Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Opening the third higher training — wisdom — Khensur Rinpoche begins with Vasubandhu’s image of a blind traveler unable to see dangers on the path, establishing why discriminating wisdom alone can uproot cyclic existence. In this just-over-two-hour session, he surveys the five sciences of conventional wisdom before reaching the practical core: a four-point syllogism students are asked to write down and use in meditation. Taking a flower as the subject — it lacks inherent existence because it is neither inherently one nor inherently many, like a reflection in a mirror — Rinpoche works through each essential point using analogies of empty boxes and a familiar face. A Q&A section explores how this view avoids both nihilism and eternalism, what makes a valid basis of designation, and why all phenomena — including the Buddha — lack inherent existence.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 16 Eye of A 1989 03 14.mp3
UUID: 2f171022-b382-44bd-8a85-28ad67df2cb4
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Opening the Eye of Awareness 1988-1989 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1989-03-14
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 124.6 minutes
Words: ~7,091
So we should initially develop the proper motivation for listening to this profound teaching on a great vehicle in order to put us put into practice in in what we hear, whereby we might be able to attain gain pure precious Buddhahood, whereby to be able to place all sentient beings equal to space in in complete happiness and bliss. So if we’re able to generate the the great vehicle motivation, then the Dharma becomes the great vehicle Dharma. So amongst the three higher trainings, we have completed the explanations of the the first two, that is ethics, the higher training in ethics and the higher training in meditative stabilization. We’ll begin the explanation of the third higher training, the higher training in wisdom. So the great master Vasubandhu said that it’s necessary in order to be liberated from cyclic existence to develop the thoroughly discriminating wisdom with respect to the all phenomena.
And this is necessary in order that we it’s in order to remove the obscuration of ignorance whereby we are able to understand what is to be adopted and what is to be rejected. Without understanding what is to be adopted and rejected, then we’re going to enter into various types of engage in various types of actions creating karma, and the cyclic existence will be perpetuated. So by way of analogy, in the case of someone who is walking down a path, if he if this person were blind, then he would not know whether this what what the nature of the path was, whether there are whether there are obstacles, whether there there is danger involved in walking down the path. There’s a he could there is the danger of him falling down. So likewise, not to understand the nature of the path, where it is we’re going, we can easily, without this discrimination as to the nature of the path, we could easily take a wrong path and therefore and there could be the danger of falling in in in this fall and to we could easily experience great suffering.
Likewise, in the traveling the spiritual path to Buddhahood or liberation without the discrimination of wisdom, then we do not know what is to be what are the various practices to be adopted and what are those things to be rejected. And in this way we create and engage in various types of unskillful actions and experience suffering. So wisdom is that mental factor which discriminates the nature of phenomena both as to its goodness and badness with the various types of phenomena which are to be adopted and rejected into their ultimate nature. When this factor mental factor of wisdom is brought to its to its culmination, to its final culmination, and this is the at the the mental factor of wisdom is brought to its finest final culmination at the ground of Buddhahood, and then it becomes transcendental wisdom. So there are two principal types of wisdom.
There is the conventional wisdom understanding conventionalities and the ultimate wisdom and understanding the ultimate that is emptiness. So with respect to the first type of wisdom, that is the conventional wisdom, understanding conventionalities, this is encompassed within the wisdom of the five sciences. And these five sciences these five sciences are linguistics, one, logic and epistemology, two, the arts, three. Medicine, four. And inner sciences, five.
The fifth. Five sciences. So we’ll take the the arts first. I won’t take I gave them a different order. Arts.
This would be involved in having the knowledge and the ability to draw the various meditational deities along with their mandalas. This artistic understanding ability. Then the the science of medicine. This would involve understanding the various illnesses, being able to diagnose and compound the medicines for the treatment, understanding the various elements and constituents of the body, etc. Then there’s the logic and epistemology, and this has its source in the understanding of the text Pramānavārttika, or Dharmakīrti’s commentary to Dignāgā’s Compendium of Valid Cognition in which it develops the understanding of what is a correct reason and sets out the reasoning establishing the proof of of selflessness, of setting out the reasoning for what is to be abandoned, the cyclic existence which is to be abandoned, and the the liberation which is be attained, the various reasoning setting these out.
So then, linguistics, and this mainly involves the understanding of the Sanskrit language. It also entails an understanding of various individual national languages and languages of various countries. This would involve the understanding of the grammar, the mode of expression, the relationships, how the relationships between the words, the way the what would you say? Perhaps the conjugation, the poetics, in general, the grammar of the language. The last is inner sciences, and this inner science is only found at the ground of Buddhahood, and this involves the understanding of selflessness, the understanding of the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths, the awarenesses of compassion, love, the mode of engaging in the path of liberation, the the paths and grounds of both the lesser and greater vehicles.
So the the the sciences the sciences of arts and medicines are to be known in order to lead disciples, you know, as as a means of leading disciples. And the sciences of logic, epistemology as one, and linguistics as the second are to be are to be known as a means of eliminating perverse consciousnesses, wrong wrong consciousnesses. And the principal subject of study amongst these five sciences is the last, that is inner sciences. And this is the actual method where the most important is this actual method for abandoning suffering, the means whereby we can attain liberation in Buddhahood. So these five sciences are the conventional wisdom, understanding, conventionalities.
And with respect to the second type, principle type of wisdom that is the ultimate wisdom, understanding the ultimate, this is the realization of emptiness. So the conventional wisdom is the method in order to generate ultimate wisdom. Previously we spoke about the union of calm abiding and special insight and discussing that we said there were two types of special insight. There is special insight observing conventionalities and special insight observing ultimates. When we talk about the special insight observing ultimates, we’re talking about this third higher training in wisdom.
That is the ultimate wisdom understanding ultimates that is emptiness. And one can obtain the conventional wisdom by understanding conventionalities and dependence upon non-Buddhist texts and teachings, but it’s only dependent upon the Buddhist texts and teachings that one can develop the ultimate wisdom understanding, the ultimate that is emptiness. So with respect to these two types of special insight, ultimate special insight and conventional insight, there are two types of ultimate special insight. There is the ultimate special insight which realizes the selflessness of persons and that which realizes the selflessness of phenomena. So Candrakīrti in talking about the special insight which realizes the selflessness of persons says the following quote from the following quote: Seeing with their mind that all afflictions and defects arise from the view of the transitory collection of mind and body as an inherently existing I and mind, yogis, upon realizing that the self is the object of this view, refutes self inherent existence.
So what does this quote mean? When we studied the we were studying in awareness and knowledge the six principle of affliction and afflicted mental factors, and among those was afflicted view. And the first of the afflicted views was the view of the transitory collection as being inherently I or mine. And this is the conception which conceives as the conception observing the eye as the conception con the conception observing the eye and conceiving of it as inherently existent is the view of the transitory collection. The conception observing the eye and conceiving of it to exist inherently, right?
Inherently existent. So this is, you know, if having previously explained what we mean by the view here in the sense that an afflicted view is a wrong awareness. It misconceives the nature of the object. Here it’s conceiving of the nature of the eye to be truly existent, inherently existent. So it’s a wrong consciousness.
It is and the the reverse or the opposite of this wrong consciousness is a correct consciousness, a type of consciousness which is in accordance with the way things actually exist. And this is the wisdom consciousness understanding selflessness. So this misconception, conceiving of an inherently existing I and the wisdom realizing selflessness are mutually contradictory, mutually at odds with one another. So it is independence, as as he states here in in his verse, that that all the various afflictive emotions arise in dependence upon this misconceived view. That is the view of the transitory collection being inherent in the existing eye or mind.
in dependence upon this misconception, then all the various afflictive emotions arise such as anger, desire, and confusion. in dependence upon these afflictive emotions, then we engage in unskillful actions. We create karma. And dependence upon creating the various types of karma, we experience suffering. So it is the misconception with respect to the nature of the self that is the source of all our problems, all suffering.
The only thing which is able to eliminate this misconception is the wisdom realizing selflessness. This is the only antidote which is which is able to eliminate the source of all our problems. Without developing the wisdom, understanding, selflessness, there is no way to go beyond our problems or our suffering. As Dharmakīrti said, without realizing the nonexistent of the object of observation of the misconception, conceiving of truly existent self. Then there is Without realizing the nonexistence of the of the conception of the true existence itself, then there is no way to eliminate the ego grasping or the conception the misconception conceiving of the self.
And that which is able to get rid of eliminate the misconception with respect to the self is the wisdom, understanding, selflessness. So in the as a means of developing the wisdom, realizing selflessness, the Master Shāntarakshita, there’s the following quotation. These things propounded by ourselves and others because of lacking in reality and nature of oneness or manyness, do not inherently exist like a reflection. So this this quotation is explaining the reasoning whereby to generate an inference and in an inferential understanding realizing selflessness. So, you know, we have not we we haven’t realized selflessness.
So how do we initially what is the method for us to initially realize selflessness the first time? When we talked previously about valid cognitions, valid cognitions, we said there are two types. There is inferential valid cognition and direct valid cognition. So the initial understanding of selflessness is a between the two of the two types of valid cognitions, inferential valid cognition. So how are we going to develop an inferential valid cognition of selflessness?
We we rely on the method The method for generating the initial cognition that is inferential valid cognition is relying on reasoning. We have to rely on reasoning. So there are many types, there are many reasoning, there are many reasonings which we could rely on in order to generate this initial inferential understanding of selflessness. Here the type type which Shāntarakshita is is putting forth is is is So amongst all the various types of reasons that we could rely on to generate our initial understanding of selflessness, this one presented by Shāntarakshita is probably the best since it’s readily understood. So all all the various teachings on the graduated path state that this that this particular method of reasoning is the best for the initial understanding of selflessness?
In presenting reason, we to settle the meaning of the four points. There are four points which will settle the meaning of selflessness. So the four points which settle the meaning of selflessness are as follows. The essential of ascertaining the object of negation. The essential so these are the four essential points.
The first is the essential of ascertaining the object of negation. The essential of ascertaining the object of negation. The second is the essential of ascertaining the entailment. The essential of ascertaining the entailment. Another word another translation is pervasion rather than entailment using the word pervasion.
That’s the second. Third is the essential of ascertaining the lack of oneness. The lack of oneness. And the fourth essential is the essential of ascertaining the lack of difference. The lack of difference.
Those are the four essential points. So we use an example, analogous example to begin with as an to approach the subject, and we’re going to present a A syllogism. So you must write this down. So when you meditate on emptiness, you can sit down and think about it, what this syllogism means. So we write down a syllogism, three parts.
The first part is the subject. We use flower. Flower as the subject. Flower as the subject. It lacks inherent existence.
It it follows that it lacks inherent existence or it follows that it’s not inherently existent. Whatever words are easiest for you. The same translation. It it follows that it lacks inherent existence or it follows that it’s not inherently existent. And then the reason, because it is because it is neither inherently existent it is neither inherently it is neither inherently existent, the one, or inherently existent, the many.
And then, for example, like a reflection. For example, like a like a reflection. Okay. That’s the syllogism. So, okay, let’s look at this syllogism.
So we’re taking the flower. The flower, we’re taking it as the basis of our discussion. The basis of our discussion, we’re going to use the flower. The flower is not inherently existent. So the Middle Way Consequence School says the flower lacks inherent existence.
The flower is not inherently existent. The middle way consequent school says that the flower lacks inherent existence. The flower is not inherently existent. The other schools, the Great Exposition, Sūtra, Mind Mind Only, and Rungya. And also the Middle Way Autonomy School.
All the schools except for the consequent schools say that the flower is in fact inherently existent. It inherently exists. Consequence school says the flower is not established inherently. It’s not inherently existent. So what reason does the Middle Way Consequentialist give for establishing or proving that the flower lacks inherent existence, that the flower is not inherently existent.
They give they say that the flower is not inherently existent because it is neither inherently existently one or inherently existently many. Now I’ll give you some other translations for these terms. It’s it’s not inherently existently identical or many or different. Many, different, identical, unitary, same. Different possible translation.
Why? Because it’s So the flower is not inherently existing because it’s neither inherently existing in one or or inherently existing in many. Maybe so I gave you those synonyms of of these different terms, and I think it’ll become clear why it’s necessary at different times to use the different synonyms. The the why is not why isn’t the flower inherently existent in one? And here, I think the word unitary might be best.
Inherently existent in unitary because it has parts. It because it has parts. It’s not inherently existent in one unitary because it has parts. It has the different directional parts, northern part, southern part. So if something is inherently existent, it must be either inherently existently unitary or inherently existently What do you mean to say?
Diverse. Diverse. Plurality. Yeah. Unitarian plurality.
There must be one of those. So we examine the first. There’s not inherent existent in the unitary or one because it has parts. If something has parts, it’s not in exact it’s not inherent existent in the unitary. One.
If something isn’t inherently existent in the unitary, then it cannot it cannot rely on any parts. Its existence must be must be such that it’s it’s existence must be such that it no way relies on parts if it’s inherently unitary. But the flower relies on causes. It relies on conditions. It is dependently established, it is dependently established, not inherently established.
So it’s not inherently in the unitary. So if something is inherently existent, it must be inherently existent and unitary or inherently existently different or plurality. So if something is not inherently existently one or unitary, can’t be an inexistently different or plurality because in order to have a plurality, you must have at least two. In order to some for something different, you must have at least two. And if there’s not if there’s not if there’s no inherently existent in one, then they can’t be inherently existent in many because we have to have at least two in order to have an inherent existent in plurality or many or difference, and we don’t have an inherent existent in one.
So how can we have inherently existent in many? If we don’t have one, we don’t we can’t have a hundred. If we don’t have one, we can’t have ten. If we have one if we we have to have at least one in order to have ten to have a hundred. If we don’t have one, we can’t have any of these.
So, this brings us back to the first essential, the essential of ascertaining the object of negation. So, Śāntideva says that without contacting the imagined existent, its nonexistent is not apprehended. Without contacting the imagined existent, its nonexistent is not apprehended. So if we apply this to the case of the flower, there is the conception of the truly existent flower. There is the conception of the truly existent flower which is imputing, no, super which is in superimposing the conception of it because the conception conceiving of of the flower as being truly existent.
It superimposes a a true existence upon the flower. The flower is not truly existent, but this conception superimposes a true existence upon the flower, an inherent existence. With that understanding that which is being imagined, that which is being superimposed upon the flower, then we cannot be aware of its nonexistence. Without contacting, coming to recognize that which is being superimposed upon the flower, we can never ascertain its nonexistence. To understand the lack of inherent existence to understand the lack of inherent existence, we must ascertain what inherent existence is.
Without understanding what inherent existence is, we will never understand what the lack of inherent existence is. It’s as if in the case of the one of the co director of Buddha House, his name is Doc, Doc White. Okay? If someone said, is Doc in this room? And if we didn’t know who Doc was, you know, if if we knew who Doc was, we used to know we look around, oh, doc’s not in this room.
That is we know we understand who doc is, we look around. We say, no. Doc doesn’t exist in this room. If you didn’t know who doc was, then you wouldn’t be able to to answer yes or no. You couldn’t you wouldn’t know couldn’t understand whether doc was in this room or not because you don’t know doc.
And, therefore, in order to understand the nonexistence of doc, you have to understand doc. So we have to be able to recognize doc’s features, you know, his facial features, his nose, his hair, etcetera. And then in dependence upon that, we know we know what doc looks like, and then we can we can ascertain whether the nonexistence of doc at a certain place. So we like to have the object of negation appear to our mind. The object of negation, what it is that we’re negating.
It It must appear to our mind. If if we in understanding what the inherent what the inherent the existing flower appears like, then we can then upon investigation, we can come to understand that this, in fact, is lacks inherent existence. Without understanding the inherently existent flower, we cannot understand the flower’s lack of inherent existence upon investigation. So it’s necessary initially to ascertain the object of negation. So, you know, what so we’re trying to understand what inherent existence having some having appeared to our mind.
What does it look like? What the some understanding what inheritance might be. What what is inherent existence if we apply it to this flower? If if the flower were inherently existent, then it would not rely on causes. It wouldn’t would not rely on conditions.
It would exist under its own power independently. If we were to ask, well, does the flower does the flower not exist does the flower exist does the flower not exist in relying upon causes and conditions independently? We would ask, and we say no, it does not exist that way. It relies on causes and conditions. It does not exist independently.
If we carry on our investigation of the flower further, we begin to examine the flower. And we say, well, what exactly is the flower? Or is the stem a flower? That’s not the flower. Are the petals a flower?
That’s not the flower. Are the stamen and corolla in the middle here? Is that the flower? That’s not the flower. But where is the flower?
Doesn’t the flower exist? The flower exists. The flower exists. The collection of all of these, the collection of the parts, the stem, the petals, the corolla. This collection is the basis of designating the name flower.
Initially there was a giving of the name initially by a person. Someone called and said this is a flower. in dependence upon this collection of stem, petals and stamens, he he gave the name flower. in dependence upon that name, upon giving that name, flower came into existence. So the flower depends upon its name being designated.
Now when we say so it’s it’s established in dependence upon its name. And the flower which is conceived of to exist independent of its name, of its designation, is an inherently existent flower. Existing independently is inherent is what we mean by inherently existent flower. So for the the middle way consequence school, they say that that the flower does not inherently exist because if it inherently existed, it would it would have to be an inherently existent singularity or plurality. Inherent and existent be one or many, whatever term you want to use.
And it’s not inherently existently one, and it’s not inherently existently one. If something exists, it must be one of these. It must be either if something inherently existent, it must be inherently existently one, or it must be inherently existently many. There’s no other possibility. So they say it’s not inherently existing in many.
It is not inherently existing in many. Therefore, it’s not inherently existing. Yes. So ascertaining the object of negation. The object of negation is that if if something is inherently existent, it must be established without relying upon causes, conditions, or name.
And when when we analyze, can such a thing in fact exist, there appears to our mind the appears to our mind the thought appears to our mind, things can’t exist that way. There’s no way that things can exist that way independently or not not relying upon causes and conditions in their name. Therefore, it realizes the thought the appearance of mind that such a way of existing is impossible. This is the ascertaining object of negation. Any object that exists, it must be either one or it must be two or more.
Whatever it is, must be if it exists, it must be either one or it must be two or more. Two or more. We have to come to the the conviction that that if something exists, it is pervaded by, it is necessarily either one or two or more. This is what isn’t meant by the second of these essentials. That is the ascertaining the entailment or entailment or pervasion that if something if something exists and entails or necessarily so, that it must be either one or it must be two or more.
If this is the pervasion. Then coming to the third point, what is the essential of ascertaining the lack of oneness? So if something exists, it must be either one or it must be many. It must be two or more. If something is inherently existent, it must be inherently existent in one or it must be inherently existent in two or more.
So we’re going to look at the first one. If something is inherently exist if the if there is no object of knowledge, there is no phenomenon which is inherently existent, won’t because to be inherently existent, it wouldn’t necessarily have to be to not rely on anything outside of itself. It will be independent of all other factors, and there’s nothing there’s no object of knowledge, which in the case of an impermanent phenomenon that they must rely on causes and conditions, but all phenomena in general have to rely upon their name or designation. So they’re always relying upon something, therefore, they’re not inherently existent they want. Why isn’t the flower inherently existent in one?
Because it has parts. Because it has parts, it’s not inherently existent in one. Yes. It’s it’s a southern part. It has a directional part.
So it has a it has a lower part, a top part, so it has various parts. So this negates inherent and existent oneness, but also with respect to the fourth point, the lack of difference, the lack of inherent and existent difference. Now if if it is an if it is if something is not inherently existently one, it cannot be it it cannot be inherently existent in many. If there’s not in order to have many, we have to have more than one. If we don’t have one, we can’t have many.
If we don’t have one, we can’t have a hundred. And if if if we don’t have an inherently existent one, we can’t have an inherently existent different because we have to have at least two. If we don’t have an inherently existent one, we can’t have inherently existent two or more. So it’s because the flower is not inherently existent in one, it can’t be inherently existent in many or two or more or or multiplicity or plurality. Therefore, it’s not inherently existent.
So we go back to original syllogism. We said the flower is the subject. It follows that it’s not inherently existent because it is not inherently existent in one or inherently existent in the many or inherently existently same or inherently existently different. And once the arises in the mind, dependence upon this reason, that in fact come to a decision, that is that the effect the flower is not here existence, then we meditate upon that that state of having come to this firm conviction upon deciding that it’s not here in existence. So to use analogy, if we have some precious, we have some valuable object and we think it must be in one of we have two boxes.
It must be in one must be in one of these two boxes. We’ve decided that we’ve convinced ourselves. This object must this value must be in one of these two boxes. And we look into the first box, so it’s not there. And we look into the second box, it’s not there.
So we understand that since we we we were convinced before that if if if this valuable object exists, it must be one of these two boxes, and upon looking in the boxes that object doesn’t is not there, then in fact, the object does not exist at all. This valuable object is in fact, does not exist at all, and it arises in the mind the the nonexistence of that valuable object because where it should have been, it’s not there. It cannot be anywhere else, and therefore, it must not exist at all. Likewise, in coming to an understanding of the noninherent existence, we must ascertain that if something exists inherently, it must be either inherently existently one or inherently existent in one. And and looking analyzing both of those positions, understanding that something cannot be inherently existent in one, and it cannot be inherently exist in many, we then we we then decide that in fact things are not inherently existent.
There arises in the mind the understanding of the non inherent existence, and this is the understanding of emptiness. And then having come to that this understanding appearing to one’s mind, the noninherent existence, this understanding of emptiness, one meditates in meditative equipoise for as long as possible in this in that state. So we can’t you know, it’s it’s necessary to do this more than once. We have to keep repeating this, trying to develop generate this understanding again and again and again, and it keeps getting we get a better understanding, a better understanding each time, and this finally, this will lead to an actual realization of emptiness. So it’s one of the qualities of awareness of our minds that that upon that everything becomes easier upon familiarization, that it doesn’t become more difficult.
This is a a one of the excellent qualities, nature of the mind, that upon familiarization, habituation, things actually always become easier. So it’s just like a little child when he’s first learning to write. At first, he’s very clumsy. He makes many mistakes, but as he practices more and more and becomes familiar with cultivates this this ability to write, then he’s he can write much more. His writing becomes very beautiful, and and he’s able to write very quickly.
The mind is really the same. So, as Śāntideva says that all activities become easier upon familiarization, that things may be difficult initially, but through habituation then it’s the quality of the mind that they always become easier. So, initially, we’re seeking to to generate an inferential valid cognizer, realizing emptiness. It is a a thought consciousness, a thinking consciousness, understanding emptiness, and then combining it with our calm abiding and developing special insight with respect to emptiness. And dependent upon that, we are cultivating our understanding and realization, getting clear and clear understanding of emptiness.
And finally, we gain a direct insight, a direct valid cognizer with respect to emptiness. And it’s this which actually has the ability to cut out the root of ignorance, the misconception as the nature of the self. Once once we cut out cut out the root, like, this wisdom is like an axe cutting at the root of ignorance. And once we remove the root, then all the various afflictive emotions which arise out of this root are completely eliminated, and we no longer engage in in karma. We no longer create karma and engage in actions, and therefore, we eliminate all suffering, and this is the method to attain liberation.
If we can couple this mind, this wisdom with the awakening heart, with compassion, then it will serve as a means to attain Buddhahood. So, you know, the various the Three Jewels. For example, the Buddha jewel, who is the shower of the path, the teacher. And there’s the jewel of Sangha, the jewel of Dharma. And there are two Dharma jewels.
So there are two Dharma jewels. My mistake. The Dharma the Dharma jewel is the real refuge, is the is the actual refuge. It is the method whereby we can actualize the the the wisdom, understanding selflessness, and thereby uproot the source of suffering to eliminate ignorance, cease the afflictive emotions. We no longer create karma, and we attain liberation.
Therefore, it is the Dharma jewel which is the ultimate or the real refuge. So this is such a teaching as this all comes about through the kindness of the Buddha, that the Buddha was skilled in speech, and he showed his excellence of the doctrine. He was able to explain skillfully his excellent doctrine and showed an unerring path to liberation. So in the like, various other traditions have propounded methods for attaining miraculous abilities, attaining clairvoyances, but these, in the end, aren’t really worth all that much. We’ve all had these experiences in the past, and they didn’t they didn’t do us any good.
But such such teachings as these that which can lead us onward along the path, simply, you know, practicing as well as possible, planting the dispositions or the latencies such that in the future, that upon their activation of these latencies, that we can quickly gain the paths and realizations and attain complete happiness. So Śāntideva has said that we’ve all experienced unending suffering in the past, unending happinesses in the past. But all of these sufferings and happinesses we experience ultimately did not accomplish either the purpose of others, let alone our own purposes, Either our own purpose, alone the purpose of others. But so we should in in practicing in whatever types of discomfort that we may have to undergo, we that we voluntarily accept upon ourselves, we should rejoice in this type of discomfort since it will ultimately accomplish not only our own purposes but the purposes of others, the welfare of ourselves and others. So we should make prayers that we will be able to come in contact and hear and be able to contemplate the great texts explaining these teachings that we will be able to put them into practice, that we should again and again make such types of prayer petitions.
And continue prayers, again and again, that you will be in a position to to hear and contemplate these texts for the benefit of others and again and again making such types of prayer. So prayers are extremely important for our future welfare that we should, again, make such prayers that we’re able to hear and contemplate these texts. So with respect to this initial syllogism that we were talking about, at the end it said, for example, like a like a reflection. And what does this word reflection mean? That’s when we look into a mirror, a face appears to us.
It it appears to that it this appearance appears that it is a face. What appears it it appears as if it is a face. This re this appearance appears as if it is a face, but it actually but in fact, it’s not a face. It’s a reflection of a face. It’s not really a face.
Though it appears to be a face, it’s not really a face. Likewise, though this flower appears to be inherently existent, it’s not really inherently existent. Of a pillar and a pot to be inherent in existence Would it be an example of a conception, conceiving of of a inherently existent? Many. Or The conception, conceiving of a pillar and a pot to be inherently existent.
A pillar and a pot. Pillar, pot. When you see a part, you can see the limb p one? Yeah. Was your question.
So you consider that there was many. Right? So this is a if we we when we look at one thing, we we we consider it to be inherently existent in one. Or yeah. If we look at two, then we consider it be inherently existently different or inherently existently many.
Now this is Rinpoche says that this would only arise, such a type of conception only arises in a mind which has been affected by tenets. That is it’s an it’s an acquired artificial conception that’s not innate. Only upon being affected by Inherently existing in many. So the Buddha and Dharma are not inherently existent. They arise independently.
Independently. in dependence upon. Not in dependence upon any other thing or They lack inherent existence. They’re not inherently existent. They lack inherent existence.
But that was my question. Do you know that? They lack inherent existence. Oh, they do lack. They lack.
Oh. They lack. They do not have. They are without. They also.
Yeah. So all things lack inherent existence. Yeah. [unclear]. [unclear].
This is the view. There’s the view that nothing exists is nihilism. The view that things exist permanently is nihilism. The view that these inherently exist is the view of eternalism. And the view that they lack inherently existent is the is the correct view of emptiness, and it is the real view.
The correct yeah. Yeah. So for the autonomy for the middleware autonomy school, they and all the lower tenets, including them, they view that things lack inherent existence is held to be a view of nihilism. View of nihilism. Further further middle way out.
Consequent school that’s considered this lack of inherent existence is the correct view. The the view which holds the things inherently exist is seen as the view of eternalism. It mean it’s only an individual? If somebody doesn’t inherently exist, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have to not exist. It doesn’t mean that it has it has to not exist.
Because something doesn’t inherently exist doesn’t mean because something doesn’t inherently exist, that doesn’t mean that it does not exist. So the inherent existence is a factor which is superimposed upon phenomena, which is imagined and projected onto phenomena. Projected by the mind. Yeah, by the projector. So how do we all have the same projection?
Why do we all have ignorance? Because we don’t understand the lack of inherent existence, have ignorance. Yeah. And? What is the difference?
We’re trying to feed a fish to a flower. What is the difference? So this is not an appropriate basis for designating cat. It does not have the characteristics of a cat, it’s not able to perform the activities of a cat, therefore it’s not an appropriate basis for a designating cat. So it would be improper to designate you the Prime Minister of Australia because you do not perform the functions, activities of the Prime Minister of Australia.
In order to be a proper basis for being designated the Prime Minister of Australia, you have to be able to perform that function, those activities. Those qualities onto it. Which qualities? The qualities of its smell, its color. All those qualities.
You’re projecting all those qualities. You understand that the reality is one that you’re creating more or less. That gives it its that gives its gives its happening. It doesn’t have that reality itself. It may have a totally different reality that you don’t understand yet.
But you do understand that you’re giving it a character, you’re giving it a thingness. You’re you’re doing. It’s an understanding that you’re doing it. So it’s a conceptual thing, like projection thing. Is that because it has another reality outside of that again.
But at the No, I can’t think of the word. So the final the final mode of being, final mode of being, the most profound mode of being is that the flower exists merely imputed by conception and is not inherently existent. There’s nothing more than that. There’s nothing behind that. There’s nothing behind that.
No. That’s There’s nothing more than that. There’s nothing there’s no no no no more further analysis. There’s nothing there’s nowhere other place we can go. In this example, for example, the thing exists maybe was like a ring.
You had a valuable ring and and you wore it and then you put it away in one of the boxes. And then some time passed and you thought and you knew you put it in one of these boxes and you went to look for it. You looked in this box, it wasn’t you looked in this box, it went wasn’t there anything? There were maybe maybe a a thief stole it. Maybe something happened to it.
And there arises in the mind, oh, I I don’t have my ring. My ring doesn’t exist where it there arises this this the nonexistence of the ring in the two boxes. Whether existent or nonexistent, it lacks inherent existence. Both nonexistent and existent less lack inherent existence or not inherent existent. So, you know, we were talking about whether we could call the flower a cat, and since everything is merely imputed by conception, so this is one of the reasons that the lower tenets try to refute the Middle Way Consequence School.
They say, well, we had a pile of stones and we’re walking along and we see the stones and we we see it as a person. Or isn’t it a person? We’re imputing we’re designating that pile of stones as person. We see it as a person. Isn’t that a person?
So, you know, we just can’t call anything anything because we can’t simply call the flower a cat. It must as was mentioned, it must be able to perform the function, the activity. It must be a proper basis of designation of whatever we want to designate that. It must be able to withstand harm by it must be able to resist harm by either a worldly conventions, a conventional valid cognizer, or an ultimate valid cognizer. For example, if you said this was a cat, and then people walk in, you know, you’re crazy.
People would have said, that’s not a cat. People in the world, they wouldn’t be able to withstand such any valid cognizer as it is knowing the world. And it would not and also, it would not be able to And for something with a proper basis of designation, it must be able to resist harm by worldly valid cognizers, conventional valid cognizers, and ultimate valid cognizers. And then the So I was so the the basis of recognition must be able to perform that that activity or the function in order to be a proper basis for imprinting that name. But also, that function, that activity is also not inherently existent.
So again, that has parts. It is dependent and it is also empty of being inherently that particular activity. So that is also empty and the emptiness goes back further and further, lack of inherent existence. So it was asked that we begin a new tradition. At the end of our teaching, recite on the back page, there’s a prayer for the long life of His holiness, the Dalai Lama.
So we recite that before the dedication prayer.