Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Khensur Rinpoche opens this 78-minute session with a personal image: his pet budgie pressing against its cage mirror, convinced the reflection is a friend — an analogy for how the ignorant mind grasps at true existence. He explains why mere assertion (“I and mine don’t truly exist”) produces no realization, and why analytical reasoning is indispensable, comparing it to establishing guilt in court with evidence. He then unpacks a three-part syllogism — the I as subject, not truly existent as predicate, dependent arising as reason — and clarifies two prerequisites that give this reasoning its power. A Q&A addresses why the flower’s mode of appearance contradicts its mode of existence, why emptiness alone is true while all other phenomena are falsities, and how karma and liberation remain coherent within this view.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 05 PG 1991 02 19.mp3
UUID: 557d8092-4c01-4d7a-963a-fbb3d3457e25
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Precious Garland 1990-1991 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1991-02-19
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 78.5 minutes
Words: ~3,702
We refute by realizing the falsity of the aggregates. We refute the true existence of the aggregates, and we realize emptiness. So, it’s necessary that we cultivate an understanding of emptiness. It’s necessary that we meditate on emptiness. It is through the force of ignorance that we are continually circling within cyclic existence.
And it is only the realization of emptiness which can bring this process to an end. And therefore, and we will not realize emptiness unless we cultivate this understanding in meditation. How are we to meditate on emptiness? We must make use of a process of reasoning in order to get at the meaning of emptiness, in order to realize emptiness. If we were to simply sit there in our meditation and think to ourselves, I and mine do not truly exist, and just simply sit there thinking that, I and mine don’t truly exist, we will never arrive at a realization of emptiness.
We will never come to understand emptiness. This is not the way to cultivate an understanding of emptiness. We have to reflect upon the non existence of true existence through the process of reasoning. By this analytic method of reasoning, we can come to a realization of emptiness. So an analogy to the necessity of making use of reason is that if a particular person were arrested by the police, and he was charged with a theft, and when it came to trial, they said, Well, how can we establish that he is a thief?
And he said, Well, he’s a thief, that’s all. I just think he’s a thief. This would not establish the fact that he is a thief just because we think he’s a thief. In order to establish that he’s a thief, need some kind of proof. We need various reasons to establish that, in fact, he is a thief.
We have to say, Oh, well, I saw him go into a room, and I saw him take a particular article, and he came back out of the room, and he had that article on him. And giving these various reasons, we can definitely establish in a very that he is clearly a thief. So, we meditate on emptiness through a process of we establish emptiness within our meditation through a process of reasoning. And what type of reasoning? What is the form of this reasoning?
We begin with the subject. We take ourselves, our individual I, and our aggregates, or we can say the body, I and the body as a subject, and we say, They do not naturally exist, or They do not truly exist. And then we give a reason. Why? What is the reason?
Because they are dependent arising. Then we give an analogous example. Why? Because they’re dependent arising. For example, like the reflection of a face in a mirror.
They are dependent arising like the reflection of a face in a mirror. In general, there are two types of meditation. There’s analytic meditation and stabilizing meditation. So, we proceed in our meditation by initially making use of analytic meditation. That is to say, we reasoned analysis.
We begin to examine the object. Is it, you know, its nature? And we use various types of reasonings to come to understand whether it’s this or whether it’s that. For example, in context, the I and the body do not truly exist. And we think, well then we begin to think, well if it truly exists, then it would have to be this, and if it was that, then it would have to be this, And if that, but it can’t be that.
Or, well, maybe if it was truly existent, then it would have to be this. And if it was that, then it would have to be this. And then if it was that, it would have to be this, but it can’t be that. So, we’re continually using an analytic reason analysis to come to conclusions. So, in the various work that we do, we’re continually using this process of analytic reasoning.
You know, have to think, in order to do this, then I have to do that. If this is, if I want to do this, then I must do that. If this is the way this is, then this has to be this way. And we come to various conclusions using this process of reason analysis. So we’re making, we’re using this three part syllogism.
So we begin with the subject. This is the basis that we’re examining. And in this case, it is the I, the self. Then we wish to see whether a particular quality can be attributed to that subject. In this case, whether it’s truly existent or not.
Does the I truly exist or not? So we have a subject, the I, it does not truly exist, and then why? We have to give a reason. And this reason that we’re giving is because it’s a dependent arising. There’s three parts.
So we’re examining the basis of our consideration, which is the I, whether it has this particular quality or not, and we’re saying it does not have the quality of being truly existent, and we give a reason that it, because it’s dependent arising. And we go on to give an analogous example, just like a reflection of a face in the mirror. This the reason of dependent arising was one of the most effective reasons that the Buddha set forth by means of which realization of emptiness can come about. It extremely a powerful and beneficial basis for understanding emptiness, the fact of dependent arising. So though this reason of dependent arising is extremely powerful reason, in general, we can say that.
But unless one makes that reason one’s own, it’s as if it doesn’t have any power. That is to say, we have to come to understand what dependent arising means before it does become a powerful method for realizing emptiness. In order take advantage of the power of the reason of dependent arising, we have to understand what dependent arising is. So though this is a great reason, and though it’s very powerful, we have to ascertain it for ourselves before it becomes of a power for ourselves to realize emptiness. And in coming to that, it’s necessary that we bring about an awareness which acts as conducive conditions for its understanding.
That We have to supply two conducive conditions to understand the reason of dependent arising. The first is, we have to understand that the I, the Self, is a dependent arising. The I, the self, is a dependent arising. That’s one. The second conducive condition is that we have to understand that if something is a dependent arising, it is necessarily not truly existent.
That is to say, if an object is a dependent arising, it is pervaded by being not truly existent. It is necessarily not truly existent. If something is a dependent arising, it is necessarily or pervaded by being not truly existing, these two factors. If, In coming to a realization of the emptiness of the I, the self, if we can, if we have these two complete conditions, then this reason becomes extremely powerful. And coming to a realization, emptiness is extremely important that we have these two factors complete.
It’s just like if we’re going to prepare a delicious banquet. We have to have all the various ingredients laid out first. It’s definite that if you have all the proper ingredients laid out and you’re a good chef, then you’re going to have a wonderful meal. If you don’t have all the proper ingredients, though you try to think it’s delicious, it’s really not. So we haven’t So we haven’t completed the explanation on these reasonings, and later on we’re going to go we’re going to make this reasoning process very clear, and we’re going to continue talking about them.
But we’re going to stop there for now. So, you should think about what we’ve discussed up to now in this, with respect to this three part syllogism, that we take as the subject and the basis of analysis of the I or the body. Then the predicate, the quality which is being attributed to the subject is that it’s not truly existent. And the reason which establishes this is because it is a dependent arising. So, we have to understand now, we want to understand the relationships between that the I is a dependent arising.
We want to understand that relationship. The I is a dependent arising. And that if something is a dependent arising, it must necessarily be not truly existing. If we understand these two well, that the I is a dependent arising, and if something is a dependent arising, it is necessarily not truly existing, then understanding the thesis that the I is not truly existing will come very easily. So we’ll stop there, but we’ll take five minutes for a question.
That’s a that’s a Svatāntrika-Madhyamaka. K? Not a not a toymotopo konzak. K? So if you have a, if you would, for example, have the motivation of the awakening heart and you perform an action, that would be a positive action.
If you had attachment as a motivation, perform an action. That would be a negative action. But there are still falsities. They’re falsities. They’re They’re falsities.
It is because we are able to present things as falsities that all of these various factors, facts arise, such as liberation, omniscience, and the relationship between causes and effects. in dependence upon a skillful action, happiness arises. in dependence upon unskillful action, suffering arises. This is all because we can present them as falsities. If they were true, then there be no presentation of them.
We could not present any of them. There would be no assertion of any of them or presentation of any of them, if they were true. It’s only because they are false that they’re able to be presented. If we take, for example, the flower, the flower is a falsity because it is a dependent arising. It depends upon the growth of the flower, the coming into existence of the flower, depends upon the seed, it relies upon the earth, etc.
It relies upon these. Therefore, we say it depends upon these. Therefore, we say it depends on rising. Therefore, it is a falsity. If it didn’t rely upon these, it would be true.
That is to say, the flower would be independent of a seed. It would be independent of the earth. It would exist independently, and then it would be true. That it would have to initiate itself. It wouldn’t rely upon anything other than itself if it were true.
But because it does, we say it is false. This is really, this presentation of the view, the presentation of the Buddhist view of dependent arising is extremely wonderful. Is saying that all things depend upon something other than themselves for their arising, their coming to be. And it’s in this way that we can present the doctrine of actions and the results, that is to say karma. If things were true, then results would exist without depending upon their causes.
So we have a great attachment to what is true, and therefore we have many misconceptions as to falsity. So that’s right. There’s an extremely close relationship between impermanence and dependent arising. By impermanence, we mean momentary disintegration. And momentary disintegration arises and relies upon the causes and conditions.
And this is, in a way, saying the same thing as dependent arising. That if something is impermanent, it is because it is momentarily disintegrating because it relies upon causes and conditions. And this is to say that it’s dependent arising. If it were not dependent arising, then it would be permanent. So So, we want to add another dedication prayer, and just a slight change in the prayer that we just said.
Rather than saying Jangchub Sem Cho Rinpoche, substitute Tog Nyi Dawa. Tog Nyi Dawa Rinpoche, which Tog Nyi Dawa means the view of emptiness, precious view of emptiness. So, we’re just going to substitute that line. Tog Nyi Dawa Rinpoche. So The cessation of taking rebirths under the influence of karma and afflictive emotions, the experience of an ultimate happiness, and the highest of qualities has as its basis the wisdom emptiness.
On the other hand, the all our various experiences of suffering, our continual taking of rebirth within cyclic existence under the influence of karma and afflictive emotions, all has arises out of basic basic ignorance. So these two are in direct contradiction to one another. Ignorance and the wisdom realizing emptiness. They are as if opposite, and they are the extremes of the finest qualities that we can develop and the basic, most detrimental qualities that we now possess. We all are experiences of suffering, all that is undesirable in our life, we as sentient beings, arises out of the force of ignorance.
It was because of this fact that the Buddha taught the method of the realization of emptiness as a means to eliminate ignorance. Therefore, he taught the meditation, the cultivation of the wisdom realizing emptiness as a means to be rid of the root of all our sufferings. Additionally, you said that are not having an inclination or a liking of emptiness, a liking with respect to liberation also arises out of ignorance. How are we to eliminate ignorance? What is the method whereby to eliminate ignorance?
Initially, we must recognize ignorance as being a distorted conception. That it is a wrong or mistaken conception. Presently, we do not see ignorance as being mistaken. We see everything that ignorance sees as being the way things actually are. So, first we must understand that ignorance is, in fact, distorting, mistaken in conceives.
Understanding this, then there will, out of this will arise an inclination or a liking toward the understanding of emptiness and a striving for liberation. An analogy of what is being gotten at here is that if we were to view a person as being quite a good fellow and seen that light, then we would go along with whatever this person said. On the other hand, if we came to understand that this person was really a liar, they were really dishonest, then we would no longer go along with what they said to us. We wouldn’t follow what they said. Likewise, with respect to ignorance, we must come to an understanding that it is in fact a wrong conception, that it’s mistaken.
What is the method whereby we can come to understand that the ignorance is a wrong conception? Now, as has been explained previously when we were discussing I and mind, that the I, in dependence upon the that the I is imputed to a collection of the five aggregates, which is made up of the four elements: earth, water, fire, and air. And that the I is merely imputed to these aggregates. And this I is able to perform various functions. It is the agent of the activities.
You know, I go, I eat, I become sick. And also, is said that this imputed, nominally existent I is able to possess. It has, for example, it has my feelings, my thoughts, whatever it has, it is nominally existently mine. When somebody says, Jampa, you say, Ah, I I. Somebody says my name, I say, Ah, because they’re referring to the nominally existent Jampa, which is, this is quite normal.
This is, this I, in fact, exists. It exists nominally. The I which does not exist is an ultimately existing I, a truly existent I. The truly existent I does not exist. If the truly existent I were to exist, then it would exist for a superior in meditative equipoise realizing emptiness.
They’re superior in meditative equipoise on emptiness. That the, if the I truly existed, it would exist, it would appear for that superior. But it does not appear for that superior. It does not exist for that superior, therefore it does not exist. As it says in the Heart of Wisdom Sūtra, there is no form, there is no sound, there is no odor, is no flavors, there are no objects of touch.
And what does that mean? In general, you know, form exists. We can see form. Sounds exist. We can hear sounds, and odors exist.
We can smell various types of odors. Flavors exist, delicious flavors, flavors which aren’t delicious. And there are objects of touch: smooth, rough. So, in general, these things exist. What does it mean when the sūtra says that form does not exist, sound does not exist, etc?
It is saying that truly existent form does not exist, truly existent sound does not exist, truly existent odor does not exist, truly existent flavor does not exist, truly existent objects of touch do not exist. If they in fact existed, then a superior who is realizing emptiness and examines to these objects would find them. But he doesn’t. Therefore, they don’t truly exist. So, a truly existent I and mind do not exist.
Truly existent I and mind do not exist. But, there is a grasping at a truly existent I and mine. We, we, there is a grasping which thinks, Ah, truly existent I and mine exists. There is a grasping at truly existent I and mine which thinks, ah, they they truly existent I and mine exist. If they existed, they should be known by a superior who is analyzing for their true existence, but they’re not found.
This, it is the ignorance which, these only exist for an ignorance which is grasping for true existence. These are only objects for ignorance which is grasping at a true existence. Therefore, since in fact they don’t exist, then there must, then ignorance itself is mistaken. It is distorted. It is wrong.
It is a wrong awareness, a distorted awareness. So, many of you know that I have a budgie, a bird. And this bird, its cage, is a mirror. And when it looks in the mirror, it thinks that there’s a friend there. And it’s always rubbing up against its friend.
It really thinks that there’s a friend there. If this mirror wasn’t there, then this conception that there is a friend there would not arise. But there’s a mirror there, and it has a conception that there really is a friend there, even though this is a wrong conception. And it’s really, you know, wherever I move that mirror, it goes over there and rubs up against its friend. It’s really quite attached to its friend.
So, it definitely conceives a friend is in the cage with it, because it appears to it. But this is, but if we were to somehow establish that this, in fact, there was no friend there, then we would understand that that conception which grasped at that friend was a wrong conception, was mistaken. So the awareness which grasped at true existence is a wrong awareness, a distorted awareness, a mistaken awareness. It’s a very undesirable type of awareness. And if we can establish that true existence, in fact, does not exist, then we can eliminate that So the grasping at true existence is a mistake in awareness.
And it is false. And as we mentioned before, it is due to the force of ignorance that we grasp at the aggregates. That is to say, that we take rebirth. We’re taking rebirth under the influence of a misconception. So, the awareness the distorted awareness of ignorance is said to be false.
It is out of this, under its influence, we take rebirths. Therefore, it is said that we are false. We’re not false in the same negative sense that ignorance is false. Some people might think if they were So, ignorance is referred to as false because it is a wrong conception, a distorted conception, a mistaken conception. There are many different types of falsities.
So, ignorance is a type of falsity because it is a wrong conception. We are a falsity for another reason. That the aggregates, or the we, or the I, is said to be a falsity because its mode of appearance and its mode of abidance are incongruent. The way it appears and the way it exists are in discord. They’re incongruent.
They’re not dissimilar. So, emptiness is true. It is the only thing which is true. All phenomena other than emptiness, all phenomena other than emptiness are falsities. Emptiness is a truth.
All phenomena other than emptiness are falsities. But it’s not fault in the sense that we refer to grasping at true existence as being false. It’s a different type of falsity. Quoting from a verse from Root Wisdom by Nāgārjuna, in which he said, All products are falsities. And why are they falsities?
Because their mode of abidance and mode of appearance are incongruent. Whereas the mode of appearance and the mode of abidance of emptiness is congruent. Therefore, it is true. If we take as an example the flower, the flower appears to all of us to truly exist. When we see the flower, it appears to us to truly exist.
We don’t see it as being merely imputed. That there was an initial time when someone gave it the name flower. They designated this as a flower. It appears that the flower exists objectively from its own side. That’s the way it appears, but that’s in fact not the way it exists.
And therefore, there’s an incongruency between the way it appears and the way it exists. It doesn’t exist the way it appears, therefore it’s said to be a falsity. So, to anyone who does had who has not had direct realization of emptiness, That flower will appear to be truly existent. But does it exist that way? No, it doesn’t exist that way.
Therefore, the way it appears and the way it exists dissimilar, are incongruent. They do not accord with one another, the way it appears and the way it exists. Therefore, we say it is a falsehood.