Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. The most memorable moment in this 95-minute Mahāmudrā session is Khensur Rinpoche reaching back to his own birth to illustrate dependent designation: before a Lama named him “Lobsang Thubten,” he says, that person simply did not exist. The session builds toward this through a careful sequence: Rinpoche first distinguishes calm abiding from special insight, using two vivid analogies — analyzing what makes a person attractive until you cannot sit still, and rehearsing grievances until you want to strike — to show how analytic wisdom intensifies the mind beyond mere fixation. He credits Tsongkhapa for restoring analytic meditation to Tibetan practice, then works through the two selflessnesses (of persons and of phenomena) and the doctrine of two truths. A brief Q&A closes on whether animals, lacking language, can still hold a conception of “I.”
File metadata (for organising)
File: 15 MM 1997 03 04.mp3
UUID: adebcf63-aaa3-4747-a7a7-4ce7111fd8ae
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Mahāmudrā 1996-97 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1997-03-04
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 95.0 minutes
Words: ~5,191
It’s necessary to, as a prerequisite, cultivate love and compassion, and understanding that all sentient sentient beings, whosoever are just like ourselves, they all want happiness and do not want to suffer. And developing love expressed in the thought, It would be wonderful if myself and all sentient beings had happiness in the causes of happiness. And then cultivating compassion expressed in the thought, It’d be wonderful if myself and all others were separated from suffering and the causes of suffering. And then in addition to that, one goes on to strengthen those attitudes of mind by developing the exceptional resolve with regard to first love that I myself will bring happiness and the causes of happiness to all living beings, and with regards to compassion, that I myself will free all living beings from suffering and the causes of suffering. But these attitudes of mine, even though they’re extremely kind hearted attitude such as wishing that all sentient beings have complete happiness and wishing that they be completely free of suffering, and that though they are exceptional in their resolve, we have to ask ourselves, can we in fact do them or do we have the ability?
And when we investigate, we see that at present we do not have the ability to fulfill these aspirations. How can we actually achieve that ability whereby to bring these aspirations about? It is by initially bringing about our own welfare. If we can eliminate all of the various afflictive emotions along with their seeds and latencies from our own mental continuum, then we can actually possess the ability to bring to be of service to others in fulfilling this aspiration. So it’s necessary first to bring about our own welfare in this way.
So having understood this, that in order to bring about the welfare of others, one must initially bring about one’s complete own welfare. To have that ability, then one aspires to the state whereby one abandons all the various afflictive emotions along with their latencies. One achieves the complete, perfect, authentic state of Buddhahood. This mind which aspires to that end is the awakened heart. Then there’s no way that we can bring about the complete welfare of others secondarily.
So therefore, initially, we must begin by bringing about our own complete welfare and then subsequent to that, to work to bring about the welfare of all. But how, in fact, are we to bring about the complete welfare of others? It is by first knowing all of the various dispositions, all the various capacities, the various wishes of sentient beings, that they have a vast variety of dispositions and capacities, and we must be able to discern, being able to classify what kind of disposition and capacity they have. And having done that, we’re able to present a teaching which would be of greatest possible benefit for this possible student at this particular time. And this way, skillfully leading them on to liberation, This is the way that we can bring about the welfare of others.
In order to achieve such an ability, we each must first eliminate all our various faults. In order to eliminate our various faults, we must recognize what those faults in fact are, and then begin to apply antidotes to remove those faults. This is done through a process of first listening, then reflecting, and meditating. So with the motivation to listen to this present teaching on the universal vehicle, that of the great seal, with such an attitude to bring about this end. So beginning with the quotation from the King of Meditative Stabilization Sūtra, in which the Śākyamūni Buddha says he is discussing selflessness, and he says that there are two types of selflessnesses.
There is selflessness of persons, and here I’ll be using the word persons. They can extend it to all beings in general, but I’ll just use the word persons rather than being. So the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena. If one examines either, one should be able to If one analyzes, one should be able to find a self, but upon analysis one does not come to see or to find either a self of phenomena or a self of persons. One comes to understand on the contrary the selflessness of both of these.
That which understands selflessness of both of these is the wisdom of understanding selflessness. It is by means of this wisdom of understanding selflessness that the afflictive emotions are abandoned, that one is able to be liberated from the cycle of existence and achieve a beyond a passage beyond sorrow, nirvana. This is the method whereby to achieve this. Without the understanding without the wisdom of realizing selflessness, there is no other way. So there are a variety of afflictive emotions, but they can be condensed into the three root afflictive emotions, those of attachment, hatred, ignorance.
If we were to apply an antidote to attachment, then we would be able to eliminate attachment, but we would not be able to abandon the other afflictive emotions thereby. Likewise, if we were to apply an antidote to hatred, we would be able to eliminate hatred, but not be able to eliminate the other afflictive emotions thereby. But in the case of ignorance, it is by means of applying the antidote to ignorance we can remove all of the various afflictive emotions, and that antidote is the wisdom realizing emptiness. By means of the wisdom realizing emptiness, we are able to destroy all of the afflictive emotions. So it is this wisdom realizing emptiness which we are to seek to cultivate.
And it is the special insight of this variety, of the wisdom realizing emptiness of this sort of special insight, which is able to remove the afflictive emotions from their very root. Therefore, it is said that this special insight is one of the most wonderful qualities that we can develop within our minds. So previously, we have explained the methods for cultivation of calm abiding, and now we’re going to begin the explanation of the cultivation of special insight. But we should understand that special insight depends upon the development of calm abiding, and how are we to go about cultivating calm abiding? What is its extraordinary cause?
It is listening again and again to teachings on emptiness, again and again reflecting upon those teachings, and meditating again and again. This is said to be the extraordinary or special cause for the development of special insight. So with regard to meditation, you know, generally, we have a great liking for meditation, and we can classify meditations into two categories, analytic meditations and stabilizing meditations. So the first of the we’re beginning with that meditation on stabilizing variety. Stabilizing meditation is sometimes called fixative meditation, and we explained that in the course of developing Calm Abiding, the method was by means of removing the five faults by applying the eight antidotes.
Having done that, then the object of observation becomes extremely clear and we’re able to abide on it very steadily. We’re able to hold to it without any fluctuation of the mind. For example, we said that we could take as an object of observation the body of a Buddha. When this is able to appear very clearly to our mind, and we’re able to place our mind single pointedly upon it without any kind of fluctuation of the mind, then this is said to be the attainment of the calm abiding or a type of stabilizing meditation. Likewise, we can also have a stabilizing meditation on emptiness.
We can first identify what is the object of negation, and when the object of negation eventually appears to ourselves, then we proceed in the same way. But first there is an initial analytic part to the meditation where we try to determine what is the object of negation. But once that is determined, once the object of negation appears to the mind, then we no longer analyze. We simply place the mind just as we did in the calm abiding meditation, upon the object. This again would be a stabilizing meditation where the mind is now being placed upon a single object without analysis.
In this case, it would be emptiness. It would be calm abiding, taking as its object of observation, emptiness. But special insight is something additional to simply what has been thus described, thus far described. We said that calm abiding was a single-minded placement. There is a meditative equipoise on emptiness.
special insight introduces additional factor of wisdom. And wisdom is an investigative consciousness. It is an analytic consciousness. So while the mind is abiding by means of calm abiding upon its object, then the wisdom factor analyzes with reason the object itself, in this case emptiness. But by this is the method whereby bliss is induced.
So there is no hindrance to how one proceeds in meditation. One meditates without any difficulty and it is by the power, one reaches a point that by the very power of analysis, bliss is generated. Having as its object emptiness, then this is the state of having achieved special insight. By the power of analysis, the bliss is induced by the by a wisdom factor, then this is special insight. So calm abiding is a type of stabilizing meditation.
It has a factor of single pointed placement upon its object. Whereas special insight has an additional factor, that it has an investing quality whereby it’s analyzing its object. And it in the case of emptiness, it is able to penetrate its object in a much more deeper fashion due to the additional factor of wisdom. That’s why it’s called special insight. Another way it could be translated is sight which exceeds mere calm abiding.
It’s clearer, it’s more penetrative and it’s coming in its way it apprehends its object. It exceeds calm abiding, especially it’s more the idea of exceeds. What can do is I thought So both of these are mental factors. Calm abiding is a mental factor within of meditative stabilization, and special insight is a mental factor of wisdom. Though both of these awarenesses have the same object, that is to say they’re both observing emptiness, there is a tremendous difference in both their ability and power.
Therefore, is a tremendous difference between these two, calm abiding and special insight observing emptiness. By way of to illustrate the difference between these two factors in their difference in degree of ability and power by way of analogy. Suppose that you had a someone was thinking of their girlfriend or their boyfriend. And they were just casually thinking about this other person when it came to mind. And they were saying, oh, they’re really wonderful.
But it wasn’t a very forceful thought. But if they were to go on, image of them appeared to their mind and they thought how wonderful they are. But if they went to go on, well what is it about them that’s so wonderful? Oh, it’s the shape, her figure, physique, or her color, her complexion, or the smoothness of her skin. Going through all this great analysis, then one would develop a great deal of energy out of this analysis.
This analytic factor is actually a wisdom. One would reach the place where one couldn’t sit still any longer. One had one had to go find him or her. So the same can hold true the reverse emotion and continue with this this analogy in the case of hatred, you know, You call to mind someone that you don’t like, someone you dislike. And just the calling to mind and thinking, holding them in your mind, kind of single-minded and placing on them with this sort of hatred.
That’s like calm abiding, just observing this person with a kind of hatred in your heart. But then we go on to analyze, not just holding onto the image of them. You begin to churn over in your mind what they did to you last year, what they did to you last month, how they hurt you, the nasty words that they said to you, all the troubles that they caused you. You get to the point where you want to bite them. If they were there, would hit them on the head.
That you would that forceful of a sense would feeling would come to you. So in this analogy, we can begin to get appreciate the how the factor of analysis, how the factor of wisdom analyzing can increase the power and ability and the potency of the mind. When we just think about the faults of this person that we don’t like, and we don’t really analyze it in a various way, there’s this, as compared to when we begin to investigate and analyze, in fact, this analytic analysis is actually an analytic meditation. We’re performing analytic meditation on how bad this person really is. Whereas previously, we just thought this person is bad.
We just kind of fixated upon that. That’s meditative stabilization. And the same holds to the other analogy where we thought how wonderful this person is and then go in. That would simply be and fixate upon that without really analyzing. That’s simply a meditative stabilization.
Whereas when we go on to analyze with a factor of wisdom, then it increases the forcefulness of the mind. So we can see how this factor of analysis increases the ability and potency of the mind as opposed to simply fixating upon the object. So it is this. The analytic meditation was tremendous was emphasized by Tsongkhapa as a supreme method to work with. It was not prevalent as a means of meditation prior in Tibet, prior to Tsongkhapa.
It was Tsongkhapa who emphasized the necessity to cultivate analytic meditation. So, however, it is an analytic meditation observing emptiness by means of which we generate the power of the wisdom realizing emptiness. That is to say, we develop a special insight, observing emptiness. And it is proportionate to this special insight, and the wisdom of this special insight, that we will be that we in proportion to its power, it will be able to act as correspondingly and proportionally to as an antidote to ignorance. As the power of this wisdom of special insight, observing emptiness, increases, it be able to that much more have the ability to abandon the ignorance.
It will be able to eliminate that much more ignorance from our mind. So by way of analogy, it would be the same as if two armies faced one another in war. That if they were equal in their power, then it would what would come out of that would be a long stalemate. They would it would just be they wouldn’t one would not be able to overcome the other. But if in the case of wisdom and ignorance, if we can increase or but if one were able to increase its power, then it could easily, readily overcome its enemy.
Likewise, if we can increase the power of our wisdom to that same degree that it is increased, we can remove much ignorance that much quicker. It to the same degree of the power of wisdom that much we’re able to remove that much ignorance and that much quicker. So I mean, but this way of example, was probably good example would be President Bush against the Iraqi army. On the other hand, in the case of Yugoslavia where the sides are evenly matched, it’s gone on for many years. Likewise, it is in accordance with the degree of special insight and its power that we are able to overcome and eliminate the conception with regard to the true existent self.
If we don’t have special insight and we only have calm abiding, then we will not be able to eliminate the conception of a self, of a truly existent self. But we need a combination of these two. We need these two conjoined, conjunction of calm abiding and special insight. It is insight, using analytic reasoning, investigates its object. Then it comes to a conclusion.
One then uses calm abiding to abide and meditate equipoise on that understanding. Then one goes again using analytic reasoning, again investigating the object, coming to a conclusion, again abiding single pointedly upon that understanding. So a couple of working back and forth of these two factors of calm abiding and special insight is the means whereby we can abandon the afflictive emotions from their root. It is the afflictive these are the causes of our suffering, and they have as their root ignorance. It is only by means of a combination of these two, special insight and calm abiding, that we are able to remove the afflictive emotions, thereby suffering.
Without the combination of these two, there’s no other there’s no way. So what is the object of observation of these two, that is a calm abiding and special insight? What are we observing? We are observing the two types of selflessnesses. As the glorious Candrakīrti says,, that sentient beings are freed by means of selflessness.
And this selflessness is divided into two, the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena. So what is the difference between these two selflessnesses, the selflessness phenomena and the selflessness of persons? They are distinguished in terms of the basis of the selfless. That is, the basis of the emptiness. In the one case, the basis is persons, and again, it extends to all living beings.
And in the other, it is all existences other than beings, other than persons, than persons. So it is what is empty. The basis of the selflessness is, in one case, persons, and the other is all existences other than persons or other than beings. So what do we mean by beings? We mean, for example, there are human beings, horses, dogs, cats, insects.
That is to say, anything that has life, we are calling beings. I’m just, by way of ease of translation, I will call persons. So again, what do we mean by the beings or persons? It is the beings are imputed to the collection of the five aggregates. The five aggregates, for example, are form aggregate, or generally we could just say body, the feelings pleasurable feelings, unpleasurable feelings, discriminations, such types of discriminations that this is yellow, this is red, these types are perceptions.
Then there is the aggregate of consciousnesses. And then everything that’s left over, which is a functional phenomena, is grouped into an aggregate called compositional factors. So there are these five aggregates, and this five aggregates acts as the basis for imputing. Upon this collection of the five aggregates, we impute the person, we impute the being. So the basis of imputing beings is the five aggregates.
So we if we just take amongst these beings, if we just take use ourselves as examples of persons, we quite naturally there arises within our mind the conception of I. We think I go, or I stay, I sleep, I talk, I work, all of these various thoughts about I. But this also extends to other beings. Dogs and horses, fish, even insects have this natural thought of I with regards to themselves. So all of those objects which generate such a type of conception with regards to themselves as I, I, I, we are classified as beings.
Those objects which do not generate such a type of thought about themselves For example, the cup or the book or the flower or the table, we are calling phenomena. So we call these phenomena as being not sentient beings, not beings are termed phenomena. So if we were to exemplify what we mean by these two categories, the emptiness in terms of persons or again, I mean by persons, all beings Emptiness in terms of persons is an example of the selflessness of persons. Emptiness in terms of phenomena is an example of selflessness of phenomena. So, whatever the the object might be, whether it’s a phenomena or a person, if it exists, it additionally has the quality of being empty.
There is no existent, that is to say there is no being or phenomena which is not empty. So what do we mean by emptiness? So in talking about emptiness, we’re talking about the mode of abidance, the way an object abides. It’s the way it exists. The mode of abidance or the way it exists.
It is the ultimate, it is the deepest most nature of the object, the final mode of existence, its final reality of which there is no deeper or no higher. So we can apply all of these various descriptions to what we mean when we say emptiness. We can say it’s the ultimate mode of abidance. It’s the ultimate way things exist. It is the ultimate truth about objects, things, existences.
We can talk about there are varieties of phenomena. We can talk about the truth of phenomena or the falsities of phenomena. Here we’re talking about the truth of phenomena, but more over and above that, it’s ultimate truth. In in worldly terms, we can describe somebody as being truthful or as being deceptive. Or we can just shorten those terms and say true and false.
But we can also use that same division with regard to phenomena in general, that we can describe phenomena as true or false. So the analogy of worldly terms that we describe someone who does exactly as they say, that there’s no discrepancy between what they what comes out of their mouth and what they do in fact. We say that that person is straightforward, that they’re honest. We say we think of them as a good person. Why?
Because they’re truthful. On the other hand, someone who acts in contrary to what they say, we call them dishonest in some fashion that they are deceptive or false. Isn’t we use this way of expression? So if there’s, in the one case, there’s an agreement between, there’s agreement between what is said and what is done. The two accord with one another.
They fit together. They accord with one another. They agree with one another. And in the latter case, there is a what is said and what is done are in discord, in disagreement with one another. So there are two truths.
Emptiness is the ultimate truth. Is emptiness is truth. All other phenomena are false. So we said that emptiness is true. Emptiness is true.
And in what way do we are we able to say that emptiness is true? We would previously we were talking about special insight, and special insight is the wisdom which realizes emptiness. So when the wisdom directly realizes emptiness, there is something appearing to the mind. There is something appearing. Emptiness appears to that wisdom.
But moreover, it not only appears that way, but it also exists that way. So there is an agreement, a concordance between the way the object emptiness appears to that wisdom realizing emptiness and the way that it exists, the way that it abides. So we said that there were two truths. There is the ultimate truth and conventional truth. They’re sometimes called truth for, or the deceptive truth.
So what we said, a special insight is the wisdom directly realizing emptiness, and this is the ultimate. And what does this ultimate consciousness see? It sees emptiness, and therefore it sees the truth. Therefore emptiness is called true or the ultimate truth. On the other hand, conventional truth is false or is a falsity.
If we take as an example of a conventional truth, a flower. And the flower is seen with the eye consciousness. Don’t the ear consciousness and the nose consciousness, etc, they do not see the flower. It is the eye consciousness which actually perceives the flower. And upon directly seeing the flower, we might think of the flower thinking as this is a good flower.
But how does the eye consciousness see the flower? What is it actually seen? When we analyze the flower, we can come to understand that the flower has been designated as such. That there was an initial person who gave it the name flower and that in dependence upon this, being given this name, the flower came into existence. So the flower exists in terms of being imputed.
It exists by way of being designated. But if we were to examine how does the flower actually appear to the eye consciousness directly perceiving the flower, we would see that it appears to exist from its own side objectively. The flower appears to be coming completely from its own side. It does not appear to the eye consciousness as if it were established by way of being previously named flower, that its existence has somehow been necessarily dependent upon being previously given that name flower. On contrary, it appears to be existing completely from its own side.
But there is no flower that has not dependent for its existence on previously being given the name flower. Even so the way it, there is no flower which exists the way it is appearing. That flower as it appears to the eye consciousness does not exist. Therefore, it’s a falsity. Many of you are probably wondering about now.
Is is this really the case? You know, Is this the way things actually are? You’re creating some kind of doubts in your mind. But if if we individually reflect upon our own experience, we will come to understand this. So thinking about our own experience, we all of us came into this world, you know, been born from a mother, there was a point when we were just born and naked and you know, saying, ah, ah, We have we we all were in existed in such a state at one point.
Now we all have our individual names, who we have come to be known as. But at the moment of our birth, did we have that name? At the moment of birth, did we have that name? Were we that person? Yes or no?
So none of us came with our names into this world. These names had to be acquired. They had to be given to us, designated upon us, whether it be Deo or Jampa, that all these various names were given to ourselves. In my own case, I didn’t come into this world with what I am called now. That when I came into this world, when I was first born, I had no name.
And people sat around trying, well, what should we call him? And someone said, well, let’s They said, well, they took him to a high Tibetan Lama. And they please give the baby a name. And the Lama said, I call this baby Lobsang Thubten. And then subsequent to that, the mother said, Oh, that’s a nice name, Lobsang Thubten.
Call it Lobsang Thubten. Then somebody else called that same baby Lobsang Thubten. A third person called that baby Lobsang Thubten. Everybody became to call that baby Lobsang Thubten. Before that, they gave that name.
So that baby Lobsang Thubten didn’t exist. But eventually, through the power of being designated by that, using that name, Lobsang Thubten came into existence. So when other eventually when other others saw me, they they thought, oh, there’s Lobsang Thubten. And I myself, when I began to think of myself, I began to think of myself, I’m Lobsang Thubten. So Lobsang Thubten only came into existence, in dependence upon being designated by that name. Without being designated with that name, Lobsang Thubten didn’t exist, did he?
And all of you are exactly the same? But having said all of that, how does Lobsang Thubten actually appear? When somebody calls to me Lobsang Thubten, though in fact Lobsang Thubten has come into existence, was established in dependence upon a Lama giving that name in the past, When someone calls me, there arises in my mind I’m being called. And there is no sense of that Lobsang Thubten, who is that I, being dependent or reliant. It appears that Lobsang Thubten exists from its own side, somewhere amongst the aggregates that there is a Lobsang Thubten which doesn’t rely upon being designated by a name, that exists from its own side.
That’s the way Lobsang Thubten appears to me. But though there appears, the way the I, or Lobsang Thubten, appears to exist not dependent upon being designated by name, though it appears that way, it doesn’t exist that way. That there is no Lobsang Thubten who exists that way. Therefore, we say that Lobsang Thubten is a falsity. And you all are the same.
So though the eye appears not to exist in dependence upon being designated by a name but appears to exist from its own side. That’s the way it appears. And that the conception of truly existent self assents to that appearance thinking, Ah, that’s the way the self exists. The conception of the truly existent self, that conception, thinks, ah, and that’s the way it appears that way, and that’s the way it exists. So we won’t go on for a long time.
It’s we’ll stop here, and we’ll spend five minutes on questions. Did anyone hear the question? So, Jampa was questioning that. Previously, Rinpoche said that insects and animals along with ourselves have a natural thought of I arising. Jampo’s question, well, if they don’t have language, how can they have such a conception which thinks I?
So those who are dumb, who don’t have an oral language, generate the thought, you know, I’m sick or I’m unhappy. But even, for example, with dogs, when they see their owner, a happiness arise in their mind due to a thought, My master, or if there’s a thief who might steal something, they become anxious and they begin to bark. So they they also are thinking in terms of that the thief might someone might is threatening to take something, so they bark. So even when Rinpoche was describing extremely small insects, I don’t know, even without eyes, so maybe we’re getting down to single celled animals. They have a drive due to a conception that they are hungry and a drive to eat, and conceiving it.
If you disturb them, then they generate a fear, thinking that they’re under threat. They have all of these various and these all come about through a conception of I, that this I is hungry and needs to be fed, or this I is under threat and therefore generating fear. Even down to these small organisms, they still have a conception of I. So if you make a threatening movement toward a dog, they recoil from you and that reflex of recoiling under threat is dependent upon a conception that I am under threat. There’s a conception of something which is under threat, the I is under threat, and they generate fear.