Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A story told mid-session gives this 89-minute commentary its most memorable moment: at Sera Monastery, Geshe Sherab Sangye grabbed his shirt as Tsongkhapa taught emptiness, the I seeming to vanish entirely — a fear Tsongkhapa identified as a sign of genuine insight, not confusion. Khensur Rinpoche uses this anecdote to anchor his analysis of how to establish the emptiness of the self through the reasoning of same and different, drawn from Shāntarakshita’s Ornament for the Middle Way. He opens by framing why spiritual practice — unlike wealth or friendships — is the only companion that follows us into future lives, then works through the four essentials: identifying the inherently existent I as the object of negation and showing it can be neither identical to nor utterly distinct from the five aggregates. A Q&A closes the session, touching on Buddha nature and the relationship between mind and self.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 22 LMT 1997 10 07.mp3
UUID: 84b0aca9-fe09-4b33-8985-0548fac86947
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Lojong Mind Training (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1997-10-07
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 89.2 minutes
Words: ~4,758
It’s necessary to initially adjust our motivation for listening to this present teaching of the Dharma that we develop as our motivation, cultivating the kind hearted motivation of the awakened heart. So we’ve attained something truly wonderful. We’ve attained a human life, which is a very special human life that has all the necessary conducive conditions and the absence of inhibitory conditions whereby we can eliminate our suffering and achieve happiness. It is wonderful that we have achieved this human life And we have to ensure that we make this life meaningful, that we don’t allow it to go to waste. But how are we to make our life meaningful?
In general, we can speak of two ways in which life can be meaningful, from a secular point of view, from a worldly point of view, and that of spiritual point of view, or the point of view of the dharma. From a secular point of view, the measure of a meaningful life is mainly in terms of pleasure, of bringing about a measure of wealth, a measure of financial well-being, of status and power. And through these means, we consider that we’ve achieved a meaningful life. But considering only the pleasures of this life, simply enough, is it sufficient for a worthwhile life that we simply gather material well-being and pleasures which are directed only at this life itself. From a spiritual point of view, this is not sufficient for a meaningful life.
Why is this not sufficient? Because the fact is that we cannot remain indefinitely in this life. It is certain that we are going to die. And moreover, we do not know when we will die. So we have to come to the conclusion that considering only this life is not sufficient to ensure that we lead a meaningful life.
We have to consider the life, a future life. All of the prosperity that we may be able to gather around us in the course of this life, and our friends, and all the power that we may be able to accumulate, it will be of no benefit in their future life. We will have to go to our future rebirth alone. Well, what is it that can be a benefit in our future lives? It is only the Dharma which can help us.
It can be an accompanier which can go with us and give us the ability whereby to experience happiness in the future. So it is our practice of Dharma which can be a benefit to ourselves and our future life. It is like a friend who can go along with us and accompany us to our future life. It can ensure that in our future life that we take rebirth with a healthy, beautiful body, that we have prosperity, that we have all our material needs and associated with friends. Therefore, speaking from this practical point of view, we should be practicing the Dharma.
Moreover, this life is extremely short. We don’t know when we’re going to die. And our future lives are extremely long. And therefore we should minimally try to ensure that our practice of Dharma bring about benefit in a future life whereby we can carry on our practice. We should try to at least ensure that we derive this use of our practice of Dharma, but we can go on and achieve greater benefit from our practice, that of liberation and ultimately Buddhahood.
And even moreover, if we practice well, will not only get these benefits in the future, we will be benefited in the course of this life as well. So we can make use of this human life each day of our life in order to ensure that we practice the Dharma by reflecting upon its great meaningfulness and that the only thing that is of benefit is to practice the Dharma. And each day, by implementing our practice, we can come that much closer to the elimination of our suffering and the achievement of an ultimate happiness. But our practice of Dharma is not something that we do in isolation. It is not to say that if we practice Dharma, we have to forego all our friendships and our relationships.
And this is not the case. Our practice of Dharma should include others. And we can to ensure that this human life, which we all possess, is meaningful, can all practice developing the motivations of compassion and love. Compassion expressed in the thoughts, It would be wonderful if myself and all living beings were free of suffering and the cause of suffering. May they be free of suffering and the causes of suffering.
I will lead all sentient beings to a state where they are free of suffering and the causes of suffering. And love expressed in the thought, It would be wonderful if myself and all living beings had happiness in the causes of happiness. May they have happiness in the causes of happiness. I will lead them to a state where they have happiness in the causes of happiness. And if we can develop the exceptional resolve which seeks to lead all living beings, both oneself and others, to a state of complete freedom from suffering and where they have complete happiness.
Developing that resolve and coming to an understanding that initially, in order to actualize, to bring that resolve, to manifest that resolve, one’s self must bring to consummation all of one’s excellent qualities. One must be rid of all of the negative factors within one’s mind. Therefore, developing the aspiration that in order to lead all sentient beings to a state of freedom from suffering and to bring them to complete happiness, that I myself must first achieve such a state. That is to say we have to go on to develop the awakened heart. If you can develop the awakened heart then your this life has become ultimately meaningful.
The awakened heart is most precious. Even five minutes of meditating on the awakened heart makes this life extremely meaningful. Whatever you meditate on with such a motivation is extremely valuable. Whatever it might be, it’s analytic meditation or stabilizing meditation, whether we meditate on the Vajrasattva practice or we meditate on emptiness, it all becomes extremely powerful with such a motivation. And with such a motivation, we are going to listen to the profound view of emptiness as presented in the universal vehicle, the Mahāyāna, having listened to it, then reflecting upon it, having reflected upon it, meditate and put it into best practice.
So the Acharya, the master Shāntarakshita, in his Ornament for the Middle Way, states that in order to establish emptiness, the finest method is to rely on the reasoning of same and different. This reasoning is said to be the finest of methods of reasoning by means of which to establish emptiness. So in the classical manner, how is the reasoning of same and different presented? It’s presented in a form of a syllogism in which the subject is that one itself and here itself is to be interpreted as the Buddhists and others, non Buddhists, taking both of those plus all phenomena in general. So Buddhist, non-Buddhist, and all phenomena in general as the subject.
Then the predicate of this thesis is that do not inherently exist. And the reason which establishes this thesis is that because they are neither inherently existently the same nor inherently existently different. For example, a reflection. So in order that this reasoning of same and different might be more readily understood, we can take as the basis for our establishing emptiness the I. That is, say, the self or the I, which is imputed or labeled to the five aggregates.
The five aggregates being the aggregate of forms, feelings, perceptions, compositional factors, and consciousnesses. So the I is labeled or imputed to these five aggregates. So it’s extremely beneficial and useful. And moreover, it’s more readily understood if we take as our basis for establishing emptiness the I or other self. So the main basis due to which we continue to circle within cyclic existence is holding the I to be inherently existent.
So the object of observation of this self grasping is a naturally existent or inherently existent I. If we can negate this, if we can refute the existence of this inherently existent I, then all of the other faults will, as in the course of refuting this I, of themselves be eliminated. In order to realize emptiness, we must reflect using correct reasoning. We will not realize emptiness unless we proceed in a manner in which we try to understand why things are empty. Simply to say, This is emptiness, this is emptiness, this is emptiness, without supplying ourselves with correct reasonings, establishing why an object is empty of inherent existence will not constitute a realization of emptiness.
And moreover, this supplying of reasoning by which we refute the object of negation is difficult. It will not come all at once. But we must at least begin by using a correct line of reasoning. We must use authentic reasons. By way of analogy, if there were two disputants who came before a judge and they were arguing over the existence or non existence of something, and the one was able to use the correct lines of reasoning, that is, say, infallible types of reasoning, and the other had no legitimate reasoning, no authentic reason to give, simply stating that they thought that this was the case.
Then eventually it would become the case that the person who had no valid lines of reasoning to present would be repudiated, that their position would be lost, and that the judge would decide in favor of the person who was able to establish their case in terms of correct lines of reasoning. If we were to investigate the eye and its nature, we might initially look upon the eye as being inherently existent. That is the way the eye appears to ourselves when we look at it, when we examine it. So on that side there is the initial examination where the eye appears to exist inherently. But if we were to investigate and apply correct lines of reasoning as to whether it in fact existed that way, then we would be able to establish various faults which would demonstrate that it cannot possibly exist that way.
And applying these various correct lines of reasoning, we would have to decide: though initially I thought that the I appeared to exist inherently, in fact, it is empty of inherent existence. So what is the correct line of reasoning which we are to apply? This is as we have already begun to discuss. If we were to present it in the form of a syllogism, it would be as follows: The I as the subject, it does not inherently exist.
And the reason that we give establishing this thesis that the I does not inherently exist is because it is not inherently the same nor inherently different than the aggregates. For example, like a reflection. And this is the the method that we are using is called the four essentials. So the four essentials using the I as the basis for the reasoning in emptiness would be as follows. The first essential is the identifying the object of negation.
Here the object of negation is the inherent existent I. The second point is that if the I inherently exists, it must be either inherently existently the same or existently different than the aggregates. That is to say, identifying the pervasion. That it must be either the same or different than the aggregates. Then the third point is identifying the lack of sameness.
That the inherently existent I is not inherently the same as the aggregates. And then the fourth essential, identifying the lack of difference. That is to say that the inherently existent I is not inherently different than the aggregates. So many of you have not had experience with this presentation of the four essentials. And I’m aware it is difficult, but I ask you to bear with it and please listen well. So, you know, many of us like emptiness.
We think it’s terribly precious. We think it’s very wonderful. And simply, if we reflect upon what is being presented here in terms of our discussion of emptiness, then this will plant latencies for your eventual liberation from cyclic existence. It must be — it is pervaded by being either one or many. It must be either one or two or more. And other ways to say this are same or different, identical or distinct.
So if something exists, it must be either singular or plural, one or many, same or different. There is no existent which is neither of these two. All existences are pervaded by being either of these two. inherent existence does not exist. But if it did exist, then like all existences, it would have to be either same or different, one or many.
It would have just as all likewise, all phenomena in general or existence in general must be one or many. If inherent existence existed, it too would have to be either same or different, one or many. So if the inherently existent I existed, it would have to exist either as inherently the same or inherently different. So that’s the second point we just discussed. Now we’re coming to the third point, determining the lack of sameness. If the inherently existent I existed, it would, we’re trying to determine whether it’s the same, inherently the same as aggregate.
Now if the inherently existent I is inherently the same as the aggregates, then there are various faults which arise. If the eye were inherently the same as the aggregates, that is to say, if it was indistinguishably the same, then because there is only one I, there would have to be only one aggregate. But on the contrary, there are five aggregates. Therefore, because there are five aggregates, there would have to be five eyes. Therefore, there is this fault which arises.
Or on the other hand, because the I is a singular, a singularity, that is to there is only one I. And therefore, because the I is identical with the aggregates, the five aggregates would necessarily have to be one. It would also have to be a singularity, because the I is one is a singularity and is identical with the aggregates. So this is the way we can come to a way of refuting the sameness of the I and the aggregates. The I and the aggregates are not inherently identical, one or the same, because of these various faults that accrue if they were to be.
Isn’t that the case? So because there’s new students here today, I’ve repeated what we’ve already gone over. So would going on from what we’ve discussed previously, we are now going to investigate as to whether the eye is inherently different than the aggregates. That is the is the eye inherently distinct from the aggregates and to see if there is any faults if we try to hold that position. So in this essential, we’re trying to determine whether the I and the aggregates are inherently different.
Or another way of saying this, inherently other. Are the I and the aggregates inherently other or inherently different? So when we say different here, we mean utterly unrelatedly different. And just like a horse and a cow, a horse and a cow are unrelatedly different. So just as a horse and a cow are unrelatedly different, we are investigating to see whether the aggregates and the eye also have a relationship of being unrelatedly different.
Now, if they were unrelatedly different, then the aggregates which have the nature of production and disintegration, and moreover, being impermanent, where the eye would necessarily have to be if it’s unrelatedly different, would have to not have these natures. The eye would not have the nature of undergoing production, disintegration, and being impermanent. So there would no if they were unrelatedly different, the I and the aggregates, then there would be no relationship between what the aggregates undergo and the eye undergoes. There’d be no connection between the two. For example, the hand could raise and the eye would not move.
Or the head could move and the eye would not move. Or you could raise your foot. Or the foot could raise, be lifted, and the eye would still not move because there’s no relationship between the aggregates and the eye. Or the aggregates could undergo the process of aging, and the eye would not age. We couldn’t say, for example, if the aggregates were beautiful or the aggregates were handsome, we couldn’t say that I’m handsome because of that.
Because on the other hand, because the aggregates undergo the process of creation and disintegration, and because the eye is unrelatedly different than the aggregates, the eye would be a non product. That is to say, the eye would necessarily be permanent. The eye, if that were the case, then it would follow that the eye could not experience happiness, that the eye could not suffer, that the eye would not take rebirth, that the eye could not achieve liberation, that it couldn’t take rebirth in a bad migration, for example. So there are these significant faults which accrue in manner. On another hand, because the eye and the aggregates are unrelatedly different or the aggregates are unrelatedly other to the eye, then we could examine the aggregates.
We could identify the various aggregates, such as the aggregate of forms, the aggregate of feelings, etc. And identifying, set those aggregates to the side. And we should be left over with the I. Having set aside all of the aggregates, there should remain, there should be left over remaining the I, which is utterly different than the aggregates. If we investigate in this manner, we will If we investigate in this way, we will come to the conclusion that the eye is not inherently other than the aggregates.
That is, it is not inherently different than the aggregates. We were trying to ascertain the non existence of the inherently existent I. And here we have ascertained that this I, if it were to exist, does not exist inherently different than the aggregates. If inherently existent I existed, it wouldn’t necessarily exist either the same, inherently the same as the aggregates, or inherently different than the aggregates. It would have to exist either of those two ways, if it existed at all.
We investigate and we come to understand that the inherently existent I is not inherently the same nor is it inherently different than the aggregates. It is neither the same nor different than the aggregates. When we understand that the inherently existent I is neither the same inherently existently the same nor inherently different than the aggregates, then we will come to understand that the I does not inherently exist. The non inherent existence of the I is the emptiness of the I. This is what we are to try to understand.
The I in general exists. The I exists. It is the inherently existent I which does not exist. This is the emptiness of the I which we are trying to understand. So there’s an excellent analogy which will help us to understand this.
So the analogy, it takes place in Tibet, and someone has lost their horse, and they’re searching for their horse. And they think themselves, well, it must exist in either of two areas. There’s only two pathways leading from where I lost my horse, and therefore it could only have followed down these two pathways. It must exist in either of these two areas. So first, I’ll search out this one area.
And this person goes to that area and searches out thoroughly. Seeing it’s not there, thinks, well, it must exist in the other area. It’s gone that way. And it searches out, goes down the other path and searches out that area. And again, having thoroughly searched the area does not find it.
So that thought that it must exist, that it exists, and it must exist in either of these two areas is negated through this process of searching. One comes to the conclusion that these two areas are empty of what we thought was there. Now applying this to the present context, that there is the thought of an inherently existent I, that we think it exists. Now if it exists, there are two areas which we are to research to see if it exists or not. Those two are, well, it either exists the same as the aggregates, or the other area we are to research is that it exists as inherently different than the aggregates.
We investigate as to whether this inherently existing eye is inherently the same as aggregates. We don’t find it there. We research to see whether this inherently existent eye is inherently different to the aggregates, we don’t find it there. If it existed, it must exist in either of those two areas which we are investigating. We don’t find it in either of those two areas.
We come to the conclusion that it doesn’t exist. That thought that it existed is negated. So just as in the case of this analogy where we were searching, this was an extremely valuable horse. And we didn’t want to lose it. And we began to search out these two areas.
And more anxious we become upon not finding the horse. Likewise, in searching out the inherently existent eye as to whether it’s the same or different, inherently different than the aggregates, in the course of the investigation, there also, because of the grasping at the existence of this inherently existent I, there arises fear or anxiety around not finding it. So there’s a story that we could tell about a time when Je Tsongkhapa was teaching emptiness at the Sera Monastery. And within the audience was Geshe Sherab Sangye, who in the course of the teaching had a realization of emptiness. So in the course of this teaching, he was gaining a profound realization of emptiness.
And the course of developing that realization of fear arose in his mind because it became for him the I was as if disappearing. His eye was becoming nonexistent. And out of that fear, he grabbed hold of his shirt. So Tsongkhapa, realizing what Geshe Sherab Sangye was experiencing, said to the audience that Geshe Sherab Sangye was having a realization of the nonexistence of the inherently existent I, but he was losing the I altogether. And out of the fear of losing his I altogether, he grabbed hold of his shirt. And in that grabbing to his shirt, he was able to establish the nominally existent I, as through grabbing to himself. He was grabbing to himself. And in grabbing to himself, he established the nominally existent self.
So, you know, for those who don’t meditate on fear, they have no fear of emptiness. For those who don’t meditate on emptiness, they have no fear of emptiness. It is only those who begin to see emptiness who generate fear. Once we realize the nonexistence of the inherently existent I, then we can quite easily understand the nonexistence of the inherently existent mind, M I N E. And then simply turning our mind to any phenomena, we can readily understand that all phenomena do not inherently exist.
So we have to meditate on emptiness again and again and again in order to gain a realization of emptiness. And the realization of emptiness is tremendously beneficial. By realizing emptiness, we will quickly liberate ourselves from cyclic existence. If we don’t realize emptiness, we will never liberate ourselves from cyclic existence. But by meditating again and again and again on emptiness, we will implant seeds, latencies or predispositions whereby to develop the wisdom of realizing emptiness in the future.
Each of us must eliminate our own suffering. Each of us must find our own happiness. No one else can eliminate our suffering. No one else can bring us happiness. So it is necessary that we have compassion for ourselves and make use of these methods whereby to eliminate our suffering and to the means by which we can find happiness.
It’s necessary that we have compassion for ourselves. If we were not to have compassion for ourselves, it would be extremely sad, wouldn’t it? We would be probably no different than an animal. And even if we aren’t able to meditate on emptiness, we can recite the sutras or the discourses, setting forth emptiness. As in this verse of dedication that we recite, you know, through this merit, may the wisdom of realizing emptiness which has not been generated be generated, and that which has been generated be developed higher and higher.
So we’re going to stop there but we’ve left time for questions. So if you have some questions. So using the analogy of a horse and a cow was made use of in order to demonstrate two objects which were unrelated. We weren’t talking about them in terms of being impermanent. They were simply two unrelated objects.
Now, when the eye and the aggregates are unrelatedly different, They are inherently different. So the analogy, when we talked about the horse and the cow, it was we only took one characteristic in one area. We were analogizing one area. An analogy isn’t applicable to all areas, all characteristics. Analogy only is concerned with one area.
So what we can think about is, we said that we’re examining to see whether the eye was inherently different or another way that this could be said, another term that’s used is inherently other than the aggregates. If something is inherently other, or moreover if something inherently exists, it does not depend on anything outside of itself. Its existence does not depend upon anything outside of itself if something inherently exists. For example, if we take a flower, If the flower a flower depends upon earth, water, seed for its existence, it relies upon them for its existence.
If the flower were inherently existent, it would not rely upon anything outside of itself. It would not rely upon earth or water or its seed for its existence. Yes. Okay. What do you want to go?
Just repeat that again please. So the Buddha nature is a characteristic of our I. But the I is not the characteristic of our Buddha nature. It’s like the I possesses many characteristics. And amongst these, one of these characteristics is having a Buddha nature.
But it is not the Buddha nature. It has many other characteristics in addition. For example, we There are different ways of positing what we mean by Buddha nature. But we can say that the mind is Buddha nature, and the mind is not the I, and also the emptiness of the mind is Buddha nature, and the I is also not the emptiness of the mind. The way of positing what we mean by Buddha nature is we can simply take the mind.
The mind is not the I. And the but also the Buddha nature is the emptiness of the mind. And also the emptiness of the mind is not the I. I’m one. One.
So I’m one. If there are five people together, they would be there would be five eyes. Everybody has an eye. Form, for example. So they all seem to be sort of interconnected in a in a sort of a not inherent way, but a fairly close way In the same way that an I, which is a single thing, has many characteristics.
It seems to be both one and many. Know we can’t have With the eyes? It can be both one and many. Why is that? Because it has many characteristics.
Are the atoms the cup? Are the atoms the cup? It depends upon that collection of many atoms. We we impute one cup. So there’s one cup.
So you in your nose not in your nose. Yeah. Maybe in my nose. Your nose your nose is composed of many atoms. Yeah.
So do you have two how many noses do you have? Two or three atom noses? How many noses do you have? Ultimately, I didn’t ask you that.