Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The equivalence of emptiness and dependent arising is the central puzzle Geshe Pema Tsering unpacks in this 45-minute commentary. He walks through four classical illustrations in sequence — dream, mirage, moon in water, and the emanations of realized beings — each showing that phenomena appear one way but exist another. A car then becomes his key example: empty does not mean non-existent, but not inherently established from its own side; it exists only as a mere label resting on causes and conditions. A personal exercise — searching for the person behind the name Ruth and finding nothing findable — brings the same logic to the selflessness of persons. He explains why Buddha taught emptiness at all: realizing it cuts ignorance at the root and is the only way out of saṃsāra. A Q&A exchange closes by clarifying that emptiness negates inherent existence, not existence itself.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 16 HS 2003 03 04.mp3
UUID: 847e71a0-9ffb-4f04-a076-497a4be4a6df
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Heart Sūtra (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2003-03-04
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.0 minutes
Words: ~2,730
So the next example that’s used is that of a dream, and we understand dreams because lots of times we have dreams where we get a whole lot of money, and then we wake up and it’s not true. Then we have other dreams where we’re a beggar, and we wake up and think that’s not true. Sometimes we get lots of money and then we lose it all, and then we get it back again, and don’t know what’s going on, and we wake up a little confused. Because we understand that experience and understand that it’s not real, then that’s why they use the example of a dream as well. So the next example is that of a mirage.
So, a mirage is when we look out over the ocean and we see all different things on the ocean that aren’t actually there, or when you look out over a desert and it looks like there’s water in a desert, but when you walk towards the water and the water isn’t actually there, we get from this example we get the understanding of something that looks like it’s there, but isn’t actually there. Okay, the next one, a Moon in water. We look at the water and then we think, then we can see the Moon on the water, but we realize pretty quickly that it’s not actually the Moon because the Moon’s in the sky and that’s a pond. So emanations is the next one that’s using an example, and emanations are a bit more difficult for us to understand. Anyone who has developed a calm abiding or upwards is able to emanate?
Okay, so anyone who has developed calm abiding and has higher realizations than that is able to have emanations. There’s emanations that are emanations of Buddhas, emanations that are emanations of bodhisattvas, foe destroyers, and solitary realizers all of these things can have emanations. So this one’s a bit more difficult for us to understand. So what they’re trying to point out is that if something is the emanation of a Buddha or something, someone like that, then even though the Buddha may be emanating as a cow or a horse, then we can say well that horse or that cow isn’t actually a cow or horse, that they’re actually a Buddha. So we have this understanding that they’re not the way that they appear, and from that understanding we can get an example of how we should view phenomena.
So even though this may be a bit difficult for us to understand, these days it’s actually a bit easier because of television and movies and things like that, we can understand that things can emanate, they can appear like they’re there, they’re not actually there. So when we look at television or we look at movies, we can understand that even though those things look like they’re there, they’re not really. Okay, so but as ordinary beings, whatever we see, we see it as being as if it is truly existent. So when we’re trying to understand emptiness, what we have to understand is that it’s what something is empty of. So when we’re saying phenomena is empty, we have to understand it is empty of true existence, that is not truly established.
So this is what we’re trying to understand by emptiness, the non true establishment of phenomena. So in order for us to understand that the Buddha told us many different ways to do that. He gave all the examples that we mentioned. He also gave the different descriptions like empty of true existence, empty of own characteristic, and empty of its own entity or empty of its own nature. Okay.
So the difference between the illusions that we were talking about before and the way that we re looking at things incorrectly now is that the illusions are temporary, so that we can see the change in the illusions that defines them, that we can see that they are actually an illusion or a dream or a mirage. But when we re talking about ourselves, it’s more permanent to our misunderstanding of reality, because we have had this thing in our minds of ignorance since beginningless time that we see as being a constant, so therefore it s much more difficult for us to understand the emptiness of phenomena in existence. It s more difficult for us to understand that than it is for us to understand the emptiness that was mentioned in these examples. Okay, but in the same way that when we get rid of the illusion, dream, the mirage, then we understand that that mirage never existed. In the same way as that comes about, if we get rid of our ignorance, then we understand that true existence or inherent existence never existed.
So it doesn’t matter whichever one of these examples that we use, whichever one is the easiest for us to try and understand that everything that arises is actually dependent origination or dependent arising, and if we can see everything that arises in that way, then whatever we use to enable us to do that, that is the best thing to use, because dependent origination or dependent arising is the definition or the meaning of emptiness. We have to understand that order to understand emptiness, but it’s very difficult for us to try and get an idea around that, to get our head around that. So the reason that it’s difficult for us to understand that these two are the same things is that when we say dependent arising, it means that something is arising from a base. So there’s a base and something arises from that. Because something is arising from a base, means something exists.
And when we say emptiness, we say it’s lacking something, it doesn’t exist. So for us to understand that those two things are the same is difficult. So for example, if we take a car, when we look at a car and we say that car is dependent arising, then that means that it is in existence. We think, okay, that car is in existence. Then we try and understand that the car is also empty.
Then we think that that car being empty means that it is non existent. For us to try and understand it is actually it is both dependent arising and it is empty, is very difficult for us to understand. So what it’s empty of is that it’s empty of coming towards us from its own side. It’s empty of existing inherently, coming together from its own side existing inherently because it’s come together as an object by its own power. So that’s what it’s empty of.
Okay, so even though we say it’s empty of inherent existence, we’re not saying that it doesn’t exist at all, because it does exist as a dependent a thing of dependent origination, I. E. That there was a lot of causes and conditions that came together in order for us to label that thing and therefore to have it merely exist by our labeling. So for example, if we have a car, for example, before we label it car there had to be a lot of things that came into or a lot of causes and conditions that came together in order for us to be labeling the car car. There had to be a factory that had to be all the conditions in the factory.
There had to be someone who called it car a long time ago in order for us to understand it as car. All these different causes and conditions had to come together in order for us to label the car car. So the car is actually empty and it is a dependent origination as well. Okay, so we wanted to make sure I understood. Did you get it?
Did you understand? And did you tell them? That’s what he was. So the car in Tibetan is motor. So the car I keep going to say motor.
The car is both a dependent and it is empty. So I should say it is of dependent origination because it’s not good English otherwise. It is of dependent origination and it is empty. Until we get this understanding of emptiness correctly in our minds, what we should be trying to generate in our minds is a kind of a fear that everything that we see and every kind of experience that we have with things, that thing that we’re experiencing, that thing we’re seeing, that is actually the thing that needs to be negated. There’s this kind of fear that could be generated from that.
And until we understand it as well, no matter how many times we say this vase is empty of true existence, this car is empty of true existence, this car is merely labeled, this vase is merely labeled, it is not defined by its own definition. No matter how many times we say that, then we still won’t understand emptiness. So the first thing that we should be trying to understand though is the selflessness of the person. So the way we understand that is by trying to understand what it is when we actually refer to what it is that we actually refer to as I. So for example, I am supposed to be called Ruth, Geshe-la said it Ruth, that people say Ruth, Ruth, that’s you, that’s who, that’s what your name is, that’s what everyone calls you, so if you hear say Ruth, you turn around.
So this concept of Ruth or I that you have in your head, then you must try and understand what it is that you’re actually thinking about when you think in that way, who or what it is that you’re referring to. Ruth also thinks that Ruth’s arm is at the end of her shoulders and this is her leg or whatever. So if you have this, if you keep looking for what Ruth is, then you won’t actually ever find Ruth. No matter how much you look, is no Ruth. Therefore, a sense of fear can arise because you can’t find your yourself.
There’s a fear arising thinking, if I don’t exist, what is it? So then if you’re searching and you can’t find what it is, this I, you can’t find this I, then you can’t either think that, well, doesn’t mean that I don’t exist at all. In which way do you exist? You exist in terms of being merely labeled as being a mere label. You exist as being a mere label.
So the way that they exist is, they don’t exist at all in the way that we think they do, or the way that they appear to us. Things exist by way of being labeled, so therefore they don’t exist inherently, they do exist as a mere label, and that’s the way that we need to understand. So that’s the way that all phenomena exist. They don’t exist inherently, apart from being merely labeled, they don’t exist at all from their own side. So this is where we have to understand that they are just labeled.
So by labeling them, then we see that then they emanate, then they can be seen by us. So by the labeling, then they are experienced. But no matter how many times you say this this vase is non existent, this or this car is non existent, this car is not established, this car doesn’t exist by its own characteristics, its own characteristics. No matter how many times you say this, if you don’t understand or you haven’t realized the true nature of the way things are, way that they don’t exist inherently, then you haven’t understood emptiness. So he thinks there might be questions.
Yeah. So therefore, you are empty of anything that does not come about because of causes and conditions. The causes and conditions are what makes the things come about, so there’s nothing that doesn’t come about because of causes and conditions. The emptiness of anything that doesn’t come about because of causes and conditions is like the emptiness of true existence. So those two things are the same.
Okay. So the reason that Buddha taught emptiness was that if we understood emptiness, then we would achieve liberation. If we understood emptiness, we wouldn’t we would cut directly through negative negative actions and non virtues and actions and things like that. It would be completely obliterated if we understood emptiness properly. Also, if we understood emptiness properly, then we would be liberated from saṃsāra.
So it’s not an easy thing to do. We have to try and understand it, because if we can understand it, that’s the way out of saṃsāra, and that’s why Buddha taught it, so we can be liberated from saṃsāra. But because it’s not an easy thing to do, it’s something that we have to keep struggling with. Since beginningless time we have had this ignorance of self grasping, we’ve had this idea that we exist inherently and that we do things in order to make that self that exists inherently comfortable, then it is very difficult for us to develop an understanding of emptiness because it goes against everything that we have thought since beginningless time. So this is why it becomes very difficult, but it is also the only way for us to stop suffering.
So it is very important for us to try and understand it. Okay, well, I didn’t quite finish it, So the bit that says emptiness isn’t nothing is definitely correct, because aren’t emptiness doesn’t negate existence completely, it negates something. And what it is negating is that things exist the way that they appear to us, that is, that they inherently exist. What emptiness means is empty of something, and that empty of something is empty of inherent existence. But I didn’t get the second Okay, so he thinks that maybe when you say emptiness isn’t everything, that if you say emptiness isn’t all phenomena, then that’s not actually true either, because emptiness, as opposed to all phenomena and empty, saying emptiness is all phenomena, isn’t true because that would mean that nothing exists.
But things do exist as merely labeled, so therefore you can’t say emptiness is all phenomena. He thinks that you’ve studied a lot and you understand lots and you sit down and you look like you’ve understood. Have you got a question? I can’t see you. Okay.
So So this is how you rejoice in so you think the Buddhas and the Bodhisattvas and all these people have done so many amazing things and they help so many people in so in different ways, in ways that I am unable to. So by the power of their actions, joined with my own actions, my own positive actions, may I quickly become a Buddha. So you think in this way. That’s what they mean by rejoicing. But if you rejoice in negative things, then that becomes a negativity.
So if you see someone steal a car and say, well, we got away with that one. If you see someone steal something else and say, well, you know, that was they stole that well. Or if you see someone getting into a fight and say, well, that was a good fight. Or if you see someone drinking a lot and go, yeah, they’re really getting into it, you know, sort of things. If you re rejoicing in that, then that becomes like a negativity in itself.
That that’s that’s something that you should be kind of thinking that’s not so good. Yeah. There’s no difference between emotion and thought in Tibetan. I don’t know how to translate that. Yeah, it’s the mind that follows after someone’s virtuous act.
So when you see the qualities and the good parts of someone’s virtuous act, then a mind rejoicing in that act, thinking that was a good thing, is what they mean by rejoicing. Okay. So wisdom and emptiness are not the same thing, but what you’re supposed to be studying towards is wisdom that understands emptiness. Yeah. If you’re thinking that you’re doing things in order to benefit others, then that is is a good motivation if it’s if it’s genuine.