Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A conjuror’s trick opens Khensur Rinpoche’s introduction to the two truths in this 92-minute session: just as a mantra makes a stick and stone appear as horse and elephant, objects appear to exist one way but actually exist another — and that gap is conventional truth. Working through the four tenet schools from coarsest to most refined, Rinpoche focuses on the Middle Way School’s account, using a flower to show that the object itself is conventional truth while its emptiness of true existence is its ultimate truth. A four-fault argument then demonstrates why these two truths must be the same entity yet not identical, and why that distinction is the foundation of the entire yogic path. The Q&A covers whether lower schools require realization of emptiness for liberation, and where non-independent existence and emptiness part company across the schools. Rinpoche closes with Candrakīrti’s promise: a seed planted today can one day bring tears and raised body-hair at the single word “emptiness.”
File metadata (for organising)
File: 02 Eye of A 1988 10 18.mp3
UUID: 21821a62-20c9-46f1-a65f-a53c53f1234d
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Opening the Eye of Awareness 1988-1989 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1988-10-18
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 92.0 minutes
Words: ~4,755
So, we’ve completed the first chapter, the need for spiritual practice, and we’re going to begin on the second chapter, which is the discussion on the two truths. So there are two methods for explaining the various truths. There are the explanation of the truths and the four truths and then the two truths. But the four truths are included within the two truths. So within Buddhism there are four tenets or four systems of philosophy.
They are the Great Exposition School, the Sūtra School, the Mind Only School, and the Middle Way School. Within each of these philosophic systems or tenets, they each have their own method for settling the meaning of the nature of reality that is the objects of knowledge. Now we must understand the basis, that is the objects of knowledge if we are to understand what is to be abandoned and what is to be cultivated, what is to be practiced and what is to be gotten rid of? Therefore, in order to come to an understanding of what is to be practiced and what is to be abandoned, we have to know the nature of the objects of knowledge and therefore each of the four tenet schools set forth their system of the two truths, the two truths of the Great Exposition School, the two truths of the Sūtra School, of the Mind Only School, the Middle Way School. So in listening to these, the exposition on the two truths, I’m trying to understand the actual mode of abidance, the nature of reality and coming to an understanding of these various objects of knowledge.
We go through a process of three activities. In the beginning it’s simply in dependence upon hearing about the two truths, coming to an understanding of the meaning of each of various words that are used, the meaning of the intent of the thought behind these words, getting the ordering of these straight in our minds. From hearing in such a way there arises the wisdom arising from hearing. Then we apply our reasoning to what we’ve heard. We begin to examine it using various reasonings until we actually develop a valid cognition or a prime cognition of what is to be understood.
That is to say using reasoning, we develop inference and this is the wisdom arising from reflection. Pursuing this, we cultivate the various states of concentration and meditation such as calm abiding and the special insight or Vipassana and Samādhi and these are states arisen these are wisdom arising from meditative states. So this is the process that we must go through. So, through this process we develop finally the wisdom arising from meditation. The various paths are the means by which we attain the realizations, the fruit of practice.
This entails the means by which we abandon all the various afflictive emotions which are to be abandoned and we cultivate all the excellent qualities which are to be developed. Such as for example, we can develop the mind of the determination to be free, that is the mind of the fully renounced mind. So in actually cultivating a path, we must provide the necessary conditions for this and this entails the practices of the abandonments and the cultivations. For example, abandoning the various afflictive emotions through observing the abandonment of the ten non virtuous actions, of the ten unskillful actions, and likewise, cultivating all the necessary excellent qualities.
This is the method by which having completed all the necessary qualities through the meditating on the various paths, attain the fruit which is pure happiness. So each of these four tenets has a similar presentation of the basis, paths, fruits. But even though they each have their own presentation of the basis, present, and fruits, the presentation as set forth by the Great Exposition School is extremely rough, a very coarse presentation, whereas the school which is higher — that would be the Sūtra School — is a little more refined, a little more subtle in its presentation. And as you go up through the four schools, up to the Mind Only School, and finally the most subtle, the most profound of the presentations, which is the Middle Way School.
So amongst these various systems, the tenets, the most subtle and the final thought which is going to be explained is that of the middle way school. So the various methods and wisdoms of the and the as presented within the two truths as asserted by the Middle Way School. So, at this time, Rinpoche will not explain according to the Great Exposition School, the Sūtra School, and the Mind Only School, but will explain the presentation of the two truths from the point of view of the Middle Way School. So there is now a quotation from a sūtra which is entitled the Meeting of the Father and Son Sūtra, which sets forth the two truths. This sūtra takes its name from the fact that that the Buddha having renounced his position, his kingdom went forth in search of enlightenment.
Having practiced austerities for six years, he attained enlightenment. And then having attained enlightenment, returned to his former home and there he gave this discourse for his son and therefore it’s known as the meeting of the Father and Son Sūtra. So the quotation given from the discourse, the Meeting of the Father and Son Sūtra, is: “The knower of the world, without listening to others, taught in terms of just these two truths, the conventional and the ultimate.” There is no third truth. So the knower of the world refers to the Buddha and without listening to others refers to the fact that through the force of his own meditation, not having heard about the two truths from others but from the force of the wisdom arising within his own meditation, he came to understand the two truths.
He realized the two truths and he understood that there was no third truth other than these. And further, there’s another quotation by Nāgārjuna which states that the doctrines taught by the Buddhas rely completely on the two truths. That is to say, other than the conventional and ultimate truths, there are no other. So what are the names of the two truths? The names of the two truths are the conventional truth and ultimate truth.
So what do we mean by conventional truths? Such things as this house and the various articles in this room are all conventional truths. So in this discussion there are various ways to translate the word which I’m translating as conventional truth and sometimes it becomes I will have to change my translation according to the context. Sometimes it’s translated as conventional truth, sometimes truth for the deceived and sometimes it’s the relative truth. So what do we mean when we say conventional truth?
When we say conventional truth, it means the truth for a conventional mind or in other words the truth for the deceived. That is to say that objects having, when you see an object, it appears to exist, the mind for which it exists the way it appears. The deceived mind for which it exists the way it appears, but in fact it doesn’t exist like that. The mind is only deceived. The objects do not exist the way they appear.
Therefore, it’s only truth for a deceived mind that is a conventional mind. So when we talk about the truth for deceived or the conventional truth, we can use an analogy that is the way a magician’s illusion. If for example, he were to take a stick in a pebble, a stick in a stone and through the force of a mantra, he were to cast a spell upon the audience such that stick in the stone appeared to be a horse and an elephant. Now there appears to the audience a horse and an elephant, but the objects do not exist as they appear. The horse is not really a horse.
The elephant is not really an elephant, but they appear to be that way. Therefore, they are being deceived. So what we mean conventional truths, with respect to conventional truths, the mode of appearance and the mode of abidance are discordant, are not in harmony. The way it appears and the way it exists are not in harmony. But with respect to the ultimate truth, the way its mode of appearance and its mode of abidance are in harmony.
The way it appears and the way it exists are in fact the same. They’re in harmony. Accord with each other. The ultimate truth is the final mode of existence of an object. So all phenomena whatsoever are included within the two truths.
There is no phenomena which is not contained within the two truths. So these two truths, the ultimate truth and the conventional truth, they are the same entity. They’re not the same. They’re the same entity. They’re different isolates.
They’re not the same, but they’re the same entity, and they’re also different isolates. Isolates. As it says in the Heart of Wisdom Sūtra, emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Emptiness is no other than form, form is no other than emptiness. And what this means is emptiness is not a different entity than form, object.
The object is not a different entity than the form but they are of different isolates. So take an example. This flower is a conventional truth. But its ultimate, its final mode, the final way it exists, its final mode of existence, its final mode of abidance, its ultimate mode, the way it exists is its ultimate truth. So in terms of the flower, the flower itself is conventional truth.
In terms of that flower, its final mode of abidance, the way it exists is its ultimate truth. So what this means is that we impute a name, flower, to this object flower. We project it, we give it a name. Now the flower is merely imputed by conception. There is nothing from the side of the object which makes it a flower.
It is merely being imputed by conception. There’s nothing from the side of the object which makes it a flower. For example, we see this flower with our eye and it appears to us not to be merely being imputed by our conception. It appears to exist from its own side objectively. Therefore we think it is not established as it appears.
It is not as the way it actually exists is not as it appears. It’s not established as it appears to us. If we were to examine this flower and we’re trying to find out exactly what is the flower, what makes up the flower, what is the flower, then we examine, is it the color, is that the flower, are each of the petals, are the leaves the flower, Is the collection of the petals the flower? And if examine it closely, we will come to understand that each of the parts is not a flower. That the individual parts are not the flower nor the collection of the parts of the flower.
If we take ourselves as an example, when we say looking for I ourselves. We’re looking for I, our self. And we say, Well, each of our two legs is not us. Each of our two arms is not us. Our head is not us.
Our body is not us. If we examine the body, it’s not us, the very intestines for example. Who is us? Who is us? Who are we?
We are that which is imputed, designated to the five aggregates, the five aggregates, the five collection, that which is imputed. There’s nothing coming from the side of the object which is us, it’s being imputed onto the five aggregates. So, the subject of emptiness is extremely subtle. It’s very difficult to understand. So we’re going to try to give a rough explanation of emptiness in terms of the flower, the two truths.
The flower itself is the conventional truth and in terms of that, its ultimate mode of abidance is its ultimate truth. So, the flower is conventional truth. Now, the flower does not truly exist. That it is not truly existent is its final mode of abidance, its final mode of existence. The fact that it does not truly exist is its ultimate mode the way it exists.
This ultimate mode the way it exists is what we mean when we say it’s ultimate truth. So, you know, we can apply this to any phenomena, all the various types of phenomena, all the various things. Where the thing itself is a conventional truth and the lack of that object’s true existence is its emptiness or that is to say its ultimate truth. So in this discussion, ultimate, the conventional truth and the ultimate truth are the same entity, but they’re not the same. They’re the same entity, sometimes said to be the same nature, entity, but they’re not the same.
If they were the same, three faults would accrue, three faults would arise. So the first thought which occurs is that if the flower and the emptiness of the true existence of the flower were the same, So if the two truths were the same, then there could be four faults. The first fault which is the emptiness of a flower, So if the two truths were the same, then a flower’s emptiness of true existence would not be the flower’s final mode of existence. The second thought is if the two truths were the same rather than being different, Then the awareness realizing the emptiness of true existence of for example the flower would not act as an antidote to the conception of the true existence of the flower. And the third thought would be if the emptiness of true existence of the flower is not if the awareness which realizes the emptiness of the true existence of the flower is not an antidote to the conception of true existence of the flower, then it becomes meaningless to cultivate the yogic path of meditation.
It becomes meaningless to meditate on the yogic path. And then the fourth and final thought would be that if this were in fact the case, then Buddha could not have eliminated all his faults and he could not have cultivated all his excellent qualities. So in this context of the present discussion, it’s very difficult to understand this explanation of the four faults which occur if the two truths are the same. So this would, it’s even difficult for those who have had some experience in studying the various philosophic texts which explain this extensively, let alone try to understand it for those who perhaps are hearing it for the first time. So what do you think it’s So Rinpoche is wondering, know, should we try again to explain?
So the flower is conventional truth. The flower is conventional truth. Its emptiness of true existence, its lack of true existence is its emptiness or that is to say its ultimate truth. So the flower is conventional truth. The way it appears is not the way it exists.
Therefore, the way it appears is not the way it exists. It’s not that way it is established. Its emptiness of true existence, that appearance, is in fact the way it exists. That’s its ultimate truth. So the flower appears conventionally to exist one way but actually exists another, therefore it’s said to be false.
It’s not true. It’s not truly existent. The way it appears to its emptiness of this true existence, the way this appears is in fact the way it exists. This is true. This is its ultimate existence.
It’s ultimate, not ultimate existence, ultimate truth. So these two, ultimate truth and conventional truth, are the same entity but not the same. Okay, why can’t they be the same? The way the flower appears is not the way it’s established. It’s false.
But the way its emptiness of true existence appears is the way it exists. It’s true. So they can’t be the same. The way it appears being false and the way it appears being true cannot be the same, cannot be one. So the flower’s non true existence, it’s absence of true existence, lacking true existence.
Non true existence is its emptiness. Now if this and the flower itself, the conventional truth, were the same, then there would be four faults. The first thought which would accrue is that the flower’s non true existence would not be the flower’s emptiness. The flower’s non true existence would not be the emptiness of the flower. So that’s the first.
So, we established, on the first thought, we established that the first fault is we’re depending upon understanding the first fault when we come to understand the second fault. That is, it’s not the non true existence of the flower, it’s not the emptiness of the flower. This is what we learned from the first fault. Taking that, now come to the second thought which would accrue is that the awareness realizing emptiness would not serve as an antidote to the conception apprehending the true existence of the flower. The awareness realizing the emptiness of the flower would not serve as an antidote to the conception apprehending the non true existence of the flower.
So, okay now, depending upon that, we just learned that if the awareness realizing emptiness is not an antidote to the conception apprehending the non true existence of the flower, then it becomes meaningless for the yogi to cultivate higher paths and dependence upon developing this awareness realizing emptiness. So, it depends upon what we learned in the third fold, in that it would be meaningless for the yogi to cultivate the awareness realizing emptiness since it is not an antidote. Then there would be no way that he could rise higher and higher through the paths of realization and therefore the Buddha could never have attained the elimination of all faults and the arising of all excellent qualities. So the difficult one to understand is the second one. The second thought which you created.
That is to say the awareness realizing emptiness of the flower is not an antidote to the conception apprehending the true existence of the flower. This is the one that’s difficult to understand. The awareness realizing the non true existence of the flower is an antidote to the conception apprehending the true existence of the flower. The awareness realizing the non true existence of the flower is an antidote to the conception apprehending the true existence of the flower. If the awareness realizing the non true existence of the flower is not an awareness which is realizing the emptiness of the flower, then the awareness of the realizing the emptiness of the flower does not serve as an antidote to the conception apprehending the true existence of the flower.
The conception apprehending the true existence of a flower. For example, the awareness realizing the existence of the flower and the conception apprehending the non existence of the flower are in conflict. They’re contradictory. The awareness apprehending the existence of the flower and the awareness apprehending the non existence of the flower, they’re in conflict, they’re contradictory. Likewise, the awareness realizing the non true existence of the flower and the awareness apprehending the true existence of the flower are likewise contradictory in in conflict with each other.
The awareness which apprehends the existence of that flower is true. The awareness which is apprehending the non existence of that flower is false. Therefore, this awareness which is true, it has the ability to get rid of, to negate that awareness which apprehends the non existence of this flower since it’s false. So likewise, the awareness realizing the non true existence of the flower is true. The awareness apprehending the true existence of the flower is false.
Therefore, the awareness realizing the non true existence of the flower is able to negate or to get rid of completely from the root the apprehension, the awareness apprehending the true existence of the flower since it’s false. For example, if two people were having a dispute and one was speaking the way things actually were, he was being straight, was honest and the other one was lying. If they were to, you know, they both set forth their ideas and then they go actually check up the actual situation. Since what one person was saying actually accords with, was correct, it accords who was telling the truth as it is, this would have the power to eliminate or negate what was set forth by this person who was false, who was telling a lie. So those with no positive potential are unable to realize emptiness.
But those who having some positive potential even are able to arouse a doubt with respect to the nature of reality. Are things really empty or not? Is this the way they really exist or not? Those who are able to generate a profound doubt, even that profound doubt is able to eliminate, to shake the very foundations of cyclic existence. Rinpoche hopes that just a small examination that we’ve done here is able to begin to help us to emerge from cyclic existence.
So this is a very difficult subject. Some of you probably have some understanding, some of you probably have no understanding. So it would be useful if we carried on a dialogue with questions and answers and help come to a better understanding. So if you have some questions. So explaining emptiness is very much like trying to explain someone the taste of brown sugar.
It’s something you have to try for yourself to come to an understanding of it. By actually putting it in your mouth and swallowing it, you get a taste of what actually brown sugar is. To explain it to someone else is extremely difficult. In general, there are two types of meditation. There’s analytic meditation and fixative meditation.
And without going through this first type of meditation where we actually examine this subject analytically, then we can then move on to the fixative meditation where we stabilize or we fix ourselves on what we understand. So this is the method we have to proceed with. First analyzing, examining the object and then fixing upon our understanding that arises from examination or analysis. So within the Middle Way School, all phenomena whatsoever are non true existent or empty of inherent existence. So, we take an example of fire.
The definition of fire is that which is hot and burning. Now, there’s no other entity, so when we refer to hot and burning, there’s no other entity we’re referring to other than fire. And when we refer to fire, the same entity that we’re referring to when we say fire is that which is hot and burning. We’re not referring to some other entity aside from hot and burning when we refer to fire. When we refer to hot and burning or when we refer to fire, we’re not referring to something other than that which is hot and burning when we refer to something other than fire.
I think I twisted around the terms there. So, likewise when we refer to the two truths, we’re talking about they’re the same entity. Now, when we say false, we mean that which is false. So the false is the entity of the emptiness of true existence.
So when we speak about, when we refer to the false we’re talking about its emptiness of true existence. False, emptiness of true existence. When we talk about the true existence, the emptiness of true existence, we’re talking about And then when we talk about the emptiness of true existence, we’re talking about, we’re referring to the entity of false existence. When we talk about that which is false, we’re referring to that which is empty of true existence. When we talk about emptiness of true existence, we talk about the entity which falsely exists.
Questions? Yeah. If I the person of another faith has So, within the, you know, talked about these four tenets. And for example, the mind only school. They assert the true existence of phenomena, phenomena of true existence.
And the realizations they attain are extremely high realizations. But these realizations are rejected by the middle way school. They do not, since the middle way school says that nothing truly exists. So therefore, one can be highly realized, but in fact what one is realizing may not be accepted by a higher school. But within the Middle Way school, they refer to a quotation by by the Buddha where he says, If one does not properly discriminate the nature of things, there is no liberation.
And in the text entitled Engaging in the Bodhisattva Deeds, he said that without realizing emptiness, there is no attainment of the enlightenment of the hearers, of the solitary realizers, or the bodhisattvas. So, what Rinpoche has been explaining is in accordance with the highest of the tenet schools, the Middle Way School, you know the lower schools as they assert their position, they do not need to realize this, they do not need to realize a non true existence or phenomena. So if we’re Buddhas, we aren’t experiencing any suffering? According to the lower tenet schools, example, mind only, etcetera, it’s not necessary to realize non true existence in order to attain enlightenment.
But what we’re saying is from the Middle Way School it’s necessary in order to attain enlightenment it’s necessary to realize the non true existence of phenomena. Yes. So that’s right. Non true existence and emptiness, same meaning. Would you want to specify what type of non-true existence?
You mean what? Doesn’t have an independent existence. That and emptiness, are they the same? Yes. Tonitang.
Tong nyid. Not in India. Independent existence. So from the point of view of the very highest school, that is the Consequentialist Middle Way school, independent existence, non independent existence and emptiness exactly the same. But all the schools beneath the Consequentialist Middle Way schools such as the Autonomy middle way school and those further down say that things are independently existing, they do not assert that they’re the same thing.
There’s a difference between independently existing, non independently existing, and emptiness. So for the autonomy Madhyamaka and below, non independent existence and emptiness are not the same. Natural existence and emptiness are not the same. Non true existence and emptiness are not the same but for the highest middle way school, Consequentialist Middle Way school, all these are exactly the same. They’re different.
Yes? So in general, whatever objects of knowledge exist, there are no other than two truths. Why is that? Because with regard to ultimate truth, the way it appears and the way it exists are harmonious, are concordant, and with regard to conventional truth, the way it appears and the way it exists are discordant, unharmonious. So, if something exists, it must be harmonious or unharmonious the way, from the respect of the way it exists and the way it appears.
There’s no other third possibility. So, you know, what we’ve talked about this evening is extremely difficult. Emptiness is very difficult to understand and you’ve probably tired yourself out trying to understand it. But you know, we have planted a seed in the field of your mind of the understanding of emptiness. And you know eventually as you continue, then the sprout of realization will come forth.
So the glorious Candrakīrti, he talks about this, you know, planting seeds of understanding of emptiness. I can only paraphrase the quotation that Rinpoche gave. I cannot translate it word for word. Now we’ve heard a teaching on emptiness and we’ve listened to it. And this listening has planted a seed or a latency within our mind.
Then later on tomorrow or sometime in the future, again we can hear a teaching on emptiness. Then not only hearing the sound, emptiness, hearing the word emptiness, it can provide the conditions whereby tears will arise, will fall from our eyes and the hair on our body will stand on end. This is a sign that we’ve had teachings in the past on emptiness and this is a sign that we are quickly gaining the understanding of emptiness. Did you understand well?