Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 49-minute session, Khensur Rinpoche builds toward Mahāmudrā’s central insight through the reasoning of dependent arising: dissecting a flower petal by petal (none is the flower; it is merely designated onto the collection), then applying the same logic to a car and to the five aggregates. The argument peaks when Rinpoche traces his own names — from childhood’s Lobsang Tutten through monk, geshe, abbot, and ex-abbot — to show that persons too exist only through designation, never from their own side. He frames the stakes with Āryadeva’s observation that positive potential is needed even to doubt emptiness, and a scorched-seed image illustrates how direct realization destroys karma’s potency. A brief sitting meditation closes the session.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 11 MR 1990 04 15.mp3
UUID: 071aa8c0-1387-4a45-84f5-1f467d909943
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Mahāmudrā Retreat (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1990-04-15
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 48.8 minutes
Words: ~2,553
So as we said, to establish that something is not independently existing, we investigate using various types of reasoning and see what types of faults would accrue if things in fact existed independently. And we have two. This latter one that we just talked about was that the flower would exist independent of its causes and conditions. We wouldn’t need seeds or earth or anything. We would just have a flower existing from its own side without depending upon conditions.
Therefore, in this way we understand that the flower is not independently existing. Also, if the flower existed independently by way of its own power, another way of saying the same thing, that whoever saw the flower there were to rise in their mind the thought this is a flower. But we understand that this is not the case, that this doesn’t happen. This is another understanding all these various faults which accrue if the flower were to exist independently, we understand that in fact it does not exist independently, is dependently existing. Other power.
Means of investigating with various reasons such as in this way we come to understand that the awareness which holds objects to exist from their own side that they naturally exist from that they exist by way of their own power Such types of awarenesses are wrong consciousnesses. And when we realize that these are wrong consciousnesses, then we realize the emptiness which is the ultimate nature of reality, and we realize the chagya or mudra. And carrying out an investigation as to the object of negation whether Whether this flower for example exists from its own side, whether it naturally exists by means of its own power. Whether it exists by means of its own power independently or doesn’t exist independently by means of its own power objectively. This is the meditation on Mahāmudrā and we’ll carry out this type that we just talked about this way of proceeding investigating.
We’ll meditate on that for five minutes. So we’ll stop there. So the great master of the Middle Way view, Āryadeva, who was a disciple of Nāgārjuna, said that those with no positive potential do not even develop a doubt as to emptiness, thinking, is this actually empty or not? What to say of realizations of it? He went on to say that we need a great deal of positive potential, skillful actions in order to realize emptiness.
What to say of realizations. To be able to reflect upon it. We need positive potential to investigate it. Merely investigating by investigating emptiness because we are able to destroy the root of cyclic existence. The root of cyclic existence is the conception of true existence.
By emptiness, then cyclic existence will have no power over us. We have destroyed its very root. Analogy would be taking for example this tree. If we were to pour hot water on its roots it would harm it a great deal. There’s actually the danger, there’s possibility that it might die.
And likewise by pouring the hot water of the realization of emptiness merely by investigating emptiness is like pouring hot water on the roots of cyclic existence or damaging at its very roots. So we’ve been reflecting this afternoon on emptiness and therefore it’s sure that we all have — so in a bit that we have had an explanation on emptiness, that you have had the opportunity to listen to the explanation on emptiness, that we have been investigating emptiness with various types of reasoning is a sign that we all have a great deal of positive potential and simply by doing what we’ve been doing this afternoon that we have come that much closer to liberation from cyclic existence, to abandoning cyclic existence and gaining the happiness of liberation. So in investigating emptiness, we investigate emptiness in order to develop the wisdom which directly realizes emptiness. And this wisdom is just like a fire. As in the case of a seed of various grains, for example wheat or rice, just touching the seed with a fire, that is to say scorching it.
We don’t have to burn it just to barely to scorch it till it turns a sort of a burnish until it’s slightly tanned. That destroys the potency of the seed. And though we take that seed and plant it in soil, add water, it will never sprout. Its potency has been destroyed. Likewise, wisdom of directly realizing emptiness is like the fire which scorches the seeds of our karma, such that they lose their potency whereby we are no longer have to take rebirth within cyclic existence.
So in this way, by means of the direct realization of the direct realization of emptiness the wisdom was directly realized as emptiness we no longer have to take rebirth in cyclic existence rebirth ceases in cyclic existence and therefore we no longer have to experience the suffering of cyclic existence. The reason that we experience the sufferings of cyclic existence is that we continue to take rebirth within it. Concomitant with this non-necessity to take rebirth in cyclic existence that we achieve the happiness of liberation, that is elimination of all suffering whatsoever, that we experience only happiness. And this is Mahāmudrā. In order to so we are we are trying to induce this excellent awareness which is the direct realization of emptiness.
But this is quite a high realization. This is a direct realization of emptiness. This is one that is superior having this Prior to that, as those who have studied awareness and knowledge know, there are two types of valid cognitions. One is an inferential valid cognition and the other is a direct valid cognition. The inferential cognition makes uses of meaning generalities or generic images.
We understand by means of inference rather than directly. So, in order to we generate inferential valid cognizers in dependence upon correct signs, upon correct reasoning. That is to say we are in dependence upon correct lines of reasoning. We come to an inferential understanding. So the Buddha Dharma is very much in accord with the scientific methods in that and we are seeking to come to understandings by means of investigation using correct reasoning.
And we will apply that same method to coming to an understanding using correct reasoning in order to come to an understanding of emptiness. So in reflecting upon the order to actually reflect upon the reasoning involved in coming to an understanding of emptiness we must train in the various reasonings. A means to do that we must listen to the explanations of emptiness and the various reasonings again and again and again to attend teachings which present the reasoning involved in coming to this understanding. Without this process of listening, then there’s no way that we can reason about it. So there there are infinite numbers infinite ways of reasoning in order to come to an understanding of emptiness.
But amongst these infinite number of ways of reasoning, there are five main ways of reasoning. And amongst these five, the most important for beginners, the most effective for beginners, is the reasoning surrounding one or many. The first one, one or many. That’s the first type of reasoning. And the second type of reasoning is dependent arising.
This was as presented by the great master Nāgārjuna in his Middle Way School. In our present text on Mahāmudrā, the type of reasoning which is presented is the reasoning of dependent arising. So we have actually explained very roughly already the intent of the reasoning of dependent arising when we talked about the flower this morning. So let’s look at the flower. As we said, flower is designated by name and when we investigate the flower, we ask, is this petal the flower?
No, it’s not the flower. Is this petal the flower? No, it’s not the flower. And we go on to the various petals and none of them are the flower. Is this stem the flower?
No, it’s not the flower. So where is the flower? So we, you know, we examine is the stamen stamen is not the flower. The petals are not the flower. The stem is not the flower.
So where is the flower? The collection of all of these parts is basis upon which we designate the name flower. The the the upon these we then we merely name flower. So the the the the flower is merely designated to the basis, that is the collection of all of these parts. It is merely being designated labeled by name.
It does not exist from its own side. That is, it doesn’t exist independently. It doesn’t exist independently. The flower does not exist independently. The first person he gave this collection of parts, he said he gave it, I’m going give it the name Flower.
Before that Flower didn’t exist. He just gave it that name out of his own wish. There was no reason that he had to give this thing this particular name flower. He just wished to call it flower. Before he named it, flowers didn’t exist.
After he gave it this name, flowers, and dependence upon being given that name, came into existence. Then after that subsequently, we know these things as flowers. Taking the an easy example of a car you know we all know what a car is we all ride in them and question well what is the car? And we begin to examine and investigate it. And we see, well the wheels, the tires aren’t the car.
The frame is not the car. The seats inside are not the car. The motor is not the car. Then where is the car? The car is taking all of these various parts, the collection of them, taking them as a basis, and upon that we designate, we label, we project the project the car upon that, this collection of parts.
It’s merely designated. So if we extend that understanding and exemplify it with trying to investigate the nature of the I, the person. I and person are taken as synonyms here. That just that we are made up of aggregates just as in the for example by aggregates there are the five aggregates. There is the body body aggregate.
There is the feeling aggregate, the aggregate of feelings such as happy feelings, suffering feelings. There is the aggregate of perceptions, sometimes called discriminations. This is a book, this is a table, this is a pencil, this discrimination, this type of consciousness. There is aggregates of the fourth aggregate is various types of consciousnesses which are not included in these second and third, which are not feelings, which are not discriminations such as desires, such as effort. Various types of consciousnesses are included in the fourth thought constructions.
And then the fifth aggregate is consciousness itself. That the person that is taking these aggregates just like in the car, there was this collection and we designated a car. Likewise, upon these five aggregates, we designate person or I. The person is merely designated to the aggregates. So if I take myself as an example that who I am.
Know that I am a Geshe, I am ex-abbot, I am a monk, I am a fully ordained monk. When I was small, first I was called Lobsang Tutten. I was given that name Lobsang Tutten. And as I grew up, then I became a monk and people called me monk. They gave me that name monk.
And I became a fully ordained monk. And then I became, then I went on and they called me a geshe. And then I went on and I became an abbot. And they called me abbot. And then I went on and I finished the abbotship and I became an ex-abbot.
And all of these various names that were given to me. And as I proceeded through this, in dependence upon these various names that were given to me, I thought of myself, Oh, I am Lobsang Tutten, I am a monk. And then further on, I am a Geshe, I am an abbot. And I became all of these things, and depends upon being designated, being labeled, giving these titles.
But if I were these things independent of being given these names, these titles, then even when I was a little boy, people should have looked at me and said, Oh, he’s a Geshe, he’s an abbot, he’s an ex-abbot. I didn’t because I didn’t depend upon being given those titles. Was this was something about me independent of being given those titles. So all things are established independent, that is to say, come into existence in dependence upon being named, in dependence upon terms and names. This is a very extremely subtle point in presenting the understanding of emptiness by means of the consequence of middle way school, that all objects are merely coming to existence merely in dependence upon names and terms, that they rely for their existence on names and terms.
If they are not termed, if they are not named, they do not come into existence. They must rely upon names and terms for their existence. Naming process also applies to all of you. Gradually as you grew from a small child you’ve been given different designations. That you became young men and women.
Some of you became teachers, some of you became doctors, office workers, that you were given all these various titles, these designations, and you became these upon being given those names and titles. So all things are dependent upon this naming process. These names have this great power to bring things into existence, to establish them, that all things are posited by names, terms, that all things are merely coming to existence by way of names and Also, in in the establishing the non independent existence of the flower, that the flower is not independently existing, that is dependently existing. If it were independently existing then its production, its growth would not depend upon the seed, the water, the earth, things like this. But that it would grow independently of these but in fact it doesn’t.
It grows in dependence upon them. Therefore, is not truly existent. It is not independently existent. So we’ve presented non independence from that level of in dependence upon its various causes. But if we have a little more subtle presentation of what we mean by independence.
That the flower does not exist independently is that if we do not give it a name flower, it does not exist. That there’s no flower which exists exists independent of being given the name, flower. Designated flower, therefore the flower is dependent upon being designated and therefore it is not independently existing. This is a little more subtle. So if we present the correct reasoning of dependent arising in terms of the flower.
If we were to say we’ll take this flower as the subject, it is not not inherently existent. By what reason? If it were inherently existent, then it would not rely on causes and conditions. It would not rely on names and terms for its existence. But it does rely on causes and conditions, names and terms for its existence.
Therefore, it is not inherently existent.