctuation of happiness and suffering, that it is not regularly there when things are just not abnormally high or low. So not when things are not so happy and things are not so suffering full in nature. Instead, when one is so happy or when one is so sad or things are full of suffering, then that the notion of that eye happens. And similarly, when things of immense fluctuation in good and bad happens to oneself, then that is when it arises.
Also, whenever during such occasions of immense fluctuation of happiness and sadness or suffering when such an I arises, then one needs to do the analysis whether such manner of I actually exist or not. And the way how that is done is one needs to split one’s mind into two portions, of which one portion remains on that notion. So if we are to look at as an illustrative measure then we can say if the mind has five parts then four parts of the mind remains on that notion I am being blamed and I am being said something that notional intense grasping at I and then one portion of the five the one portion of mine does has to do the analysis hold whether the way the eye is seen to be does it exist or not so in that way very fine a very fine level of wisdom does has to do with the analysis and then it needs to check whether that I actually exist or not and out of such analysis of checking one should come to conclusive to be able to grab that it does not exist. So the language used is need to ascertain or be convinced that is not how it exists.
If there is such a solidly solid eye existing as it appears, then it has to exist either as one single separate entity. So in that way one needs to ascertain how does the I actually exist whether as one entity or as many because if something exist, it is entailed. It it can be established that there is only those two possibility, either it exists as one entity or as a separate many entities. But here, when this point is lack of existence from the part of I as truly existent, then one needs needs to apply by think by by thinking or coming to the terms of conclusion that if the I exist, it should exist as one entity with the aggregates. Or if it so exists it should exist as a separate entity from the aggregates.
There cannot be any other way the I would exist. So to decisively come to that conclusion about any possible manner of the eye existing on its own in those two ways is what is called the second important point of ascertaining the entailment, ascertaining the necessary coverage. And then comes the third point, which is the important point of ascertaining the lack or the void of truly existing as one entity. In which case, case it means if the I exist on its if the I exist as one entity with the aggregate, then it would exist as one entity from its own characteristic way of existence. And if that is so, then that would imply that the I and exist inseparably one, not to be separated into parts or portions.
That would be the case. If the eye and the aggregates exist as one from their own characteristic, then there will also be the error in this thrust implication that because there are five aggregates, therefore, I also would have to be of five in number. Similarly, by the same reasoning, because there is only because there is one eye, that would mean there will have to be only one aggregate, not five. Not only that not only that, generally, aggregates or the personality parts are the things acquired karmically, and one who acquires them karmically is the person, the I. But contrary to that, in that case, the implication would be that what is being acquired and who acquires it are of one.
In that case, all presentation and all facts about the separateness of object doer and deed will fall into pieces, meaning would not stand anymore instead it would mean the doer and the object of doing and the deeds itself, the three would become one so there will be such error or thrust or implications. Not only that because the eye and aggregate would become would have to be one existing as one then whole usage of whole usage of their separateness in the language would also become not possible therefore the whole concept and the way of relating would become contrary because generally the I and the aggregates being separate there is the whole usage by the language and the concept that my aggregate and I being separate in that way or the aggregate of I and or my aggregate. There’s a separateness. That would that is how it is. But contrary to that, it would then mean aggregate aggregate and I I.
There will be no such room or there no such ground to be said that it is the aggregate of the I or my aggregate instead aggregate itself has nothing it owes to or it’s owned by. So the I and aggregate all would have to be one. Therefore therefore, if the I and the aggregates are of one in nature and existence, then there are all those fallacies to be fallacies by which that is disproved through reasonings. Therefore, that way of existence of the eye and the aggregate as truly one is ruled out. Now, if there is any other way that the two inherently or from their own characteristics exist, then it would have to be as separate.
So therefore, it’s the next part. Now let’s say in that point, if the eye and the aggregates do exist from their own characteristics as separate, then the erroneous or the wrong implication, mistaken implication there would be that the two becomes unrelated separate entities because the two exist separately from their own characteristic, from their own side. That very point would mean the two exist separately not depending on anything at all in which case the two I and aggregate do not depend on each other but that is directly contrary to the fact because I is labeled upon the aggregate it is the attribute label and aggregates are what is being labeled upon they are the basis of the label so that is how exactly it would be but opposite to that, it would then mean they are in the aggregates are two unrelated separate entities. Nothing to what’s called depend on be relative to each other. Example of that would be then like the cat and a dog, which conventionally speaking, don’t have anything to do with each other.
They are separate, exist on their own. So it would become like that. So in that case, because a dog does not have the characteristics of the cat, it would then mean that the eye eye does not or would not have the characteristics of the aggregate, which in turn would mean that although the aggregates do have the characteristics of being subject to the suffering of birth sickness, aging and death, the eye is not with such characteristics because of the very fact it is separate from the aggregates, and it doesn’t have any characteristics which is with the aggregates. So in that case, it would mean that in that case, would mean that I being separate from the aggregates don’t have all those characteristics of the aggregate, which in turn also mean that I don’t get born at at all. And if I doesn’t get born, then it means it is a permanent phenomena.
And if it is permanent phenomena, then it as well doesn’t have any experience of pain, hot, cold, dying sickness, and all that. So that’s where the laughter was. It it will have none of that. There will be no which there will be none which goes to next rebirth from this rebirth as well. There will be there would not there wouldn’t have been one which came from previous life to this life as well.
Well, it would mean that there isn’t one which actually is the basis that experiences happiness and suffering. So that becomes the important point, the important point of ascertaining the eye and aggregate do not exist separately from their own characteristics. So together when we look through each of four, one then firstly half the important point of ascertaining that which is to be proven as not there. And secondly the ascertaining important point of ascertaining if they are exist it should exist either in the fashion of being inherently existing or truly existing as one with the aggregate or separate from the aggregates. There cannot be any third or any other way if there is any apparent existence of that.
And thirdly, if it does exist in in the manner of being truly one with the aggregate, then there will be all those erroneous thrust or the implications to be not withstanding when analyzed by reasoning. Similarly, if it exists separately, then there will be all those erroneous thrust or implication that would not stand the test of the reasoning. So in that way, in one’s practice or analysis, then wouldn’t you then say, then one would come to realize that the eye does not exist truly one with the aggregate as well truly separate from the aggregates. So in this way, one needs to analyze through reasonings. To start with the notion or the intense feeling of I as if it is existing from its own side would be similar to the time when someone over the line says So in this way, one needs to apply through reasoning and come to analyze through that way that whether they are existing that way or not.
To start with there is that notion of intense I as if existing from its own side which as we discussed earlier over the line when someone says, you are a thief. So there was a bit of smile at that time. So you are a thief. So like that, there is that what’s called feeling or the notion as if it exists from its own side, the eye or the self. Now one, through this way of analyzing, has to come to the conclusion if it does exist from its own characteristic one or one with the aggregate then there will be all those what’s called fallacies and if it does exist separately then there will be all those track or all those fallacies being separate from the aggregates truly.
So in brief, that very emptiness, the absence total lack, the total lack of existence of the I as truly one and separate from the aggregate needs to be realized upon that very I which earlier before one’s analysis one had retained as the feeling or the notion of that I. So in in a way the post-analysis part was in a way you need to apply the analysis conclusion as to be applied upon that very feeling of the one had earlier from the beginning of the analysis. So one needs to again and again think with reasoning and meditatively familiarize in the sense meditate contemplate on that very manners of if the I is to be existent it should exist in those possible ways and out of such one then towards the end need to have very decisive conclusion that I does not exist from its own side at all as one and as separate. Therefore, really, the I does not exist from its own characteristic at all. So it has to be like a conviction, the emphasis of the part was one has to have conviction, a decisive conclusion on that.
And that very conviction then needs to be again and again meditatively familiarized and then one would gradually come to realize the actual reality to realize the actual reality, meaning the emptiness about the eye. Now let’s say an example, if someone has very valuable thing in the person’s place and as well, the place place or the boxes where the person would put that valuable thing would be only two boxes or say two safes so the person only has two safes let’s say so the implied laughter in that was say a pauper has only two safe or boxes in the house so that in that case then then the valuable thing the person has, if it is to be searched by the person would be would have to be found in either of the two possible place where it would have been put. So afterwards, if the person in trying to search for the reality of a thing looks at one box there and finds it is not there then the person would have a feeling oh it is not here now it must be in that box or meaning the safe and goes on to look at into into the other box or the safe and if the person finds that the valuable thing is not there either, then that very moment, there is a feeling of the thing is not there.
So along with that feeling, there is a notion of the emptiness, notion of vacuum about the thing, the valuable thing which has which is now if to be found would have to be in either of the two boxes but not there. So there is that feeling of vacuum of that thing. Not only that, if the thing is extremely valuable, then there will be great feeling of scariness. One would be so scared. So that’s where as for the latter part was, one really would have a shock, shock of a life.
So in that sense, so one would have a scary feeling. So wouldn’t you say that that is how it feels at that time? So that person in trying to look for the valuable thing does not find in either of the two possible places would then at that point of realizing the valuable thing is not there would feel scared, shocked, and some people even might cry. Similar to that example, in our case, we, from beginningless life mean so much, much habituated with the mistaken notion that the eye solidly solid exists without depending on the aggregates and without depending on anything at all. Now as a practitioner when one applies those ways of fourfold important points of ascertaining the lack of independent existence from the eye, then one would realize that the eye does not exist truly because it does not exist truly as one with the aggregates nor truly separate from the aggregates.
Out of such understanding there will come the realization that I is not there so one would realize the I is not there, it is not to be found. And although this may not be the case with those of sharp faculty practitioner, but in the case of blunt faculty practitioner, it would have to be said that at that time, there would be a feeling of scariness, a great shock, a sense of fright at that time. In the past, when the great fifteenth century teacher Je Tsongkhapa was explaining emptiness in an important occasion on a retreat place above the Sera Monastery in Tibet, a little bit above the actual location of the monastic University of Sera. At that time, amongst those who received the teachings was the great teachers, who later on founded or established the Tantric College of the Lower Tantric College in Central Tibet. And so that great teacher was one of those receiving the teachings. And in the course of the teaching on the spot, Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen realized emptiness.
And moment he realized emptiness, he felt scared and or scared in the sense like a a change of motion and held on to his shirt sleeve as if like a great sense of a shock, a transformative transformative state of mind. And at that point, the teacher giving the instruction, Je Tsongkhapa, was very pleased and also through his state of mind, through his enlightened state of mind realized that this disciple has realized emptiness and being very pleased said, ah, meaning one who has understood the emptiness and appearance, he has arrived So in this way, a fair bit of practitioner do get frightened at that moment. But in the case of a very sharp faculty, a scriptural meaning expression meaning very intelligent practitioner, in their case, instead of being frightened, there is immense happiness, a feeling of joyfulness at that time. Yeah.
So we shall stop here. So if there are any questions, we shall have few minutes, although it’s quite late already. Yeah. That would would not be appropriate. Instead, it has to be on the spot feeling, meaning current current feeling.