Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A white flower on the teaching table anchors Khensur Rinpoche’s analysis of emptiness in this 50-minute session from his 1990 Mahāmudrā retreat. He traces the two-step mechanism behind ignorance: the flower appears to the eye as existing “from its own side,” independently and objectively, and a conception then grasps that appearance as actually true — this grasping, he explains, is the precise obstruction to realising emptiness. A mirror analogy (a reflected face mistaken for a real face) sharpens the argument, and a personal anecdote about arriving in Australia without knowing the word “flower” illustrates that objects exist only through designation, not independently. He rounds off with the argument from dependent arising: a flower requiring seeds, soil, and water cannot be self-arising. Suited to practitioners working through the view of emptiness in the Mahāmudrā tradition.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 10 MR 1990 04 15.mp3
UUID: 72cee7f7-7f2b-4355-bdcd-a0f9707bdf60
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Mahāmudrā Retreat (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1990-04-15
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 49.9 minutes
Words: ~2,454
White white white flower. We do not see the white flower that the white flower is being we do not see that the white flower when we look at the white flower we do not understand that we are merely designating the white flower by means of a name. That the white flower is merely designated by name. When we look at the flower it appears to us that the white flower is coming from its own side, that it exists objectively, that it’s not being designated, that it exists by way of its own power independent of our mind. So when we look at the white flower, the white flower appears to exist from its own side, to objectively exist.
So first there is this appearance of true existence to the mind. Then there is a mental factor which grasps at that appearance as being the way the flower actually exists. So first there is the appearance of true existence, then there is a mental consciousness which grasps or holds that that appearance is in fact the way it actually exists, that it exists, truly existent as it appears. So the flower appears to the eye consciousness to truly exist, to exist from its own side, to naturally exist. The flower appears to the eye consciousness to objectively exist, to appear from its own side.
Then a conception grasp at that appearance as being true, as being exactly the way it in fact exists. This conception, this grasping, this is what we mean by grasping at true existence. It is this conception which takes its appearance as fact, grasps it as true. This is grasping at true existence or sometimes called conception of true existence. It is this conception of true existence which acts as acts an obstruction for us to be able to see the final mode of existence of the flower.
The grasping or the conception of true existence acts as an obstruction, as a hindrance, for us able to see the final mode of abidance of the flower, the nature of the flower. So the actual final mode of abidance, the final nature we can say, is emptiness. That is to say, mudra or chagya. But this grasping at true existence, this conception of true existence, this awareness obstructs us from seeing that final mode of abidance, prevents. So there is a grasping at the true existence that is to say that the validity of the appearance of the true existence of the flower by means of this conception of which is grasping a true existence, the conception of true existence grasps at the appearance as being the way the flower actually exists.
That conception abides within the person and as conception exists the person thinks in the same way as the conception which is contained within him. Therefore the person can conceives that, oh, this flower truly exists. And the person is thereby obstructed from understanding emptiness. So then what is the object of negation? I’m taking making use of this example.
So there is the object of negation. There is an awareness which is conceiving or grasping, whichever word you like, conceiving or grasping at the flower to exist from its own side objectively. That which it is grasping at, the objectively existing flower, is the object of negation. When we refute the truly existing flower, then we realize emptiness. So the object of negation is the object which the conception of true existence is grasping at, in this case, the truly existing flower.
Therefore, by refuting the truly existing flower, we realize emptiness. So the flower appears to the eye consciousness to exist from its own side. Another synonym for own side is objectively. Same meaning, same word. The flower appears to the eye objectively.
A conception then arises which takes that appearance and holds that this is actually the way the flower exists. It takes that appearance as being fact and holds that the flower truly existently exists. That is to say that it’s not being designated. The awareness holds that the flower exists, grasps that the flower exists objectively without being designated. Therefore, the object of negation is that which is being grasped at, the truly existent flower.
The nonexistence of the truly existent flower is what we realize. By refuting the truly existing flower, we realize emptiness. So we take an easy analogy of what we’re talking about. In the case we have a mirror and our face is reflected in the mirror. Appears a reflection of our face in the mirror.
To the eye consciousness, there appears a face. And following upon that the appearance to an eye consciousness of a face, a conception arises which grasps at that face as being actually a face, at that appearance of a face as being actually a face. So the the the face in the mirror appears to appears to the eye consciousness as independently existing from its own side and then conception arises which assents to that appearance. Let us say that’s the way that the face actually exists independently as it appears. So the reflection of a face appears to the eye consciousness to be a face and then a conception arises which conceives or grasps that this appearance as actually being a face and holds that this what is actually a reflection is a face in fact.
Understand that this reflection of a face is in fact not a face. It doesn’t exist the way it appears. So if we were to investigate, we would understand that this is merely the appearance of a reflection of a face. It is not actually a face. It only appears to be an actual face to a mistaken awareness.
It appears to be an actual face to a mistaken awareness. But therefore an actual face appears only by the force of a mistaken awareness. Upon investigation, we understand that it doesn’t exist the way it appears. It’s merely a reflection of a face. If we we were to ask, and this is a question, if we were to ask, is the reflection of a face in a mirror a face?
Is the reflection of a face in a mirror a face? So the reflection of a face in a mirror is not a face but when the eye but when we look in the mirror, the eye consciousness sees the appearance of a face. There then arises a conception — the eye consciousness sees a face. There is the appearance of a face. The conception arises which takes this appearance as being an actual face and holds that appearance as being an actual face, where in fact it’s not an actual face.
What actually appears to our our mind? Does is it a reflection of a face? It doesn’t it appears to be one’s one’s face. When you look in the mirror, there is the appearance of one’s face. Does it appear?
So there appears a face to this awareness. Is this awareness mistaken or not mistaken? So if this awareness is mistaken, in dependence upon what reason can we determine that it is mistaken? So in order There is a way we don’t have to break the mirror to determine to understand that the consciousness is mistaken. To what?
To have it check it with another. So if we take an easy example: the awareness which grasps at a non-flower as flower is mistaken because the flower is in fact a flower. By seeing that in fact the flower is a flower, this would prove that the awareness which is grasping at the flower as non-flower was mistaken. So the way that we can establish that the awareness which is grasping at this reflection as a face is mistaken is, as John mentioned, that we could touch our face and if we pinched it it would hurt. But we can’t touch this face out here if we it doesn’t hurt if it pinched.
So therefore we would come to understand that the conception which holds this appearance as a face was mistaken because it’s grasping at a non-face as a face. It’s grasping at something which is not a face as a face. Therefore, it’s mistaken. So the reason which would establish that this awareness is mistaken is that the object it is grasping at — a face in the mirror — is mistaken because that appearance is not a face. That awareness which grasps at the appearance of the face in a mirror as a face is mistaken because that appearance is not a face.
Therefore, this awareness is mistaken. So taking the example of the flower, when we when when we look at the flower, the flower appears to exist from its own side. Then there is a conception which grasps appearance, grasps at the flower the way it appears, that it now grasps at the flower to exist from its own side. How are we to understand that this awareness is mistaken? If we can proceed to prove that the flower does not exist from its own side, then we can say that the awareness was grasped at it to exist from its own side is mistaken.
Just as in the case where we were able to prove that the awareness which grasped at the reflection of a face to be a face by ascertaining that the reflection is in fact not a face and therefore that the awareness which grasps at as a face must be in fact mistaken. That is mistaken is a wrong consciousness. It is a perverted consciousness. Likewise, we can come to understand that the conception of true existence is a mistaken consciousness because it’s grasping at the flower to exist from its own side. And if we can prove that the flower does not exist from its own side, then we can come to understand that this conception of true existence is a mistaken consciousness, a wrong consciousness.
If we can prove when we realize that the conception of true existence is a mistaken consciousness, then we realize emptiness. When we realize that the conception of true existence is a mistaken consciousness, then we realize emptiness. And how how are we to realize that the conception of true existence is mistaken? In the case of the flower, that the conception which grasps at the flower or conceives the flower to exist from its own side is mistaken because we can go on to prove by various reasons that the flower is not existing from its own side. Therefore, this conception is wrong and mistaken.
So, if the flower does not exist from its own side, then how does it exist? First, we have to, in order to understand how it does exist, we have to see all the various faults which occur if in fact the flower did exist from its own side. If the flower did exist from its own side, there would be many faults, mistakes. But on the other hand, if it does not exist from its own side, we can find no mistake in that way of existing. So the flower does not exist from its own side.
If it did exist, hypothetically, if it did exist from its own side, what faults? We have to recognize what faults would accrue, what faults there would be. That the flower, if the flower exists from its own side, it would not be designated, by means of a name. Its flowerness would exist from its own side. It would be a flower from its own side.
Whoever looked at it would know that this is a flower. If someone had never seen a flower before, when they looked at this white flower, they would say, “Oh, isn’t that a beautiful white thing?” They would not think — it does not rise in their mind —
Isn’t this a beautiful white flower? Someone who’s never seen a flower before, when they see this white flower, do they think, Oh, this is a beautiful white flower? What what’s the reason that you do not have developed this thought? Oh, good. That’s right.
If one is not able to give the name, if one does not know the name, one is not able to give the name, the thought identifying that object cannot arise. One cannot know that this is a white flower because one is not able to give the label or impute the label to that object. What would be necessary would somebody would say, Oh, this is a flower. And this person would understand what he meant. And then subsequent to that, when he sees this object, he would designate that object as a flower and then the thought could arise, isn’t this a beautiful flower?
Previous to that, this thought could not arise because he doesn’t know the name of the object. This is one reason which establishes that the flower does not exist in dependence upon its own side. Previously, when I came to Australia I saw this thing and I didn’t know what a flower was. I would say, “Isn’t that a beautiful me tok?” — me tok means flower in Tibetan.
And when I first saw it, I said, “That’s a beautiful me tok.” But someone told me the name of that object and I understood. And then now when I see that, the thought arises: “Isn’t that a flower?” What do you what do you call the what do you call these things? Glasses.
Glasses. Glasses. You don’t say — what do you call them in Tibetan? If glasses existed from their own side, then even when you saw them they would rise in your mind as “glasses.” Oh, look at the things on the table there.
So if, again, another reason. If the flower existed by means of its own common mode of subsistence, objective mode of its own uncommon objective mode of subsistence from its own side then it would not rely upon causes and conditions. For example, it would not rely upon the cause, the main cause which is the seed, or the conditions such as the earth, the water, fertilizer, etc. It would exist from its own side independent of these causes and conditions. So in order to grow a flower, we have to rely on the seeds, earth water, other and various conditions.
Therefore, the flower relies on something other than itself. It is not, it is not, it does not exist by means of its own power. That is to say, it does not exist independently. It is not independently existing. It does not exist by way of its own nature.