Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. When Lama Tsongkhapa warns that without wisdom comprehending the mode of abidance even bodhicitta cannot cut the root of existence, he is pointing directly at the topic Khensur Rinpoche unpacks in this nearly two-hour session: emptiness and its indispensable role in the path. Rinpoche walks through why emptiness is required for both arhatship and Buddhahood, explains method and wisdom as the two paired accumulations behind the Buddha’s form body and wisdom body, then turns to the five logical reasonings used to establish emptiness — crowning dependent origination as “the king.” A flower that needs seed, water, and sunlight to exist illustrates why nothing is inherently existent, and the same logic is applied to the self. Suited to practitioners already grounded in Lamrim study.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 05 3PA 2003 08 20.mp3
UUID: 8598a687-cfe7-448e-9422-12aeb78ade96
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: 3 Principle Aspects of the Path (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 2003-08-20
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 112.6 minutes
Words: ~5,383
First of all, we have to meditate on bodhicitta. What we should do is to think that we, along with all sentient beings, do not want to experience suffering. In order to be separated from suffering and established in happiness with all its excellent qualities, then we are doing things in order to create merit, in order to achieve Buddhahood. Now, this mind in order to work in to achieve Buddhahood to benefit is bodhicitta. In order to achieve this, we need to completely get rid of all our thoughts and completely develop all our qualities.
What we’re going to do in order to move towards this is we’re going to study, contemplate, and meditate on the teaching that is the essence of all of the teachings, which is the three principal aspects of the path. So we should think on this on your head on this for a few minutes. Yeah. I mean, So as Candrakīrti explained in the Entering the Middle Way text that if beings, again and again, listen to teachings on emptiness, and by listening to teachings on emptiness again and again, they may develop very strong imprints on their mind stream with regards to emptiness. By developing these strong imprints on their mind stream with regards to emptiness, their liking for the teachings on emptiness grows and grows and grows and becomes stronger and stronger and stronger.
Then eventually, after they’ve done this process many times, when they hear the teachings on emptiness, their liking for these teachings, this understanding, be so great that the hairs on their body will stand up and then they will cry, the tears will run from their eyes because they will understand that this experience, the understanding of emptiness, is the gate or the way to developing this great happiness. Not only to develop this great happiness and get rid of negativities, but also once that has been realized, then giving or generosity, by practicing ethics, by practicing joyful effort, by practicing patience, by practicing meditation, and by practicing wisdom, then they will attain complete Buddhahood. So in that case, people listen to teachings on emptiness, and they should be very, very, very happy. The students should react very pleasantly to these teachings. They should be very, very excited about it or happy about listening to it.
So then you have to be like this. We should be very happy to be able to listen to teachings on emptiness. Should be very joyful about having this opportunity to be able to listen to these teachings. We shouldn’t be sitting there thinking, well, maybe it is or maybe it isn’t. I have my doubts about this or I’m not quite sure about that.
We should be thinking, oh, this is great that I can have this opportunity to hear this because this gives me the opportunity to help understand emptiness, so we should be very happy about this. If we aren’t very happy about it and we are very negative about listening to the teachings on emptiness and you think, maybe, maybe not, these kind of things, then there’s a chance that we’re doing something very negative. There’s a chance that by doubting or by being negative about these teachings that we could be setting the cause for or establishing the cause for being reborn in a lower realm in our next rebirth. But if we can listen to the teachings being very happy about them, being very happy about the fact that we can hear emptiness which is an explanation that will help us, then that’s a great chance to develop great virtue by listening to the teachings. We have to listen well.
We have to listen happily to the teachings. So tonight we are hopefully placing a seed for liberation in our minds. We should listen well so we can plant this seed for liberation in our minds. In discussing emptiness, there will be five different topics within the discussion of emptiness. The first one being the reasons that we should develop an understanding of emptiness, the second being the way to understand emptiness, The first of the five is the reason we have to develop understanding emptiness.
The second is the way we understand emptiness. The third is the faults of not understanding emptiness, the fourth is the benefits of understanding emptiness, and the fifth is the unique presentation of emptiness of the Prāsaṇgika consequentialist school. Now in the three principal aspects, says, If we do not possess the wisdom comprehending the mode of abidance, though we may become familiar with renunciation and bodhicitta, we are unable to sever the root of existence. Now where it says the wisdom comprehending the mode of abidance, what this is referring to is the way that is referring to emptiness. And with regards to this, it’s usually said that there is two different types of truths.
There’s two different truths of reality. The first truth is the conventional truth, which mistaken, isn’t the true way that things exist. The other truth is the ultimate truth or the truth of not inherent existence of things. So when we talk about the mode of abidance, it’s usually divided into these two different truths. The reason that we need to develop emptiness is if we haven’t developed an understanding of emptiness, then we can’t achieve Buddhahood and we can’t achieve liberation.
So if amongst the five paths of the Mahāyāna, if we haven’t achieved an understanding of emptiness, then we can’t progress to the four latter paths. We can’t progress to the path of preparation, the path of seeing, the path of meditation, or the path of no more learning. Likewise, the Hīnayāna path, if we haven’t developed an understanding of emptiness then we can’t progress past the first path and we can’t become an arhat. So we need this understanding of emptiness to complete these two paths. Now in the Heart Sūtra, in the mantra of the Heart Sūtra, when it talks about the first gate, the first gate refers to Oh, yes.
Yeah. Okay. So the first gate is referring to the the first path. The second gate refers to the second path, the path of preparation. The third gate, paragate, refers to the path of seeing. The fourth gate, parasamgate, refers to the path of meditation, and the bodhi svaha for the achieving of Buddhahood. So we can’t get past the first gate if we don’t have an understanding of emptiness. So That’s from the perspective of the Heart Sūtra.
What this means is if we don’t have an understanding of emptiness, even though we are able to enter the different paths, whether it be through renunciation of bodhicitta, then we can’t finish the path. We can’t become an arhat. We can’t become a buddha unless we have this understanding and develop it. So in order for us to become an arahat or achieve buddhahood, then we need to have both method and wisdom. Method and wisdom are the two legs that we need in order to be able to walk.
So a person who has one leg is unable to walk, and likewise, a bird with only one wing can’t fly. So in the same way, if we are to achieve arhatship or to achieve Buddhahood, then we need both of these things, both method and wisdom. So if we put to the side the teachings on the Hīnayāna or the lower vehicle for the moment, When we’re practicing the Mahāyāna path, we need both these things, method and wisdom. Method with regards to the Mahāyāna is said to be the practice of bodhicitta and compassion. What this means is in order for us to attain Buddhahood, we need both bodhicitta and compassion and wisdom.
In fact, these two things help each other along the path. Compassion in bodhicitta helps the wisdom, and the wisdom helps the bodhicitta. These two things work together until we reach the final outcome. What this means is if we have bodhicitta and we have wisdom, understanding, emptiness, then we can achieve liberation, but we can’t achieve Buddhahood. If we have bodhicitta but we don’t have wisdom understanding emptiness, then we can’t stop saṃsāra.
We can’t cut saṃsāra at the root. Therefore we need these two things working together, kind of helping each other in sequence, the two things, in order to have both aspects to walk towards Buddhahood. So as Lama Tsongkhapa explained, the reason that we need both method and wisdom is that in the resultant Buddha body, the resultant Buddha body has these two aspects. It has what’s called the Dharmakāya or the wisdom body and the Rūpakāya or the form body. And now the Buddha is the Buddha’s body is said to be the the Rūpakāya or the form body, and the the mind of the Buddha the the The mind of the Buddha is the wisdom body or the Dharmakāya.
Now in order for us to achieve that result, we need to do these two practices of method and wisdom. Now what method entails is Method is bodhicitta and compassion. From bodhicitta and compassion, then we create merit. Wisdom understanding emptiness is the wisdom aspect. The with regards to wisdom, this means wisdom, understanding, emptiness.
Now the results of the merit that’s accumulated through bodhicitta and compassion, the result of that is the Rūpakāya or the formed body of the Buddha. And the results of the wisdom, the collection of wisdom, the per the collection of wisdom, understanding emptiness, the results of that is the the the wisdom mind or the wisdom body of the Buddha or the Dharmakāya. So we need these two accumulations, accumulation of merit, accumulation of wisdom. Accumulation of merit being bodhicitta leads to form body the accumulation of wisdom being wisdom, understanding, emptiness leads to the wisdom body. We already talked about previously the method aspect in talking about bodhicitta and now we’re going to talk about the wisdom aspect of this path, which is the view.
Usually, the view, when people say the view, they’re talking about the view understanding emptiness. It’s also getting rid of wrong views. There are many different types of wrong views. There’s wrong views that say that things inherently exist. There’s wrong views that say that things are permanent.
There’s people who think that this body that we have or these collections that we have, these aggregates we have, one of those is permanent, that go away. There’s those that say that when we die, then we just turn into nothing, like a butter lamp being exhausted, that there’s nothing left. There’s all these different types wrong views that we can have with regards to the views. There’s wrong views that we can have, whether they are nihilistic or eternalist. There’s all these different types of views that we can have.
There’s many different types of views. There’s also what’s called the right view about something. Right view or the correct view is something that ordinary beings can have. Ordinary beings, bodhisattvas and arhats, all need it. What this view presents is this idea that if we do something positive, then we will get a positive result, and if we do something negative, then we will get a negative result.
This is what this view is about. We need to know that by doing something positive, its results will be positive, and by doing something unskillful or negative, then we’re going to have negative results from that. This is what’s called the correct view or worldly view. This worldly view is the view the ordinary beings but it’s also a correct view because it stops them from doing negativities and gets them to practice positivities because it’s understanding what the results of these will be. So the view that’s usually presented as a completely correct view is the view of emptiness.
Now, what is it that is empty? What is something empty of? The thing that we’re talking about being empty or the lack of something we’re talking about here is the lack of true existence or the lack of inherent existence. This isn’t the way that we perceive things, however. We think that things truly exist.
This grasping at true existence is the thing that we is not realizing the way that things the way not realizing the emptiness of true existence. So this non thing, this true existence, not realizing that this is incorrect, we grasp at this as if it is correct, and this grasping is grasping at true existence. So this mind that we have that says that thinks that something truly does exist when there there is no true existence is the is is is an incorrect view. It’s a mistaken view. It’s it’s a wrong view.
Is the view that sees things as being truly existent, which isn’t the actual case. The reason that we have a wrong view is because we perceive things as being truly existent when that’s not in fact the case. They’re empty of true existence. The thing, the first ignorance that we have, root ignorance that we have is the view of the transitory collections, that is, taking the transitory collections to be truly existing or truly established. Because we have this grasping at the transitory collection that’s been truly established, we have grasping at true existence.
If we want to know what emptiness is referring to, we say emptiness but we don’t know what it is that we’re saying something is empty of. So what we’re saying is empty of is this lack of inherent existence. That when we say I am I, that’s grasping at the true existence and we have to see that emptiness is the lack of that true existence. Okay, things aren’t inherently existent. At the same time as not being inherently existent, they’re not truly established and they’re not established by way of their characteristics.
If we say that something is truly established then we have to say that it is inherently existent and we have to say that it’s established by way of its characteristics. We can’t say it’s established one way and not established the other way. And in the Heart Sūtra, it says that things aren’t truly established, that they don’t exist from their side, so it says that they’re not truly established. What it’s talking about there is it says that the five aggregates are not truly established, the five collections are not truly established. The five aggregates being the first aggregate being the aggregate of form or the collection of forms, then the second one being the collections of feelings or the aggregate of feelings.
The third one being the aggregate of feeling, that which knows suffering and knows happiness. The next one being an aggregate of discrimination and then the aggregate of compounded things and then the last one being the aggregate of consciousness. So all of these are collections of something or aggregates of something and they’re not said to be inherently existent. Now in the three principal aspects, Lama Tsongkhapa says that if we do not possess the wisdom comprehending the mode of abidance, even if we have bodhicitta and so forth, we can’t cut through the root of existence. Now another way of saying the mode of abidance to say dependent arising.
So if we don’t understand dependent arising then he says that we can’t understand emptiness and so he presents the idea that to understand emptiness first you need to understand depends on arising and once you’ve understood depends on arising then you understand how emptiness comes along. Because there are different ways of saying the same things so he says first we need to understand dependent arising. So, excuse me, so therefore in the Heart Sūtra, Buddha Śākyamūni talks about that if he says that if if if somebody, whether they are someone who has become ordained, has left their household life, or whether they’re a male or female, whoever it is, if they understand dependent origination, then they will understand emptiness and therefore they can achieve Buddhahood. So what is this dependent origination? We need to establish what this dependent origination is.
Now there’s three main ways of describing dependent origination. They’re said to be the rough or the gross form of dependent origination, the subtler form of dependent origination, and the very subtle form or presentation of dependent origination. Now within the tenet schools, Vaibhāṣika or particular school, the Sūtra school, the Suthantakya school and ChitamatTaramam only school, they present this grossest form or the roughest form of dependent origination and that is that things arise dependent on a cause. So that’s their definition of dependent origination. Now, in the autonomous school or the Svatāntrika school, they present dependent origination as something arising by means of its parts or components.
So that’s their presentation and that is the subtler presentation of dependent origination. In the Prāsaṇgika school or the consequential school, which is Mādhyamika, it is distinct from the Svatāntrika or autonomous school. In prasangika, Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika or the middle way consequential school, the presentation of dependent origination is that something arises in dependence on labels and terminology. In this instance when Lama Tsongkhapa is talking about dependent origination, he’s talking about the grossest form of dependent origination that is dependent is a coming about in reliance on cause so cause leading to result, a cause generating result. So this presentation isn’t that difficult for us to understand.
The presentation of dependent origination saying that if we have a cause then we have a result. This isn’t that difficult for us to understand because, for instance, if if we put a seed in the ground then we know that that seed can act as a cause for a sprout, it can act as a cause for leaves, it can act as a cause for fruit, and we can understand this concept of cause and effect. Now in terms of how cause and effect works within us or in an internal way, then we would say that if we do something positive, then we will experience happiness, if we do something negative then we will experience suffering. The reason that we call this an internal way of existing is because it’s in comparison to an external way in that if something’s an internal way that means that there is a feeling involved with that process. If it’s external it means there’s no feeling involved with that process so therefore if something is internal there is an experience of either suffering or happiness.
If it’s external there is none. So for example if we hit a rock or if something hits a rock then that rock doesn’t experience suffering therefore it’s an external event. But if we hit our finger or we hurt our finger, cut our finger then that is something that would involve pain therefore that’s related to the internal concept of cause and effect and depending on where it originates. So we absolutely need to develop this understanding of emptiness, the wisdom understanding emptiness. Now the reason we need to develop this wisdom, understanding emptiness is if we don’t develop wisdom, then there is no way for us to achieve liberation or for us to achieve Buddhahood.
We need this wisdom in order to achieve both of these things so this is the reason that we need to develop this wisdom or this view understanding emptiness. So in order for us to develop this wisdom understanding emptiness then we have to apply a lot of different logical reasonings. If we don’t apply different logical reasonings then there’s no way that we can understand emptiness. We need to put effort into processing through logical means different arguments or different presentations in order to develop this understanding of emptiness. If we just sit there and simply meditate then we’re not going to develop emptiness.
We need to use logic, we need to use reasoning in order to develop this emptiness. Now, Lama Tsongkhapa talked about two different types of meditation. He talked about placement meditation and analytical meditation. We need both these types of meditation in order to develop this understanding of emptiness. Analytical meditation in that we need to apply all these different types of reasonings or different reasoning to develop this understanding of emptiness and then we need to have placement meditation fixed on these understandings.
So the main thing we need to do however to understand emptiness is this processing, the analytical meditation and it’s what we need to do for ourselves as practice we need to do in order to understand emptiness. Now there’s five main reasonings that are associated with emptiness. In fact there’s many different reasonings that are presented in order to establish emptiness, but they say that there’s five main ones amongst these. And amongst these five, then dependent origination is said to be the king. It’s the one that the Buddha liked, was very very happy about, was very pleased with and is said to be the king or the most important of these different presentations or the different logical paths towards understanding Okay, so we were talking about the way to develop this understanding that depends on origination.
Now, in the three principal aspects of the path, Lama Tsongkhapa says, When we see the cause and results of all dharmas of saṃsāra and nirvana are never deceptive and comprehend that all type of objects of observation are destroyed. That is the entry to the path pleasing to the Buddha’s. So when it says here saṃsāra and nirvana, all the dharmas, all the phenomenon of saṃsāra and nirvana. Now what saṃsāra is referring to, saṃsāra is referring to all phenomena that have as their cause afflictive emotions and the accumulation of negative karma because of grasping at true existence. So everything that comes into effect by these causes is included within saṃsāra.
So five aggregates or the experiences, these things are included within saṃsāra. If something comes about through the understanding of emptiness, if something comes about through seeing the lack of inherent existence of phenomena, when these things fall into the realm of nirvana. They are the result of an understanding as opposed to wrong view, which is what saṃsāra is the result of a wrong view. So nirvana and buddhahood, achieving arhatship, achieving the direct comprehension of emptiness, all of these things come about as a result of a correct view, the view of the lack of true existence or of inherent existence. So these two things are in fact opposites.
Why we can’t have one where there is the other one. If you have something that comes from a cause of ignorance, and saṃsāra is the result of that, and nirvana is something that’s a cause of understanding, the two things are opposites. So if the cause for something is an understanding of the lack of inherent existence, then this is the cause for nirvana. So this is the cause for people to progress through the three vehicles, the paths of the three vehicles, through the paths of the lower vehicle into becoming an arhat, through the paths of the Mahāyāna, the five paths and the ten grounds of the Bodhisattva, and finally to achieve enlightenment. This comes about because of this understanding of the lack of inherent existence and it’s included within nirvana.
This explains nirvana and saṃsāra being all of those things coming about as a result of a cause. So from understanding the lack of inherent existence, then we’re able to develop all these things, progress through the paths and grounds and eventually become a Buddha and then it will be very happy. How much fun. Okay, so okay in terms of presenting the argument for establishing the lack of inherent existence on the basis of dependent origination then you would say take for example all the phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvana. Now these are not inherently existent because they are established as the result of a cause.
No? It’s a bit tricky. I guess it’s pretty much there. It’s just the particular passage. I was trying to do it with this thing because it’s a different translation.
It actually is an argument. In terms of previously speaking of psychological reasoning, Dharma’s of the world within times, worldly are not truly existing. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
So this actual verse in the three principal aspects of the path can be set up as a proposition in almost in debate form. All of the phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvana are said to be not inherently existent, because results because of causes. So the way that people were presented in debate would be take all the phenomena of saṃsāra nirvana. They are it’s hard enough trying to figure out what debates are saying into it. Are not inherently existent because of being the result of cause and effect.
So for example if we take a flower, a flower is said to be not inherently existent. The reason that it is not inherently existent is because it comes about because of dependent origination which is that it comes about as a result from a course Okay so if we take for example the flower, now the flower isn’t inherently existent because it comes about because of causes. So for example with the flower, in order for the flowers to come about we need a seed, we need water, we need sunshine, we need the other elements that bring the flower into existence. Because the flower comes about on the basis of all of these causes, all of these conditions, then we have to say that the flower is not inherently existent because it is of dependent origination. The argument says that take the flower, it is not inherently existent because it is of dependent origination.
Okay so it’s easy for us to do this with the flower perhaps but then we have to do it with ourselves as well. The same way that we did it with the flower then we do it for ourselves. We are not inherently existent. I am not inherently existent because I am a dependent I arise or my origins is dependent on something else and that origin that we’re in dependence upon in this case is our parents. So in actual fact if we think about our body and our mind, our body and our mind have come into existence because of negative emotions and because of the accumulation of karma.
So this is what we would call the subtler explanation of our origins in this dependent origination. On a grosser level then we could say that our origins or our cause was our parents but that’s on the gross level. On a subtle level then we say that we are a result of our negative emotions, our karma and our afflictions and the karma that we have accumulated. Because we are a result of that karma and those negative emotions, then we have to say that we don’t inherently exist because if we inherently existed, we wouldn’t have a cause. So because we have causes, then we have to understand that we aren’t inherently existent or we aren’t truly established.
That’s because we are a dependent origination so if you’re a dependent origination you can’t be a truly established thing. So if this flower was literally established, if it was inherently existent, then that would mean that it didn’t arise in dependence on causes and conditions. So that would mean that it didn’t arise as a combination of water and heat and soil and so forth. It would mean that it arose by itself, that it was inherently existent by itself, not in dependence on any of those things. But we know that it took all of these things to bring this thing into existence, so therefore we can say that it isn’t inherently existing.
It needed all these different elements for it to come into being. It didn’t exist by itself without these elements. So by saying something is dependent, origin is dependent, then we have to say that it is not truly established. So all all of the old phenomena in saṃsāra and nirvana have to be not really established and have to be dependent on originations. So this means in terms of nirvana that Buddhas, arhats, realizations, aryas, etc.
And so forth, all of those different things as well as all the phenomenons that are saṃsāra, all of them are dependent origination and are not truly established. If we take a seed for example, if a seed was truly established and wasn’t a dependent origination, then that would mean that that seed couldn’t sprout and because that seed couldn’t sprout then that seed would not be able to grow a lotus. Therefore, the seed cannot be truly established otherwise the sprout couldn’t come about and the lotus couldn’t come about. Because that is a dependent origination then we have to say that it’s not truly established. Also if we dependent originations and we were truly established that means that we wouldn’t grow old and that could be kind of good.
So also if human beings are truly established then that means that human Okay, you guys are going to help me out right? First one is analyzing by seeing that things are neither one or more, one or many. The second one analyzing by cause, the third one analyzing by result, the fourth one analyzing by cause and result, and the the fifth one, the king of of of reasonings, which is the dependent origin origination. And which one was the king? The dependent origination reasoning, of course.
Okay. So for the cause and effect, then you’re doing it by saying whether there’s four different ways that they can resist that is one and not the other, the other and not the one, both or neither. Yeah. In Western philosophy Mhmm. Don’t talk so much about true existence or truly established.
Yeah. What they talk about are essences. Right. Essences are established by necessary and sufficient conditions. That means that something exists because it has a necessary condition and a sufficient condition.
Can we get that? If so, how do they deal with those sorts of things? Pardon? Okay. So if Geshe la wants to know, if when they say this essence, if they’re saying this essence is existing or or as a nonexistent, is it do they say it’s established or not?
They would say that it’s established. And they use the idea of necessity and the idea of sufficiency to He said that if you can use I was showing you the sufficiency and necessary. Only way I could think of translating it was if you can use it. If you can use it, then it’s something that’s designated as such, and if you can’t use it, then it’s something that’s not designated as such. So that’s the terminological function.
So you’re saying that if he’s saying that something ‘s usable or has that essence and they’re not talking about it being truly established or not then it sounds like they’re talking about it in terms of terminology. In terms of, we said, not inherently existent. Terminologically, it says. What really suits with this concept is that it exists nominally in terms of function, but it doesn’t exist. Is this totally terminologically existent?
So the thing that we’re trying to negate is the inherent existence. So in order to negate the inherent existence, you have to say that things don’t inherently exist. So that’s the thing that we’re trying to establish; the negation of this is the lack of inherent existence. So on the basis of the lack of inherent existence, there is a very subtle cause. There’s a basis for the lack of inherent existence, there is a subtle labelled cause.
Sorry? Cause of Yeah. That’s the very cause for us. So that’s a very subtle cause. So unless we understand dependent arising then we can’t understand that subtle self, the subtle cause and effect that brings the self about.
So we need to understand understand the lack of inherent existence to be able to perceive that self. Okay?