Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 48-minute session, Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen teaches the Lamrim at Buddha House, focusing on clarifying what the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness actually means—and what it does not. He opens with the foundational point that mental quality and honest intention outweigh polished speech; people judge you by your actions and heart. He outlines the three scopes of practice (bodhicitta mind, personal liberation, and good rebirth), then turns to the core teaching: wisdom of emptiness as the antidote to delusion. The bulk of the talk addresses common Western misunderstandings—emptiness is not nothingness, nor the view that nothing exists—and guides students through analytical investigation of how we grasp at a solid I, and through the Buddha House example, how all phenomena arise through designation and dependent origination rather than from their own side.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 07 LR no date.mp3
UUID: f90d6642-bd74-4119-b378-fe3c6da88ac4
Teacher: Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen
Collection: Lam Rim (Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen)
Date: 1983 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 48.2 minutes
Words: ~5,773
As I mentioned, it is very skillful means, or it is very skillful, to first develop your heart in good condition, or you must begin with yours also—you must begin quite humble and quite noble. Right? Quite good heart, quite good person. Right? So no matter even if you are using some unpleasant words, right, if you have some manner, if you have some habit of using unpleasant words, no matter—that will not become your fault if and when you have real pure heart. Right? Real pure heart. Because people will judge you from your dealing, from your normal intention. Right?
In other words, they will normally—we say, no, even somebody is not so skillful in terms of using words. We will say, oh, this is his way of speaking, but his mind is quite good, quite clear. So we mustn’t blame him, or we must trust him, because his normal dealing, his normal activities, are quite good and quite beneficial for all. Therefore, we must heed what he said. Right?
So in this way, even if you use unskillful terms, that won’t make you down. Right? Because others are there to judge your mental quality. Thus, the first important thing is to develop all the good qualities within yourself so as to share that amongst our fellows. So your mental qualities will surpass your small and minor faults.
Therefore, it is important to develop the mental quality, or mental qualifications. Right? You will find there are some people who are temporarily trying to deceive others by various means. Right? So at first, people may get trapped in those pretensions. Right? But if you look very deeply, you’ll find his way of speaking, his way of doing, it’s just artificial level. Just—right? Just very—it’s not deep. Just artificial level. So therefore, he will not be relied upon by others ultimately. Right? So if you want to win the hearts of others, be honest, be free from pretension, and try to work honestly with a good heart. So by doing that, slowly and gradually, all the people will start liking you, and you will also have very good reputation as a result of that.
If you haven’t got big bodhicitta mind, strong bodhicitta mind, then at least try to have small one. Okay? So how you have the small one is through generating all those good conditions or good hearts, as I mentioned before. Right? So whether you accept yourself as a practitioner of anything or you don’t accept as practitioner, it doesn’t matter. The matter is the implication of the teachings. If you imply, if you put them into practice normally in your daily life—such as trying to have a good heart to all, trying to help others whenever they need, and so forth—you are practicing the teachings, and you are implementing all those things you have heard. But even if you say that I’m a great practitioner of certain and certain, but if you don’t practice all those things, you are not a practitioner as you have asserted. But even those who don’t assert—even those who say, I’m not a practitioner—but if their actions are related with good heart and good things, they are practicing the teachings and they are putting those things into their actions. So that will be the real implementation of the teachings.
So this is how to put them into implementation and to enhance one’s good side of their mental continuum. Okay. Got it? Mhmm. In this way, you have to generate bodhicitta mind, thinking, I must try to obtain Buddhahood for the sake of all the suffering sentient beings. And if you have that kind of thought within you, and it constantly remains immutably, then you are generating the bodhicitta mind. Okay? And if you’re not able to do in this way, then you also try from that side, thinking—trying to obtain the liberation for one’s own sake through understanding the sufferings of the cyclic existence in general. And having strong renunciation for those, you must do your practice. That is the Dharma of a small scope.
And even in case if you are not able to do that, then at least, right, at least try to think in this way. For the sake of removing the sufferings for my sake, I must engage into the virtuous actions in order to obtain good rebirth in the next life. So if you do within this frame of mind, you are practicing pure Dharma according to the smallest scope. Right? So as I have told, there are three kinds of scopes one can choose from according to one’s mental ability and according to one’s mental understanding.
Bodhisattvas, then, mainly stay in the meditative equipoise of the wisdom of emptiness. Right? So that is the actual antidote to the delusions. So the Bodhisattvas, they always—the Buddhas—they stay in the meditative equipoise of emptiness, and when they arise from that meditation, from that equipoise, they start accumulating the merits, or the virtuous merits, through six perfections. So by doing this way, they progress on to the levels of the Bodhisattvas, then eventually they are able to remove all the delusions by the power of the wisdom of emptiness, and thereby they obtain the Buddhahood.
They take the main object of meditation, the wisdom of emptiness, which is the true and actual antidote to the delusions. So they stay in the meditative equipoise on this wisdom, and having arisen from their meditative concentration, meditative stable equipoise, then they start accumulating the meritorious merit—the virtue—which means they start collecting the virtue by practicing the perfection of generosity, perfection of morality, perfection of patience, perfection of concentration, the perfection of joyful effort, and perfection of wisdom, and also the perfection of skillful means and wisdom, and so forth. So in this way, those Bodhisattvas engaged into the six perfections and other perfections so as to perfect their continuum in order to get enlightenment.
How to train one’s mind? So you have found that at the moment, your mind is full of delusions, so now you want to get rid of them. So we are finding some method to remove those, so you will get the wisdom of emptiness. The wisdom of emptiness is the only method which can remove the delusions. So therefore, in order to get the wisdom of emptiness, we start practicing and we start doing our trainings.
The meaning of emptiness is really hard and is really profound. The person—the profound person—who explains the meaning of emptiness should explain very, very carefully and very, very clearly. Likewise, the person who receives teaching on this topic should very, very carefully receive and should pay attention to what the teacher says. The wisdom of emptiness is the heart of all the Buddha’s Buddhist teaching. So it is, of course, a bit hard to understand.
I’ve been going everywhere, giving some teachings to many places, and I met many students, especially the westerners, who have real interest in terms of knowing the meaning of emptiness. They’ve heard few teachings before from someone, and their understanding wasn’t so sure, wasn’t so correct. So if you misunderstood the meaning of the emptiness, it is really bad for both. So therefore, to be able to receive the meaning of emptiness, you will need some time. A teacher should also speak on this subject very, very clearly, precisely, without mistake. Likewise, students should receive the teaching precisely, correctly, without mistake. So therefore, we need to have some time in order to present completely the meaning of the emptiness.
A few students who have been asking me—they are meditating on the emptiness. When I ask, how do you meditate on the emptiness, then they say, I’m doing meditation on the emptiness mainly thinking nothing. Right? So nothingness—this is nothingness—thinking nothingness would be my meditation on the emptiness. So that is not the proper understanding of the emptiness. So nothingness will never become the meaning of emptiness. So therefore, there is a way to stop one’s inner wandering thoughts—that meditation is not even called a meditation on the emptiness.
Also, many students, they ask me. They say in this way: all phenomena, or all things, are only existing to our thought, and in reality, there isn’t any phenomena. They have kind of—okay. Many people have this understanding. This is also mistaken in terms of understanding emptiness. All phenomena and other things are just like a dream. No? They appear like a dream, and actually, in fact, there isn’t anything. Therefore, they are nonexistence. So they say that is a totally incorrect way of understanding the meaning of emptiness.
Identification of the wisdom realizing the emptiness. So as I told you before, we experience sufferings. Okay? How we experience suffering is because of the cause of the sufferings. We have true sufferings because of the cause of sufferings. Okay? And how the cause of suffering starts functioning is because of our ignorance. Right? Now the wisdom realizing the emptiness should go right to the end of that ignorance. If we say everything is just like a dream and there’s nothing there, then how does this wisdom go as an antidote to ignorance? So there’s no way. So therefore, nothingness is not emptiness. So thus, the wisdom of emptiness is that wisdom which has ability, which has the power, to eliminate the ignorance completely. You know, from that way we have to understand.
In order to establish the emptiness, first of all, we have to recognize the object of negation. Right? Object of negation, in other words. So we have very, very strong feeling of I, or conception of I. Right? This conception of I is existing within us very, very tightly. Right? So now we have to see how this tight conception of I exists.
As I mentioned, we have very strong conception of I. We hold it very tightly. Right? In this case, all of a sudden, if somebody says to you, “Hey. You are a great thief. You have stolen blah blah blah.” At that very moment, there is very strong manifestation of an I. You think, how dare you use the word thief to me? So therefore, at that time, there is very, very strong as well as manifest conception of I. So just investigate that particular I, how it exists and functions. Mhmm. Okay.
Our self-grasping holds our I not the way it exists. Right? So therefore, first of all, without going anywhere, first of all, we must try to investigate how our self-grasping holds the I and how it exists. So this is our first step to be taken in order to establish something.
Whenever we think, whenever our self-grasping holds our I, we say—we have a concrete conception thinking I, and then we use—we say first I, then my head, my leg, my hand, my thing, and my possessions. Right? Whenever we use it in this way, it appears to us. There is I which possesses all those things. We have this kind of conception, thinking: my head, my body, my legs, my hands. Some say, I have got very good head, and some people say, I haven’t got very good head. Some people say, I have got big head. I have got small head. Some people say I have got very good hair, and some people say I haven’t got good hair. So whatever it may be, all those things seem that all the head and all other above-mentioned parts belong to the I, and I is something which owns, which possesses, those things. We never say here is I. Here. Right? We never say here is I.
Therefore, it seems to us that there is someone who possesses all those. Yes. I have got very big muscle. I have got big muscle. I’ve got a very good body and big muscles. And some people say, I haven’t got—I’m very weak and I’m very big, so I haven’t got big muscles. Whatever it may be, still, there is feeling that the I is there who owns the muscle and the body and so on, and those muscles and body are objects which belong to that I.
Some people say, I have got a very good consciousness. I got a good mind and memory. Therefore, I can remember very clearly and very profoundly. Some people say, I have got very good intelligence. Therefore, I can understand perfectly and profoundly. And whereas some people say, I haven’t got good intelligence. Therefore, I can’t remember. I can’t do. So some people say, I have got very good memory. Therefore, I can remember everything very clearly. Whereas some people say, I can’t, because I have not good memory.
So our consciousness also becomes the object of that I, and I is something which owns the physical body as well as the consciousness. So this is our own feeling and our own way of cognizing.
Now we should think very carefully. This is the way our inner self-grasping holds an I. Now let us see very carefully. If there is an I who belongs—the head, body, and so forth—and also who owns, who possesses, our all five aggregates. Right? Right? So then see: where is that I apart from those five aggregates? Clear? You try to search out within yourselves.
We have very strong conception of I, and that I says I have a good or bad head. Right? And similarly, let us take the example of the five aggregates. I says, I have five aggregates. Right? So now let us analyze all five aggregates—separate or just divide all the five aggregates individually. Right? So what is that I? Where is that I who possesses five aggregates after having done the analysis properly? So just do the analysis by yourself, within yourself.
Our inborn self-grasping holds an I very tightly as being existing inherently. Because of that conception, we have strong feeling of an I and think the body and the mind, or the consciousness, belong to I. Belong to I. Right? So here, I begins to own, and the body and consciousness begin to be objects to be owned by the I. Right? In this case, now let us see. If it were valid, then if Buddha comes and says, “Would you like to change your body and mind to mine, body and mind?” Then, under non-analysis and non-analytical investigation, probably you would say, yes, I would. Right? So now you give your body and mind, or the consciousness, to the Buddha. Right? So after having given these two, who remains on the same spot? Who takes Buddha’s body and mind? Right?
If there is still I existing after having given the body and the consciousness, then it’s the real way of existing as apprehended by our inborn self-grasping. Right? But if you don’t find the existence of I after having given the body and the consciousness, then it is not valid as being apprehended by our inborn self-grasping. Right? So if you do this analysis—if you get this analysis quite clearly—then we are trying, and we are able to negate one portion of the object of negation. Clear?
What have you not understood?
In the place of having given your body and the mind to the Buddha, if still there is an existence of an I who takes Buddha’s mind and body, then it is the real existence as being perceived by your inborn self-grasping. Right? But if there’s no existence of I, then the way our inborn self-grasping at an inherently existent I is not valid. It’s not true. Right? Therefore, if you form an understanding of this logical mark, you will be able to refute, or you’ll be able to negate, a portion of the object of negation. Clear? Mhmm.
What? I mean, very clearly. When you say I have good consciousness or bad consciousness, right, when you say in this way, then how do you think: who is the object and who is the subject? Does this consciousness belong to the I, or is the consciousness the I, or is the I a consciousness? Who are they, and what are they? When you say I have good consciousness or bad.
There you go. If you try to find out how do you know—if you’re in a state of analysis, I think you can answer.
Body—when you say, all right, when you say I have very good body, you don’t think that the body is—if you say I, do you? I mean, do you think or not? How do you understand?
This is more than the things that make up what you might call I.
No, no. The question was that. When you say I have a good body, right, when you say I have a good body, so when you say I have good body, do you think the body itself is I?
I said no.
You said no? So how do you understand that? How do I know that?
Yes. I’d say because I think there’s more—there’s more than a body to a person.
Sorry?
There’s more than just a body that composes a person.
Mhmm. So which is this person, more than a body?
I’m not really sure. Perhaps these five aggregates, is it? And they came as the aggregates.
Aggregate? What? Form—body or form—
No, no. You said no. Maybe the five aggregates.
So Geshe-la said, which aggregate is the person, or which aggregate is the I?
What? I’m not sure. How about this? Might be mind.
I will call it altogether.
How about—it’s to understand.
So, you know, whenever we say, I have very good five aggregates. Right? When you say, I have very, very good five aggregates, so it seems there is something—there is someone—who possesses those five aggregates. Right? So who possesses five aggregates? When I say, I have five aggregates, so five aggregates here. So there’s something—someone—says, I have five aggregates. So it seems that five aggregates belong to someone. Right? Belong to someone, and that someone possesses all five aggregates. Right? So at that time, you have to see very clearly: who is that one who possesses the five aggregates, and how is that something existing? Right?
So our inborn self-grasping thinks that all the five aggregates belong to him or it. I don’t know. So therefore, this inborn self-grasping is something which is totally existing from its own side, inherently, without depending on any object, on any cause and conditions. So first we have to recognize this and have to check out how it exists in real form.
Could that—could that—so is there any—that kind of I which binds the aggregates together?
If there’s any I existing which binds the five aggregates together, it should be findable. Did you find that I?
Well, I’m just—I don’t understand. Maybe if you take—if you take one of the five aggregates apart, then the I dissolves. I mean, you know, as you said, you asked Geshe-la, you think there is an I which binds the five aggregates, which makes the five aggregates. Right? So Geshe-la said, is there any I which existing in that way which binds the five aggregates together? If there is an I which binds the five aggregates together, it should be findable. So when something is findable, we should find it when we analyze. So the next question is, did you find it? Did you find the I which binds five aggregates? Did you find it?
It’s the thing which you—last when you asked me the question last night and you hit my knee, I said my knee hurts.
No, no. You—no, no. I don’t understand. I’m sure. It’s an extension of the same thing, certainly. But if he’s asking you a question: what is it that binds these things together? What is it—does it exist in fact? Can you find it? Can you prove it? Can you verify—
So it is extremely hard to get a conclusion whether or not an I—I’m using the word I—exists whether or not I exist as being apprehended by our inborn self-grasping. Okay? So probably when you read any kind of book on this subject, you might find the words saying non-inherent existence or something existing by the power of designation and terminology. So whenever you come across those words, right, you have to think that something which has been mentioned is not existing individually, concretely, in dependence upon its own side, without depending on other cause and conditions or other parts and portions. Right?
Normally, we have very strong conception of I. Right? We think I and I, which seems very obvious. Actually, but if you try to find it out, it is unfindable because it is being apprehended by our own inborn self-grasping, which is not existing in fact. Right? So whenever you think, ah, it seems something is concrete, it seems quite obvious—now we have to find it out. If something is existing, it must be findable. If something is findable, it should be found when analyzed. Right? So therefore, whenever you start doing this analysis, you are just doing an analysis on the part of an object of negation. So having negated that kind of object, you’ll be able to establish the proper understanding of the emptiness.
As I mentioned before, you will come across a word: something is not existing independently, or ultimately, or inherently. Wherever you come across those words, it doesn’t mean that something is not existent even conventionally or even nominally. It doesn’t mean in that way. Right? When we say something is not existing inherently, it does mean that that particular something does exist conventionally or nominally. If, suppose, I say the person is not existing inherently, it means by the power of negating inherently existent, we must be able to establish that the person is existing conventionally or nominally. Right? So if something is existing conventionally, then this conventionality has the power to perform the action and agenda and everything. Therefore, we can work, we can do something. We can create accumulation of merit or bad karma. Therefore, because we are existing conventionally, therefore we are performing our own functions. Right?
There are some people I came across—some people say, when we say the person is not existing inherently, they understood the word inherently as nonexistence. Then they ask, isn’t the person existent? We are not telling that the person is not existing. Persons are existing. Therefore, they are existent. Right? All objects are existent because they are existing conventionally, nominally. Therefore, they are able to perform their own functions.
I will let you know how things are existing. Right? So things are existing mainly due to the power of terminology and thought. Okay? I’m using the word to you again here. Due to the power of terminology and thought. Right? We must have a valid object upon which we have to give a proper name or the term by our thought. Right? Having given a particular name to a particular object by our thought, that particular object will be able to perform the functions. Right? So this is the way of existing of phenomena. In that—terminology and by thought—first of all, that object must be qualified with three features. So the object must be qualified in order to give a certain name by our thought. If the object is qualified, then we can label the name, which is called terminology, and this terminology has been given by our thought.
Something is not existing from its own side without depending on cause and conditions and the parts and portions. Therefore, all phenomena are existing due to meeting with other cause and conditions and depending on other cause and conditions. That object, or that phenomenon, which is existing due to the cause and condition, has to be given the proper name by our thoughts. So this is how things are existing.
Let us take the example of Buddha House. So Buddha House is existing. The way it exists is conventionally, or relatively, or nominally, because you people are coming to receive teaching in the Buddha House, and there are people who are working for the Buddha House, and you are the students of Buddha House. So therefore, conventionally and relatively, or nominally, Buddha House is existing.
How did Buddha House come about? To a valid object, the designation called Buddha House was given to a particular object. Right? Before giving the name of Buddha House, there isn’t anything which appears from its own side saying, “Look, I’m here at the Buddha House.” There isn’t like that. So due to your own thought, we have given the name Buddha House to a valid object. Then since then, we have called it Buddha House, and it’s able to perform its own function.
Before giving a particular name, Buddha House, to this particular object, right? There won’t be anything which appears or which exists inherently from its own side saying, “I’m the Buddha House.” Though he is not the Buddha House, because before we established Buddha House, he was already there. And at that time, he is not called Buddha House. You people are not the Buddha House, because if you are the Buddha House, it should be—before giving the name—because you are already existing before giving the name Buddha House to this particular object. Right? But still, due to the aggregation, or due to the gathering of many conditions together, we were able to establish the Buddha House and able to give the name Buddha House. Since then, Buddha House is able to perform its own function.
Even now, Buddha House can talk. The member of the Buddha House can talk to others in the name of Buddha House. They can bring people in. They can perform the function in the Buddha House. So therefore, in this case, if you try to say there isn’t Buddha House at all, people will laugh at you, because there is Buddha House which is able to perform its own function. So this is how to get an idea of those words being used before.
The house itself is not a Buddha House, or the people itself is not a Buddha House. But Buddha House came about through the meeting of many conditions—the house, the people, committee, and students, and on and on and on—so therefore we have given the name Buddha House. Therefore, since then, it’s functioning well. So now, if we are able to do any kind of functions in the name of Buddha House, this is the way of existing conventionally and nominally.
Every phenomenon is in the dependent origination, or is dependently arising. Therefore, there is no single object which is not depending on any other cause and conditions to be able to show its own existence. Mhmm.
Is that that? Continue, wasn’t it?
As I mentioned, there is no single phenomenon which exists without depending on other cause and conditions or other factors. Each and every single phenomenon, or object, or thing, has to depend on many other conditions and cause and conditions to be able to exist. Right? So therefore, all the phenomena, all the things, are interdependent originations. Right?
So I have just given you a brief way of identifying the object of negation. Right? So now you start doing this, and this is the first step to lead to the understanding of the wisdom of emptiness. Having done this analysis, you have to establish the meaning of the emptiness by various reasonings you may come across sometime later. And then by your own meditative concentration, meditative stable equipoise, you can generate perfectly the understanding of the wisdom of emptiness. So as I have given, a very brief explanation on the wisdom of emptiness, as to establish some propensities on our mental continuum. Yeah.
That’s tough. Yeah. That is tough. Yeah. The learning’s course is tough. By this way, we have finished the weekend course.
So at the end, I would like to speak a few words before ending our course. So although I have spoken roughly on all subjects from beginning to end, right, it may or may not be—or it may be hard for you to implement all what I said. But I’m not going to insist you to practice all, but I want to request you to implement those which you find beneficial, either for your mental development or for the benefit of all you and other sentient beings, or for the sake of practicing the teaching so as to generate some good energy for all.
So although we have covered a lot of subjects—such as the death and impermanence, right, the importance of human rebirth, its value, and so forth. We have covered the way of generating the compassion, bodhicitta mind, and so forth. So try to relax. First of all, try to relax yourself. Just be calm. So a practitioner shouldn’t be very worried, shouldn’t be nervous. Must be relaxed. Try to tame your mind. Try to preserve your mind. And having done relaxation, try to pick up the subject which is most suitable for you, right, of many. You don’t have to jump from one to the end without getting much lesson, or without getting much result.
Practicing the teaching is unlike drinking wine or whiskey, which definitely give you some change. If you drink whiskey or something, definitely, immediately, you will find the result of that. Practicing of teaching is not like that. It may take some time. Right? It may take some time. But if you continually go on practicing it, at the end, definitely you will find some experience, and definitely you will find some change by the power of that practice. So whenever you find some change, or whenever you find some benefit out of such practice, that is the result of doing the practice. So therefore, you just choose one from many so as to enhance your development, mental development, and to increase your practice. Okay?
So with these words, maybe we can just do the grand dedication and prayers.
[He] wrote to his king. Although I have mentioned from beginning until the attainment—excuse me—although I have written from beginning until the attainment of the enlightenment, but to be able to practice the whole of my instructions, it may be found hard for even for those great Bodhisattvas. So therefore, you just practice only those which are quite beneficial for your mind development and for your benefit. Right? So he said in this way. Similarly, I want to urge you to practice those which you find beneficial and which is most beneficial for your mind development and for the benefit of others. Right? So otherwise, right, we have to think: which is most beneficial for this life as well as for future life? Whichever is best for those two, must try to do it. Right?
If you do practice sincerely, you will receive the result without doubt. Right? It is a matter of our practice or not. Otherwise, in the past, many Buddhas and Buddhist authors have got realization through practicing these paths. And in the middle, many have also achieved their realization through this practice. And even today, I have also witnessed many scholars and many realized persons who’ve got realization by practicing these paths. So therefore, there isn’t any fault in terms of the teaching, but it is our duty now. It is our enthusiasm and our practice.