Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A verse from Tsongkhapa’s Three Principal Aspects of the Path — that without wisdom realizing emptiness, even the awakened heart cannot cut the root of cyclic existence — opens this 97-minute talk by Khensur Rinpoche and sets its central theme: dependent arising as the key to understanding emptiness. He examines three levels: arising through causes and conditions; reliance on parts; and, most subtly, existence through the interplay of basis, name, and conceptual imputation. To ground the third level, Rinpoche traces his own titles — unnamed infant to Geshe, Abbot, and teacher of Buddha House — demonstrating that each identity arose only once designated, never from its own side. A Q&A explores reincarnation continuity, the Pänchen Lama, and whether two lines of reasoning on selflessness reach the same realization. Best suited to practitioners with some grounding in Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 24 LMT 1997 10 21.mp3
UUID: 64ddaa12-5aba-4b79-b731-1baf57a836fd
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Lojong Mind Training (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1997-10-21
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 97.0 minutes
Words: ~5,060
All peoples of this world instinctively want happiness and not to suffer. And in order to bring about that end, it’s necessary that we cultivate the causes of happiness and eliminate the causes of our suffering. But what are in fact the causes of happiness and what are the causes of suffering? The causes of happiness are skillful actions, those are the three actions of body, speech and mind. And likewise with regard to suffering, the causes of our suffering are our unskillful actions and again, in respect to those unskillful actions of body, speech, mind.
Those skillful actions bring up our positive conditions of body, speech and mind, whereas the unskillful actions bring about the opposite, that is negative conditions for our experience of suffering in terms of our body, speech and mind. So if we in fact want to rid ourselves of suffering, if we want to find happiness, then we must necessarily avoid that which brings about the opposite result, the opposite desired result. If we don’t want to suffer, then we have to avoid creating the causes of that suffering and on the contrary begin to act in skillful ways. If we want happiness, then we have to avoid creating the causes of which cause us to suffer, and on the contrary, those skillful ways which bring about the end that we desire. So there is this inverse relationship between the creation of the causes of suffering and the happiness that we seek, and the opposite, the creation of skillful causes and avoiding the suffering that we wish to avoid.
We have to implement our way of conduct which is appropriate to what it is that we want and what it is that we don’t want. But we, in terms of our desire for happiness, it extends not only to this life, but we have to consider the fact that we will also desire happiness in future lives and begin to accord our conduct with that distant vision in terms of not only this life but happiness which extends into future lives. And that which is the uncommon means to achieve that end is our spiritual practice. In terms of our future prospects, we have to, in order to avoid suffering, cease creating its causes, that is to say, various types of unskillful actions through our body, speech and mind. And that avoidance of negative ways of acting in terms of our body, speech and mind is the practice of ethics.
It is through ethics that we can ensure, for example, a human life in the future for ourselves. So by abandoning retaliating, retaliating in the face of harm, but on the contrary practicing tolerance and patience in the face of negative action directed toward ourselves, Through such a practice of ethics, a non retaliation, we can ensure ourselves of a beautiful appearance in the future that we will have harmonious friendships, that will be well liked. And through implementing the means of benefiting others with an altruistic attitude through our body, speech and mind, such as the practice of generosity, we can be assured that in the future we will easily have all our material necessities met. And by listening, reflecting and meditating upon the Dharma, reading the various texts, is the means by which we can ensure that in the future we will have vast wisdom whereby to understand its meanings, that we will have sharp, profound and vast intelligence. And by again and again making effort in our practice of Dharma, we can be assured that in the future that we will not be lax in our Dharma practice, that we will, on the contrary, have a great liking and enthusiasm in terms of our practice, and out of that will arise a joyous effort.
And by abiding on the objects of our concentration in a single pointed fashion, not allowing to wander to external objects but seeking to discipline the mind in this manner, we can be assured that in the future again we will be able to develop a natural, highly developed concentration that we will be able to single pointedly meditate on the various subjects without the wandering of the mind. And again and again applying our intelligence in terms of listening, reflecting upon the teachings that we receive, we can be assured that in the future that we will have a natural inclination for understanding of the teachings of the Dharma, that even a small explanation can bring us vast understandings and we will be able to profoundly understand the teachings. So whatever it is that we may need in the future, we necessarily must create the cause for it now. That if all of these various possibilities, which may have been of necessity for ourselves in the future, that if we practice the causes now we can be assured that they will eventuate. But if we don’t create those causes, we will not experience those results.
Cultivating as our motivation for this present teaching that of the awakened heart in the context of holding others more dear than ourselves, the aspiration which seeks to lead all sentient beings to a state where they are free of suffering, where they have consummate happiness. In order to achieve that state, dedicating one’s mind to the attainment of a state whereby all of one’s faults have been eliminated and all of one’s excellent qualities have been brought to consummation. This aspiration is the awakened heart. And in order to actualize that state, I am going to listen to this present teaching on the essence of the universal vehicle, the teachings on emptiness. Beginning with the Quoting from a verse from the Three Principal Aspects of the Path by Je Tsongkhapa where he says, If you do not have the wisdom realizing the way things are, even though you have developed the thought definitely to leave cyclic existence and the altruistic intention, the root of cyclic existence cannot be cut.
Therefore work at the means of realizing dependence arising. Here he is saying that without the view of emptiness one cannot eliminate the ignorance which is the creator of cyclic existence. Though we have developed the will to awaken, that is to say, renunciation, and the awakened heart, bodhicitta, without this realization of emptiness, there is no way to cut the root of cyclic existence. Therefore, we must definitely generate the wisdom realizing emptiness. There are many methods by which we can realize emptiness, but that which is the most profound and the most meaningful is as is mentioned here by Je Tsongkhapa where he says to use the method of the reason of dependent arising. And why is that? If we reflect upon dependent arising, if we ascertain it, if we understand it well using various types of ways of thinking about it, reasonings, that very reflection will cause emptiness, the understanding of emptiness to dawn upon our mind. Like a bubble arising out of water, our understanding of emptiness will come about through our reflecting upon dependent arising. Therefore, the contemplation of dependent arising is extremely So how are we to reflect upon dependent arising?
We can reflect upon it at three levels: a coarse level, a subtle level, and a level which is even subtler than the subtle level, an extremely subtle level. So why is it that we have to come to this understanding of emptiness? Why is it that we have to come to an understanding of dependent arising? It’s because we can reach emptiness through this understanding of dependent arising. As was mentioned before, Buddha Śākyamūni stated that the king of reasonings was the reason of dependent arising, which establishes that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence.
If we are to understand that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence and dependent upon the reason of dependent arising, then we must first understand the reason of dependent arising. So as we explained previously, the I, the self, the I, which is dependent upon their aggregates, it does not inherently exist. Why does it not inherently exist? The reason that we give which establishes this fact is because it is a dependent arising. Due to the force of the dependent arising, we can establish for ourselves that the I does not inherently exist.
So we said in regards to dependent arising, there were three levels of interpretation. There was the course level, which is accepted by all proponents of Buddhist tenets assert this course level of dependent arising to be the fact that things arise dependent upon causes and conditions. So at this course level of interpreting dependent arising it is asserted that things arise dependent upon causes and conditions. So how is this applicable to the I in terms of this coarse interpretation of dependent arising? The I arises mainly in dependence upon karma and afflictive emotions.
The karma and afflictive emotions create the I, but also the I depends upon other causes and conditions such as the sperm and ovum of our parents. So out of the combination of a variety of causes and conditions, the I arises. in dependence upon this variety of causes and conditions, the I arises. Therefore the ‘I’ is a dependent arising. So the I is a dependent arising, arising in dependence upon a variety of causes and conditions such as karma, actions, afflictive emotions, sperm and ovum of our parents.
If we come to appreciate the way in which the I arises in such a way, then we will readily understand that the eye necessarily relies upon causes and conditions. Therefore, it is the I, an I which, there is no I which is not reliant upon causes and conditions. Therefore, there is no I which exists in independence, independent of causes and conditions. There is no I which exists independent of causes and conditions. If we understand this well, then we will understand the way in which the eye is empty of inherent existence.
So this is the initial or this first level of explanation of dependent arising. Let us say a coarse interpretation of what we mean by dependent arising in terms of in terms of dependent on causes and conditions. So this interpretation of dependent arising only applies to things: functional phenomena, conditioned phenomena. That is to say, those objects which arise dependent upon cause and conditions. It is not applied to unconditioned phenomena, permanent phenomena.
Therefore, it is only looked upon as a coarse explanation which is not applicable to all phenomena whatsoever. So if in these various ways of these three levels of interpreting dependent arising, we can apply different terms in the way that we understand dependent arising. In the case of this first interpretation, we that things arise through meeting. In the second interpretation, objects arise in reliance. And in the third interpretation, we will use dependent arising to mean that phenomena arise in dependence.
So meaning, reliance and dependence. Quoting from a verse from Nāgārjuna, in which states that the dependent arising in dependence upon meeting is only applicable to those phenomena arising in dependence upon causes and conditions. A more profound interpretation of dependence arising, which applies to all phenomena whatsoever, is that they are reliant upon their parts. So this interpretation of dependent arising, which they arise all phenomena, because it is applicable to all phenomena, is said to be more profound, more extensive. So it applies to both things, functional phenomena and non functional phenomena, compounded phenomena and uncompounded phenomena.
So we can take as basis of illustration this metal bowl. That on one level we can say it’s a dependent arising because it arises in dependence upon causes and conditions. But a more subtle interpretation of what we mean by dependent arising would be that it relies upon its parts. It exists relative to its parts. That it has, for example, its directional parts.
It has the four directional parts of east, south, west and north. That without the eastern part, the object could not come into existence. Without the southern, northern or western parts, the object could not come into existence. Its existence is dependent, relies upon its parts. So the same reasoning is applicable to the table.
The table is dependent upon the parts in terms of its four directions. Its parts which exist in the four directions it exists in reliance upon those parts which exist in the four directions. This we can apply to any phenomena. For example, our body. Our body relies upon parts of the four directions, even down to our finger.
The existence of our finger relies upon the parts of its four directions. So this same reasoning is applied to all things, the earth, water, house, this room, that their existence relies upon their parts of the four directions. And this is because they are all physical objects, they all have form, therefore they have these directional parts upon which their existence relies. But there are other functional phenomena which are not formed. For example, consciousness, an example of which would be wisdom.
Wisdom is not physical. Therefore it has no directional parts, but still it has parts. And these are the former and latter moments of any mind moment. So any consciousness has former and latter moments, and that consciousness exists in reliance upon those former and latter moments, which are its parts. So though consciousness is not physical, still relies upon its parts.
Then with regard to uncompounded phenomena, they too exist in reliance upon their parts. For example, the space in the bowl or the space in the empty part of the glass. These are unconditioned phenomena. They’re uncompounded, but still they rely upon their parts. They each have, they rely upon an absence.
We could take, for example, the emptiness of our fingers, that the emptiness of the little finger is not the emptiness of the ring finger and the emptiness of the ring finger is not the emptiness of the middle finger. They have their and these emptinesses are uncompounded phenomena, and they each rely upon their bases, their parts. So, at this level of interpretation of the dependent arising, we are asserting that the objects rely upon their own parts for their existence. For example, the eye, it relies for its existence upon its parts. One of those parts is the body.
And the body has, again in turn, relies upon its directional parts. There’s the eastern, southern, northern, western parts of the body. Or we could say that it relies upon its parts as a collection of atoms. There’s the earth, water, fire, and wind energy elements, for example. The eye relies upon that collection of these elements for its existence.
So how do we apply this level of understanding dependent arising as a means of realizing emptiness? We said that the I is a dependent, arising, relying upon its parts for its existence, that in terms of its reliance upon the body, the eastern, northern, western, southern parts of the body, that the eye relies upon these various parts of the body, that it relies upon the upper part of the body, it relies upon the lower part of the body for its existence. The eye is reliant for its very existence upon these parts. Therefore, there is no eye which is not reliant upon these parts. Therefore, there is no independent eye.
There is no inherently existent I. There is the emptiness of an inherently existent I. There exists the emptiness of an independently existent I. So of these three levels of interpretation of dependent arising, of the four Buddhist tenet systems, the philosophic systems of Buddhism, This this level of interpretation of dependent arising is asserted by the Great Exposition School, the Sūtra School, and the Mind Only School. This more subtle level of interpretation, the second interpretation of dependent arising is asserted by Within the Middle Way school, the Madhyamaka, there is a division into two schools: Autonomy and Consequentialist Middle Way schools.
This interpretation of dependent arising in which rising relies upon its parts is asserted by the Autonomy Middle Way School. It is not asserted by the lower tenet systems, those of the Great Exposition, the Sūtra School and the Mind Only School. And this presentation or interpretation of dependent arising is more subtle than their presentations. Finally there is this third level of interpretation dependent arising. And this is the final view, the most subtle of assertions with regard to dependent arising.
And this is the view which has the interpretation as asserted by the Consequentialist Middle Way school. So the first level of interpretation of dependent arising was arising through meeting. The second was arising in reliance. And here at the third level, the most subtle level of the interpretation of dependent arising, it is arising through dependence. And how is it that the phenomena arise through dependence?
If we would take as an example the glass, how does the glass come into existence? In what way is it established? Existence? First, it’s necessary that we have a rounded form made of glass. So we have a rounded form made of glass.
This rounded form is termed the basis of designation or in other words, basis of labeling or imputation, the rounded glass form. Then we supply a name. We impute glass. So we supply a name, glass. Then a thought comes and thinks of that object now as a glass.
So there are three parts of this process. There is a basis of designation, there is the phenomena being imputed, and there is the thoughts which think of that object now in that way. So it is in dependence upon the combination of these three elements that the final object comes into existence. If there was no basis of designation or if there was no name applied to that basis, or if there was no thought which subsequently thought of that object using that name, then the object existence. It would not be established.
It is in this way that the object arises independence. So taking another example, that of the table, how does the table come into existence? Before we designate the object, in this case as a table, there’s simply a flat board and a surface, a wooden flat surface. And before we designate it or label it as a table, there is no table. There is simply a level flat surface, a level wooden surface.
But we take that level wooden surface as the basis of labeling or designating and we think, Well, what should I call that? And we think, I’ll give it the name table. And then subsequent to having applied that name table to that flat wooden surface, we begin to think of that flat wooden surface as the table. It is a dependence upon a combination of these three elements of having a basis to be designated this flat wooden surface, applying a name, and thinking of it in terms of that name that finally the table actually comes into existence. So if we take another example, building of the actual house, Buddha house.
Now, it wasn’t, at first initially, it wasn’t Buddha house. There was a house, but it wasn’t Buddha house. So, you know, some people got together and they saw this house and they talked about it and they say, Well, let’s buy it. And having discussed it and come to an agreement, then they paid money for it. There was a house before this, but it was not Buddha house.
Not Buddha’s. So from where did Buddha House come? Initially, one of the past, first directors of Buddha House, his name is Doug, and Buddha House used to be a room in his backyard, and Lama Yeshe gave that room the name Buddha House. But eventually, some people got together and they brought a new premises. And so they carried that name from Doug’s backyard over to the present building and they then applied that name to the present building.
And in dependence upon the basis, the building that was there, and that name, the name of Buddha House, and beginning to think of this building as Buddha House, Buddha House came into existence. So before that name was applied to this building, there was in fact a building but it was not Buddha House. Before that name was given Buddha House did not exist. But now, that name was given to this building and now we all think of this building, oh, this is Buddha House. We look around and say, well, this is Buddha House.
But we can understand that without the building, which is the basis, which was eventually labeled and designated, without the name, Buddha House, and without our thinking of it as Buddha House, Buddha House does not exist. So this this manner of arising independence applies to all phenomena whatsoever. That the eye is merely imputed to the aggregates, that the glass is merely imputed to its basis of designation, the table all phenomena arise dependent upon this process of dependence. So if I were to take myself as an example, immediately upon my birth I didn’t have a name. And I was taken to a Lama and the Lama was requested to please give this baby a name.
So there were the five aggregates but without a name. And then the Lama gave these five aggregates a name, Lobsang Tukten. And then everybody started thinking of those five aggregates as Lobsang Tukten. And then I went on as Lobsang Tukten and I wasn’t a Geshe initially, but after a period of studying various texts, the abbot gave me the title of Geshe. Upon being given that title, I became known as Geshe Lobsang Tukten.
Yeah. And then eventually, when the monastery needed a new abbot, the Dalai Lama appointed me the abbot and be and dependent upon being given that title, I became known as Khenpo Geshe Lobsang Tukten. Yeah, I mean Khenpo. So I was I was given the name I was given the name Abbott and I started thinking of myself as the Abbott. So eventually I came to Buddha House.
Previous to that there was no teacher and then people started saying, Oh, he’s the teacher of Buddha House and I became the teacher of Buddha House. Now if I as Khensur Rinpoche were inherently existent, if I were inherently existent, then immediately upon my birth everybody would have exclaimed, Oh, there’s Lobsang Tukten, there’s the Geshe, there’s the Abbot. But no one said that. So people did not think of me in that way. Because the name had not been applied to me.
So if I were inherently existent, then immediately upon my birth, I would have been the Geshe, I would have been abbot, but I was not. That I, in order to become those, relied upon being given those titles, being designated as a Geshe, as an abbot. I wasn’t inherently so. If therefore I came into existence in reliance upon terms and conceptuality, in being given a name and thought of in that way. If I was inherently existent, I would not rely upon terms and conceptuality.
I would be truly existent. I would be self defining in my existence. Because I am not truly existent or self defining in my existence or inherently existent, I am empty of those ways of existing. So when meditate, we can follow the following lines of reasoning. We take ourselves as a subject.
I as a subject. I do not inherently exist. And The reason that we can give is because I exist in reliance upon a basis of designation and the phenomena which is designated. I rely upon a basis of designation and the phenomena which is designated and the conceptuality which makes use of that designation. So So this is what we can think of as dependent arising.
The eye is dependent arising because it is reliant upon a basis of designation, the phenomena designated, and the conceptuality which makes use of that designation. This way of thinking is very potent. Merely to label, merely to designate is not sufficient to bring about to bring a phenomena into existence. There must be there is a threefold convention which is necessary such that upon designation the phenomena actually exists. So there are three reasons which must be established.
Merely designation in itself is not sufficient. So in order for what is projected, what is designated or labeled to in fact exist, it must have three characteristics: it must be a renowned in the world by that name. That is, it must be well known in the world by that name. That’s the first. The second is that it must not be harmed by a conventional prime cognizer.
It must not be harmed, let us say, refuted by a conventional prime cognizer. And then the third is that it must not be harmed or refuted by an ultimate prime cognizer, which is reasoning with regard to the ultimate. Okay. So we’re going to stop there. If you have some questions, we’ll take some time for questions.
Yes? What about the case for reincarnation? Before he was he was a baby. He was given a name, and yet he was also the continuation he was also part of the continuum of of Lama Yeshe. Now, if he had never been identified as Lama Yeshe, would he no longer be the continuum of Lama Yeshe?
So the mind was in the continuum of lama yeshi, but the body was not? But still one of the things that would go up one element that would go to designating that being as, I mean, a sort of critical part. I mean, the body without the mind wouldn’t exist. So the mind is the thing that brings the body into existence. Right?
So I mean, it’s still I mean, it might not be Lama Yeshe’s body and mind, but people today can look at Lama Osel and say, he’s the reincarnation of Lama Yeshe. He had some connection with a person who went by that name. So I guess. So Before before he was recognized? Yeah.
Was there still something there that was inherently Lama Yeshe? Not inherently existent, but inherently Lama Yeshe. The the factor of Lama Yeshe does not exist from its own side in that child. It doesn’t exist from its own side. The factor, any factor of being a continuum of Lama Yeshe does not exist from its own side.
So, I mean, would accept that it’s not inherently existent. But if there’s no factor that’s inherently Lama Yeshi, in the case of the Pänchen Lama, why don’t we just say, well, okay, there’s nothing inherently Pänchen Lama ish about this child that’s now disappeared. Let’s pick another one. So that other So another child would be harmed by a valid cognition understanding that this is not the Pänchen Lama. There was three characteristics which necessarily must be complete.
The second one, it cannot be harmed by a conventional prime cognizer. Yeah, whoever. If it inherently exists, you should automatically know the name. The rang gi mtshan nyid kyis grub pa, using that reasoning. Should So the object is imputed by way of its name.
It depends upon its name for existence. We come to the thought this is this arises in dependence upon being given that name. If existed, if it inherently existed, its existence would not depend upon being given a name. We wouldn’t have to know its name in order to think about it. Its name would come from its own side, what it is would come from its own side.
If it inherently existed, without even knowing its name, we would be able to think about it and therefore we would know what its name is. It’s not dependent upon that name. Would, in order to think about it, we would know how to think about it by the power of the object itself without our necessarily giving that name. So a conventional prime cognizer is a cognizer which understands conventionalities. All the various things about us are conventionalities.
So that awareness which understands these is a conventional prime cognizer. An ultimate prime cognizer is a cognizer which realizes emptiness. So there were these two meditators, and they both decided that they were going to generate the realization the eye really isn’t. And the other one said, I’m gonna meditate on what the eye really is. What I wanna know is, do those two guys eventually get the same realization?
And if so, which one is more intelligent than what? What do you mean one’s gonna meditate on the eye what the eye is and isn’t? One’s going to meditate upon The eye is in a cow or something? One’s going to meditate on the fact that the eye is So, would those two ways of reasoning with regard to the eye lead to the same realization of selflessness? And which one, then what the final part of that question was?
Which one of those would be? So at first one would have to would have to reflect upon that the I is merely imputed by conceptuality and then subsequent to that one would understand that the I does not inherently exist. So one would precede the other. So, yeah, those are both necessary. First one tries to understand how the eye is merely imputed and then by the power of that understanding one will come to understand that the eye does not inherently exist.
What, that’s right, what, you said a clear, you mean a direct perception or inferential concept? A direct perception. So when that meditator is directly perceiving selflessness of I, what is appearing to that meditator? Meditator? When I’m just saying that a person generates a clear generates understanding of how how the eyes are made by the okay.
It didn’t say clear, but go ahead. Okay. So generates an understanding of how nice we are. So when a person’s meditating on that reason, what’s the beauty of it? The factor of being merely imputed is appearing.
On page ten. Why did I read that? Oh, the Jetsün Dragpa. Okay.