Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Marking the pivot from the awakened heart to the awakened mind in Khensur Rinpoche’s Lojong Mind Training series, this 96-minute session opens with the question of who is fit to receive teachings on emptiness — citing Candrakīrti and using the spontaneous public grief over Princess Diana’s death as an analogy for the involuntary receptivity that signals a suitable student. Rinpoche then introduces the root text line “consider all phenomena as like a dream,” unpacking it through a flower example: objects appear to exist independently from their own side, yet are established only through dependent designation and naming — illustrated by a personal story of arriving in Australia as an unknown ex-abbot. Q&A closes the session, addressing whether anything truly exists and the distinction between existence and inherent existence.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 18 LMT 1997 09 09.mp3
UUID: 8dd60222-fa73-478e-9be5-52b660e52564
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Lojong Mind Training (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1997-09-09
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 96.0 minutes
Words: ~5,300
Prior to listening to the teaching, it’s necessary that we adjust our motivation, developing as our motivation the precious awakened heart. We all want happiness, none of us wants to suffer. Let’s just say that we begin to distinguish what are the means of achieving what it is that we don’t want, what it is that we want, and ridding ourselves of what it is that we don’t want. On the basis of this human life, we are empowered to completely rid ourselves of the causes of suffering from their very roots and to attain complete happiness. And if we were to actually achieve this in, we would have brought our human life its greatest meaning.
From where does the undesired in our life arise? It arises from self grasping and self centeredness. All that is undesirable in our lives comes from these two. If we were to be able to bring these two factors of the mind to an end, we would achieve a happiness bereft of any suffering. What does it mean to actually bring these two factors in mind to an end?
The way that we bring self centeredness to an end is by again and again cultivating the awakened heart. It is through the awakened heart that we bring an end to self centeredness. Self centeredness in turn depends upon, for its existence, self grasping. If we can develop the antidote to self grasping, the wisdom realizing selflessness, then we can rid ourselves of self grasping from its root. So as we said, it’s necessary that we adjust our motivation developing that of the awakened heart.
And the way that this is developed has been previously explained. First is necessary as a preliminary to develop love and compassion. Compassion expressed in the thought, May all living beings, including myself, be free of suffering and the causes of And love expressed in the thought, may all living beings, including myself, have happiness and the causes of happiness. And dependence upon that as a cause, we go on to develop the actual awakened heart. in dependence upon having cultivated love and compassion, we then go on to develop the aspiration which in order to alleviate the suffering of all living beings to lead them to a state where they have complete happiness, that I myself must rid my own mind of its various foes, that is to say the various afflictive emotions along with the obstructions to knowledge.
And not only that, I must bring all of my excellent qualities to fulfillment. That aspiration is the awakened heart. In order that we’re able to proceed well along these lines of cultivating the awakened heart. I am going to listen to this essence of the universal vehicle Dharma. Having listened to it, I reflect upon it.
Having reflected upon it, I will meditate and put it into practice for the sake of all sentient beings. So with regard to bodhicitta, we said that there were two types. There is conventional and ultimate. Conventional bodhicitta, I translate as the awakened heart, ultimate I translate as the awakened mind. And we have completed our explanation of the cultivation of the awakened heart, use of the method of equalizing and exchanging self for others.
And now we will go on to the method of cultivating the awakened mind. When we speak of the awakened heart or conventional bodhicitta, it is awakening or enlightenment in Sanskrit. Bodhi is a conventional truth. Amongst the two truths, it is a conventional truth, and that which aspires to that is the awakened heart or conventional bodhicitta. Whereas, on the other hand, ultimate bodhicitta, the awakened mind, concerns itself with emptiness, which is an ultimate truth. And the mind within the continuum of a universal vehicle superior, let’s say, a Mahāyāna ārya, directly realizing emptiness is ultimate bodhicitta or the awakened mind.
These two minds, the awakened heart and the awakened mind, are the cultivation of the bodhisattva. It is the means by which we rid ourselves of all our various faults and bring the consummation of all our excellent qualities. To achieve the end of Buddhahood, these two minds are indispensable. These teachings that we will now commence are concerned with the cultivation of the awakened mind, that is the ultimate bodhicitta, and they concern themselves with the ultimate, and the ultimate is emptiness. So therefore, we will be teaching the means of realizing emptiness.
Emptiness is the essence of the Buddhadharma. It is the most precious. It is the most profound element. But it is the essence of Buddhism and moreover it is it is said to be a secret aspect of the Buddhadharma. That is to say, it should not be taught haphazardly to anyone.
So with regard to the explanation of emptiness, there are three divisions. There is the division on who is a suitable receptacle to receive the teachings on emptiness, and with regard to such a suitable receptacle, that means someone who is suitable to receive the teaching. When is it suitable to teach such an individual? That’s the second. And then the third is the actual teachings on the means of cultivating an understanding of emptiness.
So it is said if the view of emptiness is taught to a suitable receptacle, that is to say a suitable student, then it can be of immense value. It can be tremendously beneficial. But on the other hand, if it is taught to an unsuitable student, then it is not only of no value and no benefit, but on the contrary the student through developing a misunderstanding with regard to the view of emptiness will go on to develop various wrong views, depreciate it, will put it down, will deny its existence, and this can only serve as cause for taking rebirth in unfortunate realms in the future. So there is this danger. There is a verse which explains the qualities of a suitable recipient for the teachings on emptiness.
It begins by giving an external analogy in terms of what signs we are to look for, for such a suitable recipient. And the analogies are that we can tell certain things exist by the existence of signs. And for example in terms of externals, If you saw up in the far distance you saw smoke, then from the sign of smoke up in the sky, you could infer that though I can’t see it down on the plane, there must be fire there. By the sign of smoke in the sky, you can infer the existence of fire even though you can’t see the fire directly. And another external example is that of by seeing a flight of waterfowl, for example ducks, by seeing them in the air.
Even though you can’t see the water, you can infer, Oh, I must be near a body of water, by the sign of ducks. You can infer that. And then carrying this over into the present context, the way a person who has the lineage of the universal vehicle activated, that their family or the lineage of being within the universal vehicle has been developed, that they are a bodhisattva, is that merely upon seeing a sentient being troubled by suffering, that spontaneously tears come to their eyes and their hair on their body stands on end. When this sign occurs again and again, merely by seeing a sentient being troubled by suffering and involuntarily tears come to their eyes and their hair stands on end, is, though we can’t see it directly, this is a sign by which we can infer that this individual’s universal vehicle lineage is activated. Likewise, it goes on to say that we can infer the suitability of the individual for the teachings of emptiness.
That when an individual hears about emptiness, when they hear about its benefits, about what one can accomplish through its realization and the results of its realization, then just the hearing of those words and the word emptiness itself, the tears well up in this person’s eyes, the hair in their pore stands up on end, and this mere word emptiness entering into their ear brings joy to their mind. Then from these signs, one can infer that this individual is a suitable recipient for the teachings of emptiness. It’s very similar to what has occurred over this last week with regard to the death of Princess Diana, that people just hearing about her death, that tears came to their eyes almost spontaneously, and their hearts were filled with sadness. But on some people amongst those great crowds which gathered, for example, that were seen were just there for the public spectacle. They had no particular feelings.
They looking, they just, they were spectators looking at what was going on. Sometimes another example is like a dog that is howling. Perhaps it’s barking, not howling, barking. Maybe it’s barking at a thief that someone who’s disturbing may be a thief. But other dogs, not even knowing whether there is anybody around, simply join in and start to bark along with that dog.
Quoting from a verse by Candrakīrti from his Entering Into the Middle Way, he said, When an ordinary being, upon hearing about emptiness, fills great joy arising repeatedly within him or herself, and due to such joy tears moisten his or her eyes, and the hair on the body stands up, And he has in his mind the seed of complete enlightenment and is a fit vessel for intimate teachings on emptiness. So why is it that upon hearing about emptiness, for some tears come to their eyes and their hair stands upon end? It is because that they have listened to teachings on emptiness in previous lives, they, from a spiritual guide and there have been latencies implanted within their minds and subsequent to that previous life, in the course of this life, it is very much like the watering of a flower seed. When the water is poured, the seed begins to sprout and likewise upon hearing the word emptiness again, due to those latencies, a great joy and pleasure arises in their mind and their tears well up in their eyes and their hairs stand up in their pores. Therefore, it is said that for such a person, if emptiness were to be explained to them, that because they have the seeds of the awakened heart already implanted, that the teaching becomes like the watering of the seeds, just like the watering of a flower seed, it begins to grow again.
And by this, they can remove all the various faults to bring the consummation all their excellent qualities, and therefore such a teaching is a tremendous benefit. So the sūtra and the discourse that we recite as a preliminary prayer, the Heart of Wisdom Sūtra, is a teaching on emptiness. Moreover, it’s a teaching according to the Consequentialist Middle Way school, and is extremely profound teaching. And this is why we recite it again and again as we do. By reciting it and while reciting reflecting upon its meaning, we are implanting latencies within our mind which will bear fruit in the future.
On the other hand, if one were to teach an unsuitable recipient of the, an unsuitable vessel, literally, what fault would there be? For such an individual, upon hearing about emptiness, they develop fear, and they wish to reject it out of this fear, and they repudiate it. They say it’s no good, I don’t want to have anything to do with it. Out of this it’s said that they will, by repudiating what in fact is able to be of great benefit, they will in the future take rebirth in a misfortune of states. But even if one were not to generate fear with regard to emptiness and not to repudiate it and not to think it was not good, but on the contrary, to have a liking for it.
Still there’s a danger of misunderstanding its nature. That when we if we were to misunderstand emptiness as nonexistence, then we in that misunderstanding, we might think, well nothing really exists at all. And therefore such phenomena which in fact exists like the law of cause and effect and past and future rebirths. One would say, well they don’t exist. And therefore one would not make effort in creating positive karma in order to be happy in the future.
One would not make effort in abandoning negativities in order to avoid suffering in the future, and this would be a great fault. So, you know, if in the course of the explanation of emptiness you, all of you, have tears come to your eyes and your hair stands on end, is very, very good. But even if that were not to happen, still in listening to this teaching on emptiness, try to listen it to it with a sense of pleasure, a liking for the subject. And this would prevent in the course of explanation any types of faults arising. This would be helpful, just a sense of liking the teaching.
Okay. So it’s necessary to listen to these teachings very carefully. Emptiness is a very difficult subject, and we’re going to move through a system of tenets. For example, the tenets of the Great Exposition School, the Sūtra School, the Mind Only School, and finally the Middle Way School. And as we move through these tenets, the view of emptiness becomes more and more subtle, more and more difficult to understand.
And with this, there is a greater and greater danger of misunderstanding. So listen well. The view of emptiness is indispensable the attainment of Buddhahood. It is indispensable in order to achieve liberation from cyclic existence. in dependence upon this view of emptiness, we can achieve both.
Therefore, it is of tremendous benefit. So as was previously explained, is a difference in the order of development of the awakened heart and the awakened mind depending upon the degree of intelligence of the student. For those of lesser intelligence, then first the student develops the awakened heart and goes on to develop the awakened mind. For those of greatest intelligence, first they develop the awakened mind and then the awakened heart. So in accordance with our explanation, we have first sought to cultivate the awakened heart through various means such as looking at the detriments of self centeredness, the benefits of other centeredness, going on to develop exceptional resolve, practicing the visualization technique of taking and giving, and finally developing an awakened heart.
Subsequent to that, we go on to receive the explanation of the awakened mind. So this mode of explanation where the awakened heart is explained first is in accordance with the method of explanation of Je Tsongkhapa. He says that it is of, it is least likely that there will be any difficulties and any faults will arise if the awakened heart is first taught. If develop the awakened hearts first and then subsequent to that the awakened mind, that is an understanding of emptiness, then we can be assured that there will be only benefit to be derived from following this order of development. Whereas there can be various dangers from first teaching the awakened mind, as have been explained previously.
So therefore, I hope that in our manner of or or the order of explanation that we are following, that there won’t there is no great danger of any false arising for you. Then the Geshe Chekawa from the root text, the Seven Point Training of the Mind goes on to say, Consider all phenomena as like a dream. That’s the first line. Then following that, examine the nature of unborn awareness. Then he goes on to say, The remedy itself is released in its own place.
Place the essence of the path on the nature of the basis of all. So here it states that we are to consider all phenomena as like a dream. So all various phenomena, whether they are produced or unproduced, are to be seen as a dream. So when we go to sleep, we usually dream, and there appears many there are many appearances that occur in the course of a dream. Horse appears, the elephant, the people, houses, money, but these all appear the dream consciousness.
But the person that appears in the dream is not really a person, it’s merely the appearance of a person. Likewise, horse, house, a dog, a cat, money, they are merely appearances. Likewise, all phenomena have a certain appearance to ourselves. Whatever the phenomenon might be, whether it’s, for example, a body. It appears to exist from its own side.
It appears to objectively exist and not to be imputed, not to be designated by terms, by names. Table, it appears to exist from its own side. It appears to exist objectively. It does not appear that it’s being labeled. A house appears from its own side.
It appears to exist objectively. And it does not appear that it’s being labeled or designated by names. That’s their appearance. But they don’t exist like that. They don’t exist like they appear.
They are in that way, they are like a dream. The the like a dream like in a dream, a horse appears, an elephant appears. But those horses and elephants do not exist the way they appear. That they do not exist from their own side. So the objects do not exist as they appear.
The objects are appearing to an awareness. And all the various objects which are appearing to our awareness do not exist the way they appear. For example, the table is appearing to my eye consciousness, but that table does not exist as it is appearing. So what is most important is that when we consider the I, that by I, the I, the self, that I which is dependent the person who is dependent upon the mind and body. That person does not exist the way it is appearing.
It appears not to depend upon name. So, in the Heart of Wisdom Sūtra, there is a section which we recite where it says there is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. There are no spheres of the eyes up to no spheres of the mind. That these various objects do not, here what is being referred to is, these various objects do not inherently exist. And moreover, the awareness which is apprehending those objects does not inherently exist.
So the consciousness within the person does not exist the way it appears. With regard to phenomena, there are conventional phenomena and altered phenomena. Conventional phenomena, both the external and internal phenomena, are like a dream. They do not exist the way they appear. Therefore, they are said to be false.
So the conventionalities are not established as they appear. If they were established as they appear, they would be truly existent. Because they are not established as they appear, they are non truly existent. This is the nature of emptiness. This non true existence is ultimate truth.
It’s necessary to understand that conventionalities are not established as they appear to ourselves, and the way that we can approach gaining that understanding is through investigation. By examining the phenomena, the way they are appearing to ourselves using reasoning, again and again investigating, we will see that the phenomena is not established the way it is appearing to ourselves. For example, we could take a flower, a flower appears to ourselves, but if we were to use quick lines of reasoning, we would come to the conclusion that though it appears to exist from its own side, it’s not established that way. Then we come to an understanding that it’s not as it appears. We would go on to understand that if it were to be established as it appears, then certain faults would necessarily accrue, certain faults would be a consequence if in fact that were the case.
Understanding this understanding of the faults that would accrue upon an object being established the way it appears, then we come to an understanding of emptiness. So it’s necessary that we investigate how the flower, for example, is appearing to ourselves. The way it appears to us is as if it weren’t dependent upon being designated by means of terms and conceptuality. It appears to not rely upon anything outside of itself. It appears to exist completely from its own side.
When the eye consciousness looks to the flower, it appears that the flower is not merely being labeled, that it’s not dependent upon anything, that it exists from its own side, that it objectively exists. That’s the way it appears. Now, if it appeared that, if it existed the way it is appearing to ourselves, then it would not depend upon names and conceptuality. It would not depend upon, for example, causes and conditions. But we know that the flower depends upon causes and conditions.
For example, in order for a flower to grow, we must first plant a seed in the earth and then we water it, we provide fertilizer, and from these causes and conditions a flower grows. But it appears as if it weren’t dependent upon any causes and conditions. It appears existing from its own side objectively completely. But not only is the flower dependent upon causes and conditions, for example, the seed and the water, etc, but it’s also dependent upon being designated. It is dependent upon being given a name.
Someone first, upon seeing this particular object, thought, What should I call it? I think I’ll give it the name flower. It depends upon being given that name, upon being designated, it came into existence. Before that labeling process, the flower did not exist. So the flower is being designated.
It’s being labeled through the use of name. It depends upon being given that name. Its existence relies upon being given that name. Before being given that name, flower didn’t exist. Its existence is dependent upon being designated or labeled.
Now if in fact the flower existed the way it appears, that is that it doesn’t depend upon being designated, doesn’t depend upon being labeled, that it exists from its own side independently. If that were the case, then when I first came to Australia, I didn’t know the word flower. I knew the word, the Tibetan word metok. I knew that, and when I saw that object it would rise in my mind, oh there’s a metok. I never thought of it as being a flower, but if the flower existed from its own side then I shouldn’t have had to learn that name.
There should have arisen in my mind the thought, ah, that’s a flower, very good, it’s a very nice flower, it’s a very good flower. Because this flower’s existence doesn’t depend upon my thinking of it as a flower. When I came to Australia, I came as the ex-abbot of Sera Je Monastery. Many people knew me as that, but if no one had known that in fact I was the Sera Je ex-abbot, and when I arrived, people would look at me and say, well who is that guy?
What’s he doing here? What’s he doing here? Where is he from? There was no way that from my own side that they could know that. So, to some I had to introduce myself and say, I’m the Sera Je, I’m the ex-abbot of Sera Je, and then they, having come to know that, and subsequently when they saw me, they say, Oh, here comes this, the ex-abbot of Sera Je.
It was dependent upon their labeling me, having been given the name and subsequently labeling me as the ex-abbot of Sera Je, that they came to know who I was. But if I were to exist the way I appear, that is to say from my own side without dependent upon being labeled through the use of names, etc, then you should merely upon seeing me, know me, know that I am the ex-abbot of Sera Je. But you don’t, do you? So the non existence the non existence of the flower as it appears is an emptiness. The non existence of the flower as it appears is an emptiness.
It is the emptiness in terms of the flower. That is to say, the lack of existing the way the flower is appearing, that lack, is the emptiness of the flower. So, you know, the non existence of the way I am seeing the object is that object’s emptiness, here in terms of the example of flower. So the emptiness of the the emptiness as it appears. The object is empty of the way it appears is what we mean by emptiness.
The object is empty of the way it appears. This is what we mean by emptiness. It does not mean nothingness. Emptiness exists. The non existence of the appearance, the non existence as it appears, exists.
The nonexistence of the flower the way it appears, that is an existent. It is an emptiness. It exists. The nonexistence as the flower appears is the emptiness of the flower, which exists. So emptiness is not nonexistent.
If it were nonexistent, then the wisdom realizing emptiness would be of no use. We are trying to develop the wisdom understanding emptiness as a means to overcome self grasping, the conception of a truly existent self. It is only by means of that wisdom, that the conception of truly existent self is abandoned. This is the reason that we meditate, in order to develop that wisdom, understanding emptiness. If, that is to say, develop the wisdom which understands the self to be not truly existent.
As we develop this wisdom develops, the conception of true existence lessens and lessens and lessens until we can eliminate that conception of true existence from its very root, along with its seeds, along with its latencies completely, we can eliminate from our mind. If emptiness were nonexistence, then that wisdom would not have that effect. So, flower does not exist the way it is appearing, for example, to our eye consciousness. How is it appearing? It appears not to be designated by means of names and conceptuality.
The flower appears to exist from its own side objectively. That existence from its own side, that objective existence is what is called the object of negation. The flower existing from its own side is the object of negation. That is the object to be negated. The non existence of the object of negation is an emptiness.
The non existence of the object of negation is what we mean by emptiness. Because the object does not exist and emptiness is what negates it. Emptiness is what negates the object of negation. If the object of negation existed, there would be no emptiness. Because the object of negation does not exist, emptiness exists.
To explain this by way of analogy, presently Tibetan Tibet has no freedom. Its freedom was negated by the Chinese Communists. They negated the freedom of Tibet. If we can eliminate that negated freedom, then Tibet will have won its freedom. It will its freedom will then exist.
So what has what what the Chinese communists have have negated the freedom of Tibet. It has no freedom. It has it lacks freedom. If we can remove that non freedom, then it will establish its freedom. Objects appear to be truly existent.
If this appearance of an object as truly existent is the object that may negate it. If that were to exist, then emptiness would not exist. Once we negate that object of negation, the appearance of true existence, then we have established emptiness. So we’ll stop there for today. If you have some questions.
Number of questions. So If the flower were not designated by the power of its name, then we would not rely upon any conditions for generating the thought flower. Would, that if it existed from its own side, then even without having been taught the name flower, that merely by seeing that particular object, the thought flower should arise in our mind because it doesn’t rely upon any condition for its existence. Okay, let’s ask you a question. For somebody who doesn’t know what a flower is, when when they see a flower, does the thought flower arise in their mind?
So what does that come down to, the fact that the thought of flower doesn’t rise in your mind? It’s because they’re not designating that object flower. They’re not labeling that object flower. And if they were to question, what is that object? And someone would say, well that’s a flower.
Then in dependence upon learning that name, then they would designate that object as a flower and think of it as a flower. When they have their sight restored to them can understand nothing. They know nothing. I mean, even if they have a conception of the world, of the objects in that world by touch, when their eyesight is restored to them, they have no conception of it whatsoever. It’s a meaningless jumble, and it’s only after they learn the conventions of this and this and and this and this that they can make So, yeah, so he has to before they these visual objects begin to make sense, he has to be able to designate them by means of terms and names, and he hasn’t learned that up to that point.
Yes, yes. Is there anything at all in this world that we can see which really exists? That really exists? You mean just what do you mean by really? All these all these things exist that Limbuchet is naming.
They all exist. Do you want to follow that up? John, you’re saying that things don’t exist? What do you mean by spiritual world? Spirit world?
So the mundane existence doesn’t exist. Mundane existence is a dream. Mundane existence is a dream? We use the term, it’s like a dream. We aren’t saying it is a dream, it’s like a dream.
Yeah. So the reason that we said that things are like a dream is because, just as in the case of a dream, where horses appear and people appear, but they aren’t really horses, they aren’t really people. Likewise, the objects about us appear to exist from their own side without being labeled by the use of names. That’s the way they appear, but they don’t exist that way, therefore they’re like a dream. In general, these appearances exist.
The appearances exist. So when we dream, when we go to sleep and dream, a horse may appear to ourselves, That horse does not exist, but the dream exists. So the dream exists. We’re not questioning, but what we’re questioning is if it exists the way it appears. So likewise, things exist, they don’t exist the way they appear.
So we have to make appreciate this distinction that we’re trying to make. And making use of another analogy, the analogy of a reflection of a face in a mirror. When we look at our face in the mirror, it appears to be our face. It appears to be us in the mirror, that’s the way it appears, but really it’s not us, is it? But it appears that way.
So the appearance exists, the reflection of our face and the reflection of our face exists. The reflection of our face in the mirror exists, but it’s not really our face. So we’re not questioning whether the reflection exists or not, but whether the way of appearing exists or not. Okay.