Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 92-minute commentary, Khensur Rinpoche takes a single flower as the anchor for a close examination of the two truths. He begins with Candrakīrti’s claim that conventional truth is the method and ultimate truth arises from it, then unpacks “truth for a concealer”: appearances seem to exist independently of causes and conditions because the conception of true existence distorts them. A sharp inter-school debate follows — lower tenet schools argue that dependent arising proves true existence; Madhyamaka Consequentialists argue the opposite; Tsongkhapa dismisses the former as “little children.” Rinpoche extends the reasoning to persons, then outlines three classifications of emptiness — two, four, and sixteen — using a honey-in-different-containers analogy to show that emptiness is uniform across all bases. A Q&A closes with questions on permanent phenomena, meditation on “oneness” versus emptiness, and the two senses of self.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 03 Eye of A 1988 10 25.mp3
UUID: 51c59a5d-2190-4664-97d8-b13d0ed4b1e1
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Opening the Eye of Awareness 1988-1989 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1988-10-25
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 92.0 minutes
Words: ~5,484
So the master Candrakīrti has said that the conventional truth are the methods and ultimate truth arises out of these methods. Those who do not know either of these two, that is to say conventional truths and ultimate truths, will enter into a wrong path. So Candrakīrti was emphasizing the fact that it’s extremely important that we know these two, that is to say the conventional truth and ultimate truth, since they are the methods and that which arises from the methods by which we can attain liberation and ultimately Buddhahood. If we do not understand the correct presentation, then we are not engaged in a correct path. In fact, we will engage in an inverted path or some type of wrong path and we will not achieve our goal.
So when we’re talking about the methods, it’s as if we’re trying to climb to the top of say the roof of a building. We’re going to use a ladder and the various rungs of the ladder represent the method whereby we’re ultimately going to achieve our goal that is on top of the roof. And just as in climbing the ladder, we have to, we would rely on a lower to step up onto a higher rung. Likewise in coming to our ultimate goal, we must rely on the methods of conventional truth, that is the various realizations of conventional truth, in order to in dependence upon that we will gain the realization of what did I say the lower realizations of understanding conventional truth and then dependent upon those we will attain that which arises from these methods that is the realizations of ultimate truth. It’s extremely important that we identify the two truths, that we come to recognize them, that we have an intimate understanding of them.
You know if we’re ever going to develop a prime cognition that is a realization of these truths which is necessary by which to achieve our goal. Now when we talk about what are conventional truths, these are simply all the appearances which appear normally to us. For example, this room, the table, money, all the various objects which appear to us are all conventional truths. So, we want to understand what we mean when we say conventional truth. There’s two words, conventional and truth.
Now, it’s necessary to, as I mentioned before, there’s various ways to translate the same word depending upon its context. And so another translation which we will have to use in this context is truth for a concealer, truth for a concealer or a deceiver. Now, so we’re talking about truth for a concealer. Now what is the concealer? The concealer is the conception of true existence, the conception of true existence.
So that is the concealer, is the conception of true existence. What do we mean by truth? We’re talking about the various objects which appear to this conception of true existence, to this deceiver, to this concealer as being true. In general, they aren’t true but these objects appear to this deceiver as true. Therefore, we call these objects truthful concealers or conventional truth in other words.
So those who are studying awareness and knowledge, that is to say, Lorig, the study of mind, in general there’s two classifications of minds, conceptual and non conceptual. And when we talk about the truth for concealer, the concealer, that is the conception of true existence, we’re talking specifically about a conceptual type of consciousness, is a thought consciousness. And if we take the example of this type of thought consciousness, this conception which takes as its object of observation the flower, the conception of true existence which takes as its object of observation the flower, This flower appears to it not to be depending upon, for example, causes and conditions. The flower appears to this consciousness, to this conception not to be depending upon causes and conditions. It appears to it to exist independently.
It appears to the conception of true existence to exist independently. So therefore, the conception of true existence is a wrong consciousness in that the object appears to exist independently, it appears to exist objectively without depending upon any other factors. In fact, it does depend upon other factors, it depends upon causes and conditions for it to develop, but it doesn’t appear that way. Therefore, conception of true existence is a wrong consciousness. So, the flower is truthful concealer or conventional truth, but on top of that, in terms of that, on top of that, there is its ultimate truth of the flower, but we don’t see this ultimate truth with our eye, for example.
So, what do we mean when we say the ultimate truth? Now, we know that the flower is simply a conventional truth but it appears to the conception of true existence to exist independent of causes and conditions. It appears to exist independently objectively from its own side. Now that, the lack of that, that is the non existence of that way of existing, That is its emptiness of existing independent of causes and conditions, its emptiness of being independently existent, its absence of independent existence. That is to say the non existence of the object of apprehension of the conception of true existence.
The conception of true existence apprehends the flower as independently existing. That absence of that way of existing is what we mean by ultimate truth. This ultimate truth is its final mode of being. So, we’re talking about the flower and now we can talk about on top of that flower, it has the quality of emptiness. That is to say its ultimate truth.
Now the flower appears to exist without relying upon other factors such as cause and effect, causes and conditions. It appears to us to exist independently of causes and conditions. But we know, we can understand that in fact it is dependently existent. It depends upon causes and conditions for it to become established, for it to grow. Therefore this can act as a reason, understanding that it’s actually in fact though it appears to have independent existence, it actually relies on causes and conditions for its growth, for its existence.
So let’s think about this. What do we think? Okay, there’s a flower. Does the flower exist independent of causes and conditions? Does it, what we say, naturally exist from its own side objectively or in fact does it exist independently?
Is it relying on causes and conditions for its existence? What do you think? Does the flower exist independently of causes and conditions? Does it exist independently without relying on causes and conditions or does it exist by way of depending upon cosmic conditions? It depends on its outside sources.
I mean, the flower actually exists through many sources, through moisture, light, air and it does not perceive that in its right context, otherwise it could not have been formed. So that’s right. The flower, you know, it depends upon the seed, it depends upon water, depends upon earth, fertilizer, light and all those things that you said. So we can understand that when we say that the flower which exists independently of causes and conditions, the flower which exists independently of causes and conditions does not exist, doesn’t exist. That non existence is the emptiness which is in terms of the flower.
The non existence of a flower which does not depend upon cause and the condition is the flower’s emptiness. So we can understand that the flower does not naturally exist. That is to say that the flower does not exist independently of cause and conditions and we can use as a reason because it exists independent in dependence upon causes and conditions. This is the various types of causes and conditions that we listed. So this reason is a way we can refute the independent or natural existence of the flower.
So there’s a lot of debate within Buddhism on this, even this point. For example, the three lower tenets, the tenets of the Great Exposition Sūtra School and the Mind Only School, they say that this very reason that the flower grows or develops in dependence upon causal condition is the reason we can use to prove that it truly exists. It truly exists because it develops in dependence upon causes and conditions. Whereas the highest of the tenet schools, that is the Consequentialist Middle Way school says, the very fact that it rises in dependence upon causes and conditions is the reason we say it doesn’t truly exist. So what do you think?
Tsongkhapa has said that the three lower schools who say that because that the flower rises in dependence upon causal conditions, therefore it must be truly existent, are like little children, they don’t quite understand the subject. Whereas the real experts who understand the subject understand that because things are dependent, an object is dependent arising, it cannot be truly existent. So, we can apply this same reasoning to whatever object. Great meditators, the yogis, they apply it to, for example, in meditating on emptiness, apply it to themselves. I do not truly exist.
I do not inherently exist because I depend upon my development, my growth, my existence on a variety of causes and conditions. So we can think about this just as we did the flower and that we also as individuals exist on in dependence upon various causes and conditions. For example, we depend upon our mother and father. We depend upon our various elements of our body, our body itself. All these act as causes and conditions for our existence.
So we understand quite readily that the flower exists in dependence upon causes and conditions. Can you use the same understanding with respect to yourself that you also exist in dependence upon various causes and conditions? So that’s right. We can apply the same type of reasoning to ourselves as individuals. Know, that our existence is dependent upon a variety of causes and conditions.
The flesh of our body, our blood, the sperm and ovum of our parents, our feelings, all these are five aggregates, you know, form aggregate, feeling aggregate, etc. All the various parts, in dependence upon that, we exist in dependence upon all these various parts, all these various causes and conditions. Therefore, can state the reasoning like in a syllogism that we do not naturally exist, we do not independently exist because of the reason that we’re dependent arising. For example, like a flower. So we can apply this to all the various appearances which we see.
For example, the book. The book is a dependent arising. It’s dependent upon various causes and conditions. It’s paper, the ink, the printers who printed it. So whatever the building, all these various objects, we can think and reason in the same way that they’re not inherently existent, they’re not independently existing because they’re dependent arising.
So the master Nāgārjuna, he was prophesied by the Buddha saying that there would arise a commentator on my teachings with respect to emptiness and that he was a valid source of interpreting my teachings. And Nāgārjuna has said that there is nothing which does not rise, there is nothing which is not dependent, there is nothing which is not empty. That is to say, you know everything is dependent upon, that is in the case of products, all products are dependent upon causes and conditions and all phenomena in general are dependent upon their parts. So we can easily understand this in the case of, for example, the flower, that upon the collection of various causes and conditions, the flower comes into existence. Therefore it’s dependent.
But this also applies to permanent objects. By permanent, I mean that which is not dependent upon cause and conditions, various phenomena which are not dependent upon cause and condition. What do we mean by permanent? But they are also dependent existences because they rely on their parts. Permanent objects depend upon their parts for their existence.
Therefore, because they are dependent upon their parts, they are empty of being independently existing or independent, they’re empty of natural existence. So the truth for concealers, that is conventional truths, are said to be false. They’re merely true for a deceiver. They are not in general truths. In general, they’re said to be false.
Whereas, for example, the flower. Now that emptiness of the false way that it appears is its truth. That is to say its ultimate existence, not ultimate existence, ultimate truth. That is to say is its final, the ultimate truth is its final mode of being. This is how it actually exists, therefore it is said to be true.
So conventional truths are false, ultimate truths are true. So, last time we were discussing the two truths and we said that though they’re not the same, they’re the same entity but different isolates. So the Buddha set forth his thought on emptiness in what is called the Mother Sutras. And there are three categories of Mother Sutras. There’s the abbreviated, middling and extensive or detailed Mother Sutras.
Commentating on this, Candrakīrti sets forth the quotation, In order to release transmigrators from the afflictive obstructions and the obstructions to omniscience, this selflessness was described as two types through a division into phenomena and persons. Therefore, the teacher spoke to his disciples frequently of these two selflessnesses extensively in many ways. Sixteen emptinesses in the elaborate way, he again explained four in a brief way. These are described in the great vehicle. So there are the various ways emptiness is presented.
Now by realizing emptiness, we can be released completely from cyclic existence. By the realization of emptiness has the ability to completely liberate us from all suffering. Within the discussion of what this is the possibility of the realization of emptiness. Within the discussion of emptiness itself, the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of phenomena. So when we talk about the selflessness of phenomena, we’re talking about exactly what we have been explaining thus far, discussing thus far.
That is the non true existence, for example, the flowers, the non true existence of the table, all the various phenomena that we see around us. Their non true existence is what we mean by the selflessness of phenomena. Then when we say selflessness of persons, now I’m using the word persons, literally it’s just something like beings, any type of living. Being, right? But it’s simpler if we just use the term person.
But you should understand that. When I say selfless of persons, what we mean is those things which have life, those things which have mind as opposed to those things which are mindless without any life. So that which is mindless and lifeless, we call phenomena. That which has mind, that which has life, we’re calling persons or beings but we’re calling them persons. Their emptiness, in terms of them, their emptiness is what we are talking about when we talk about the selflessness of persons.
The selflessness of persons is the emptiness of living beings, of their non true existence. So, selflessness of phenomena is the emptiness of all the various objects aside from living beings. The emptiness of all the various objects aside from living beings. Whereas the emptiness of living beings, persons, is the selflessness of persons. We’re calling selflessness of persons.
All emptinesses can be included into these two, the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena. Now if we were to distinguish emptiness, this is the abbreviated distinguishment of emptiness. If we distinguish it in a middling way, we could divide it into four. That would be the emptiness of functional things, emptiness of functional things, the emptiness of non functional things, the emptiness of nature, emptiness of nature and the emptiness of an entity that is other. Emptiness of an entity that is other.
These four emptinesses. So when we talk about these various emptinesses, the divisions of these emptinesses are made from the basis upon other emptiness, the basis upon which the emptiness is established. You know, we can talk about the emptiness of a flower, we can talk about the emptiness of a book. The emptinesses are not different in themselves. It’s merely being divided or distinguished from the point of view of the basis upon which they are being posited.
In terms of particular basis, we divide up these emptiness but the emptinesses themselves are not different. For example, when we talk about the emptiness of functional things, by functional things we mean those things which arise from causes and conditions. So their emptiness of true existence is the emptiness of functional things. And we talk about the emptiness of non functional things. Non functional phenomena.
We talk about the emptiness of non functional phenomena. So there are phenomena which exist but they do not arise dependent upon causes and conditions. They do not depend upon causes and conditions. Therefore, we call them non functional phenomena. The emptiness taking them as a basis in terms of these objects are what we mean that is to say the lack of true existence of non functional phenomena is the emptiness of non functional phenomena.
So all these various objects that we’ve listed so far, they’re empty of a fantasized way of existing. Now that emptiness itself, this emptiness of this way of existing also is empty. So when we talk about the natural emptiness, we’re talking about the emptiness of emptiness. And this fourth thought of emptiness is the emptiness of the entity of other. Emptiness of an entity that is other.
And this what is meant here is the emptiness in terms of the entering into and emerging out of cyclic existence. The abandonments of the emptiness of, for example, the abandonments by which we are able to emerge out of cyclic existence and those factors which induces, which draw us into cyclic existence, those as our basis are empty, the emptiness of those factors. Emptiness of the abandonment by which we emerge out of cyclic existence and the emptiness of those factors which draw us into cyclic existence, they are also empty. Those emptinesses are what we mean when we say emptiness of entity that are other. So that’s the middling or division of emptiness into four functional, non functional by nature, that is other.
These four emptinesses. So then the extensive division of emptiness is set forth in the detailed sutras that discourses of the Buddha for example, the perfection of wisdom sutras in a hundred thousand verses where he sets forth sixteen, a division of sixteen emptinesses. So there’s the various emptiness, sixteen emptinesses set forth such as the emptiness of the internal, the emptiness of the external, the emptiness of nature, emptiness of emptiness and the various etc. Example, didn’t give you three. For example, the emptiness of the internal.
Now those who are studying awareness and knowledge, they will understand what we mean by that. That is to say the five sense powers. There’s the eye sense power, the nose, ear, tongue and body sense powers. The emptiness in terms of these five sense powers, of these five sense powers is what we mean when we say emptiness of the internal. So this division in so then the next example would be the emptiness of the external.
And so when we talk about internal and external, we mean those objects which are included within the continuum of the person and those which are not included within the continuum of the person. The internal factors are those that we just talked about, the sense powers for example, are included within the continuum of the person. Whereas this next division of emptiness, the division of the external are the objects which are not included in the continuum of the person. These are the objects of the various sense powers. For example, the object of the eye sense power are colors, forms, the various white, blue, red, yellow.
So there’s the object of the eye consciousness that is to say forms, visual forms. Object of the eye consciousness visual forms, the object of the ear consciousness sound, the object of the nose consciousness smells, the object of the tongue consciousness taste and the object of the body consciousness that is objects of touch. So these objects are the five external emptinesses. The emptiness of those objects are the five emptiness of the external. So all these various objects that we’re talking about, these different types of emptinesses, the emptinesses in the same are not different.
We’re just but the object upon which they’re based, we’re making division of the emptiness from that point of view, purely from the point of view of the basis of the emptiness. For example, if we were to take honey and we some honey in a glass, we put some honey in a bowl, we put some honey in a pot. Now this honey is contained in different, has different containers and it’s going to appear to us to be different. But that which is in each of these containers, it all has a sweet taste. It’s all the same honey.
Likewise, so we could divide up. We could say this is a glass full of honey, this is a bowl full of honey, this is a pot full of honey. We can make these divisions but that which is we’re talking about the actual honey itself is in no way different. It’s just the container is different and likewise these various emptiness that we’re talking about, they’re in no way different. It’s just that their basis of the emptinesses are different.
So in these various divisions of emptiness, there’s no difference in the entity of the emptiness, that is to say their nature. We’ve divided according to the Buddhist teachings, in his abbreviated teachings he taught division of two. In the middling presentation he divided emptiness into four, and then he went on in more detailed teachings to teach it in terms of sixteen divisions. So, you know when we meditate on emptiness, can make use of reasoning. For example, we can put to ourselves subject, take as the subject to flower.
It is not truly existent because of the reason it is a dependent arising. And in this way we can begin to refute our conception of the independent, the existence of the flower, the true existence of the flower, the natural existence of the flower. So we can make various examinations using various types of reasoning, thinking about this in various ways. Taking the flower, we see the flower and we think, well what would be the error? What would be the fault if this flower naturally existed?
If it really naturally existed, if it truly existed? If it truly existed, it would not rely on anything other than itself. It would not rely on causes and conditions for example. Now what would be the fault if it didn’t rely on causes and conditions? Well you know where would it come from?
It wouldn’t have any causes, but in fact we know it has causes. And if it didn’t have any causes, then it would never wither, it would never die. But in fact, we know that it can’t remain forever, that in fact eventually it’s going to die. Therefore it must have causes which will eventually cease. And therefore these are the faults which accrue or are implied by if it were to be held to be truly existent.
So this is the way the yogi begins to proceed on meditating on emptiness, understanding the non true existence of all these various phenomena, taking many different examples. As he develops this understanding of the non true existence of all the various phenomena, the non independent existence, then this will act as a force working against his conception of true existence. And as his conception of true existence begins to diminish in power, then along with that, this diminution of the conception of true existence, the various afflictive emotions such as attachment, anger, etc, begin to diminish in power. Tsongkhapa said that all the various sufferings arise through the conception of true existence, that whatever sufferings exist in the world. Now what do we mean by the world?
What do we mean when we say the world? We mean the aggregates. Another translation for world is the transitory basis. The transitory basis that is our own individual aggregates contained within our own continuum of our being. It is through the process of these aggregates experiencing sickness, experiencing death, experiencing old age, the various sufferings, these are all brought about due to the force of the conception of true existence.
It’s just like this factor of the conception of true existence, that is to say ignorance, is just like the roots of a tree. in dependence upon the roots of the tree, the rest of the various parts of the tree arise and grow. The trunk of the tree, the branches, the leaves, the flowers of the tree, They’re all dependent upon the roots. And likewise, all the various sufferings that we experience are all dependent upon the root. And the root of all our sufferings is ignorance or the conception of true existence.
So the antidote for ignorance is meditation on emptiness. We can reason this out by understanding that with respect to all the various objects, for example ourselves, that they are not truly existent, that they are not naturally existent because they arise dependent upon causes and conditions. That is to say that they’re dependent arising. If they weren’t dependent arising, then they would have no causes. They would just be there without having arisen without any causes.
If they had no causes, then there would be no passing away of these objects. And we know, for example, they would always have to exist. For hundreds of thousands of years, they would remain existing because they have no causes. And therefore, we know that objects cannot remain like that. So thinking in this way, meditating in this way is an extremely great benefit.
No matter whether we can do it for one hour, half hour, fifteen minutes, So meditating on emptiness is of extremely great benefit. He said that emptiness is the essence of the Buddhist teachings. The Buddha said this himself. He said the emptiness is essence of my teachings. Nāgārjuna said that the essence of Buddhist teachings is emptiness.
Tsongkhapa said the essence of Buddhist teachings is emptiness. It’s like as if we were to churn milk, you know, churning milk and trying to get the essence of the milk And it said the essence of milk is butter. This is like the essence of the teachings of Buddha. So, Rinpoche is just trying to give you a sense of what we mean when we talk about emptiness, what it actually means in fact. And perhaps probably that you have many doubts have arisen, many qualms, questions.
And so this would be a good time to begin to clear these questions and doubts up as to what actually emptiness is. So we have fifteen minutes. Would you say that the power of the object is an example of permanent belonging, such as in the case of power of poisoning the sine of the mantra? The power of object is what we mean by permanent object. I’m asking, would So this power of, for example, medicines and poisons is not a permanent phenomenon.
It’s a functional phenomenon or an impermanent phenomenon. Functional phenomena are divided into form, consciousness, and non associated compositional factors. The power or the potential of, for example, matter is a non associated compositional factor. Therefore, it’s a functional thing. So this power or potential, for example medicines, etc, is not a permanent thing.
It’s a non associated compositional factor. For example, we take a barley seed and it has a power or potential by which it needs to be able to give rise to a shoot, a sprout. If it didn’t have this power then they could never develop into a sprout. So if we take an easy one, we could just name emptiness as a phenomenon which does not arise in dependence upon cause and condition or any permanent phenomena. Meditating on emptiness.
Sorry. Okay. Is that okay, Karen? Yeah. Yeah, okay.
I would have been saying that I’m meditating on one limb, So, okay, first, we talk about meditating on emptiness, as we’ve talked about, you’re thinking that the flower appears to not depend upon causes and conditions. You’re thinking, Ah, it exist that way. It has to depend upon causes and conditions. It’s emptying that way that it appears not to depend upon causes and conditions. So this is the way we’re meditating on emptiness.
Now, we can meditate upon that all phenomena have the same taste, that is emptiness. All phenomena have one taste, emptiness. But as far as all phenomena being one, this would not be a meditation on emptiness because there’s earth, there’s water. Same as meditation on truth, because truth is one? What would be what the same?
Well, wouldn’t it have the same result? Because like you said, if you meditate on emptiness then that leads to liberation. When meditating on sameness all the time, wouldn’t that lead to the same thing? Wouldn’t the result be the same? What would method is like?
Can you give an example of a meditation on oneness? Well, just living as if all is one, not having any So the question is? Wouldn’t it lead to the same result? Wouldn’t what? That as meditation on emptiness.
Because if you meditate on the emptiness, is that supposed to make you get rid of the concept of as an individual being and you become aware of that which is everywhere, is that it? So we have to distinguish between two types of selves. There’s one type of self which exists and another type which does not exist. Now there’s a self which eats food, listens to talks, goes here and there, creates bad actions, creates good actions, all these various activities it engages in. This self exists.
Exists. Exists. This self exists. I’ll finish. This self exists.
Now that is to say it exists. Exists in dependence upon being on its name. It is imputed by way of its name, but it exists. It’s imputedly existent. Now there is another self which is the object of negation.
Now just as in the case of this flower, the flower exists but the flower which does not depend upon causes and conditions, it does not depend upon being imputed by the consciousness, that flower does not exist. But the flower conventionally exists. Likewise, the self which exists from its own side without being dependent upon causes and conditions and which is not imputed by name does not exist. But it must. There are two selves.
The two No. That that doesn’t exist, and that’s the emptiness. Is that what you’re saying? Is that your question? I thought it was the other way around.
But, you know, the person who walks and talks and goes to work and comes home, that really doesn’t exist. But the other thing, So there’s a quotation from a sūtra, a teaching by the Buddha, which says that the self is both one’s teacher and that the self is one’s enemy. So what is meant here is that the self is one’s teacher in the sense that by understanding what is to be adopted and what is to be discarded, engaging in various positive types of actions, understanding what are positive types of actions and engaging in them, we can begin to eliminate our suffering. That the self is our enemy is the fact that when do we lack this understanding that we go about haphazardly committing negative actions as if they didn’t matter, then our self becomes our own enemy because it becomes the source of all of our suffering. So the self exists because if this activity exists, we wouldn’t be able to understand which is our teacher and which is our enemy, which are these two types of selves.
The self which is, there is no unchanging self. The self is impermanent. It’s constantly arising, abiding and ceasing. It’s constantly disintegrating. It’s impermanent.
It’s dependent upon causes and conditions. So there’s no unchanging self. But there is a self which is able to make these distinguishments about what is positive and negative actions. That’s what he did, isn’t it? K.
Yeah? Yeah? I’m not gonna answer. You just put the question in. Aware it was true, didn’t he wasn’t he one didn’t he become one of the truth?
Didn’t he merge with it? Demper.