Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Opening with Āryadeva’s claim that even mere skepticism about emptiness can shatter saṃsāra, Khensur Rinpoche devotes this 98-minute session to selflessness of phenomena — Śāntideva’s second division of emptiness in chapter nine. After recapping selflessness of persons via the Heart Sūtra’s five aggregates, Rinpoche traces Śāntideva’s proof that form lacks inherent existence: searching the body part by part — hand, head, lungs — yields nothing solidly there; the same logic then drills into the hand’s fingers, the four elements, and finally the subtlest particles. A key distinction follows: something unfindable is not therefore conventionally non-existent — the signature position of the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka school. A Q&A closes with Rinpoche citing Nāgārjuna: grasping the aggregates as inherently real is the root of ego-grasping and samsaric rebirth.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 02 Ch9 Wisdom 1994 08 09.mp3
UUID: b4762858-0419-4806-9b35-47872b1cd9c7
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Śāntideva Ch9 Wisdom (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1994-08-09
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 98.6 minutes
Words: ~5,443
The great teacher, Āryadeva, who was the principal disciple of Nāgārjuna, says in his writing, those with inferior merits would not even become skeptical of it. Whoever becomes skeptical of it would shatter the saṃsāra into pieces. What that part of teaching in the writing means is it talks about the benefits of realizing or even being skeptical of emptiness. What that verse in meaning says is firstly we need to clarify what is meant by the expression merits. Well merits means whatever karmic deposit there is through doing virtuous actions and from which happiness such as rebirth into desire realm or higher realms are possible.
So in that way merits means the outcome potential from having done virtuous actions. Whoever whoever lacks amount of merits would be a person inferior with merits, such as a person who would be very likely to be always with anger or hatred indicative of not having engaged in virtuous actions that frequently or more in the past. So such a person not to talk about realizing emptiness even they would not or such person would not have the skeptical view about inquiring does emptiness means this or that or whatever that it is explained, they would not even have a skepticism about it. And the verse in meaning continued to says, Those who have merits and those who have wisdom and diligence, in their case they would not only be skeptical in the beginning about emptiness through which the inquiry would take place, they would even have the capability to actually realize emptiness and as a positive outcome of such realization, those people would be able to not only remove one’s own problems, sufferings, but also be able to remove others’ sufferings. In that way it is a very inspiring advice explaining the benefits of realizing emptiness.
Those who have merits as well the diligence to put effort into analysis of emptiness in their case they would be actively analyzing what emptiness is and in the course of analysis they, of course, in the beginning would take time to ascertain whether this is it or that is it or what is actually the reality about phenomena, what is emptiness. It may take time to ascertain and in the beginning not being able to place what it is. But eventually, even if they are able to have mere understanding about the decisive understanding of the way how things are, then this is emptiness. That understanding itself is so powerful, it would make the ignorance its opponent powerless. And in that way, it is like what the verse ahead says.
The saṃsāra would be shattered into pieces, that even a mere skepticism, mere ascertain understanding and so forth would be able to make ignorance the source of saṃsāra powerless. Such person, let’s say, does not happen to actually realize emptiness in this life, but by having made the initial step such person would leave or imprints a connection in the inquiry and understanding of emptiness on one’s consciousness, and in next life the imprint would be continuously carried together with oneself. So eventually, through having imprints from previous life, that it is possible, only a matter of taking more time gradually, that eventually that person would directly realize emptiness and through that way even attain liberation from saṃsāra, from suffering. Because of such fact, when one is listening to explanation about emptiness, it would be therefore appropriate to show as much appreciation, joyfulness from one side that one really need to feel happy, joyful about listening. If one does that, then that itself is very strong enough to lay good imprint to have future connection to receive instruction on the same topic.
Now with regards to emptiness itself, it can, from one way of classification, be of two types, the selflessness of the person and selflessness of phenomenon. Between the two, we already finished our discussion and inquiry into what is selflessness of the person in the past classes, Tuesday evenings. What remains now to cover is the second type of emptiness, the selflessness of phenomenon. And this is what then in our present part, in the ninth chapter, it starts from this point, the inquiry and explanation about the selflessness of phenomena. Now with regards firstly to what is selflessness of the person, well we can look at it with reference to a citation from a popular discourse by the Buddha called the Essence of Wisdom, popularly known in English as the Heart Sūtra.
There we know the line in one part reads: five aggregates should look at the five aggregates as by nature empty or not inherently existing. Now in that line there is mention of the five aggregates. Now the five aggregates are the aggregates of form, of feeling, of recognition, of formation or karmic activity and of consciousness. Now when either from the point of five aggregates or in the classification of four aggregates, whenever there is the composite of either four or the five aggregates and based on the composite of these when there is a mere label I I, then that very labeled I or identity on the composite of the five or four aggregates is what is called a person, the basis of being identity. Now the selflessness of the person means that person which is mere I I labeled on the aggregate, that person not inherently existing or by nature empty, or another way of saying that I or being not existing from its own characteristic, that is what is called the selflessness of a person, and this is same to be described as the emptiness about the person.
Although this point was covered in the previous explanations during the Tuesday evening, the reason why, again, it is mentioned here is possibly if there are any new people attending tonight, it might be a good point even though to repeat it. And now there are the five aggregates: form, feeling, karmic activity or formation, and consciousness. These five aggregates are the basis upon which the person is merely labeled upon, merely labeled at. So these are the basis of label for the person. Now in this selflessness of phenomena what it means is these bases of label they are not existing from their own characteristic expression similar to not inherently existing from their part.
Now that very fact that they do not exist from their side inherently indicates that there is an emptiness of inherent existence, that there is an emptiness of lacking existence from their own characteristic. So that very emptiness is what is here meant by selflessness of phenomena and that itself is what is called selflessness of phenomena. Here, at this point of explaining the selflessness of phenomena, the author of the ninth chapter, Śāntideva, goes through proving how each of the five aggregates, form, feeling and so forth, are not inherently existing. In that way the explanation touches by going through how form is not inherently existing, how feeling is not inherently existing and so forth. When it comes to the part how form is not inherently existing, there is the explanation about the meditation of placement of mindfulness on the body.
How that is so is the source of the teaching is based on Buddha Śākyamūni’s teaching about the four mindfulness, or what is strictly called the placement of the four mindfulnesses. And there, when it comes to the mindfulness of body, then this is what is important here in the proving of body as taking synonymous with form as not inherently existing. And in that way, one meditates on the mindfulness of the body being not inherently existing. To do meditation on the placement of mindfulness on the body, firstly one needs to establish whether the body is inherently existing or not. And in that way, one first thing to do is to search for the apparent inherent existence of the body.
And in that search, one looks throughout the whole spectrum of the body, whether it is inherently existing or not. And if it is, let’s suppose, if it is inherently existing, then it should be presentable as a solid thing that there it is, that it is, that the body is actually inherently existing, that this is soul. So it should be something which when searched for would be found and therefore be presentable. Or if the body is inherently existing, then when it is searched for, or when its inherent existence is searched for, it should be able to be found. But in our actual observation in the course of search, we can go about this way: Is the hand the body?
Is the heart the body? Are the shoulders the body? Is the back the body? Are the lungs the body? Are the intestines the body?
But they are not. So in searching for the body throughout its spectrum, we are not able to find it. Instead, we observe that it is all a succession of this is not, this is not, not, this is not, meaning that this is not the body, the hand is not the body, the head is not the body, and so forth. This is what is actually observed. Now if the body is inherently existing, then the time when we search for it, meaning when we search for its inherent existence, then more we search, the more clearer its inherent existence should come into our view and it getting clearer and clearer the more we go ahead with search.
Finally, it should be something where we actually can grab at it, that this is the inherent existence of the body. This is not when search for happens. So in this way, it is established that the body is not inherently existing. In this analysis, it is proved that the body is not inherently existent to be found in the bodily parts, that the bodily parts are not the inherently existing body. And the reasoning put forth for that is the bodily parts are the basis upon which the body is merely labeled at, and the basis of label cannot be what is being labeled at, because body is something which is labeled on the basis of the bodily parts, and it cannot be the same thing what is being labeled at and of what’s being labeled.
And the becomes the style of reasoning, in this case proving the lack of inherent existence of the body. The bodily parts such as hands, head and so forth are the basis of label and on dependence or with dependence on these basis of label the body is merely labeled at. So in that way we have two separate things, the basis of label and the attribute of label. Or attribute of label. And it is a logically understandable fact that our basis of label and the attribute of label cannot be on one same given base would be compatible, would be would be accommodatable because these two, the basis of label and attribute of label given on one same base would be contradictory to one another.
Not only body through that way is not inherently existing and it is proven so, also each of the bodily parts, hand, feet, head, so forth, from their own side as well lack inherently existence. Now we look at one bodily part as an instance. Say this whole part of the body is called hand and it is something, nominally speaking, existent thing. For example, there’s whole expression that it being nominally existent that there is expression the hand is touching the paper of the scripture, the hand is doing the sewing, the hand is even hitting someone and so forth. That’s where the little bit of laughter part was, the hand is hitting and so forth.
Now that is the general expression. Now we look at whether there is inherently existing hand or not, or in another expression or way of saying whether there is a hand which exists from its own characteristic or not. And in that search or analysis we look at each of the parts of the hand. Is it the thumb which is the hand? We find it is not. Is it this, meaning the index finger?
It is not. Is it the middle finger? It is not. Is ring finger? It is not.
Is it the middle finger? It is not. Or is it the BAM part of the hand? It is not. Or is it the upper skin part of the hand?
It is not. Or is it the back part of the hand? It is not. Or is it the bone of the hand? It is not.
So in that way, we cannot find with each of the parts of the hand an inherently existing hand. So this is similarly proven even with each of the bodily parts from their own side how lack existence from their own characteristics. Well in this case with the hand, the parts which are basis of label of hand are the fingers, skin, bone, palm and so forth, all about the parts of the hand. Now based on these basis of label, there is the name labeled as hand. And in that very fashion of being merely labeled in name as a hand on the basis of the label of the with dependence on the basis of label that there is undeniable functioning of hand doing its work and so forth.
That is undeniable. But yet we cannot find an inherently existing hand. Why that is so is hand is merely a label of name given on the basis of the label hands and the basis of label are those parts of the hand. Not only that at this point the reasoning and analysis can become much finer such as not only the hand is not inherently existing, even the finger itself which is a part with combination with others, becomes the basis of label for hand. That itself is also not inherently existing.
How that is so is with finger. Well, to start with, it has not only the bone, skin and so forth component part, But as well there’s whole component of it, such as the eastern direction of the finger, west, south, north. Not only that, it has the elemental potencies in it of earth, water, fire, and air. So there are so many fractional components with the finger which becomes the basis of label upon which the mere name finger is labeled at. Therefore, finger is not to be found inherently existing on its own solidly, independently.
It is mainly a name or label by name given on the basis with dependence on the basis of this label. With the finger, there are not only the other parts making it as a composite, There are those four elements, and the elements are in very, very minute, or the word used is subtle, in very subtle aspect. For example, there is a very subtle element of earth, cohesion. Why that is so is because the finger feels heavy, and the very fact that it feels heavy indicates there is earth element in it. And the very fact that the finger can get warm or heated up indicates there is fire element.
And the very fact that it is wet or moist indicates that it has water element and the very fact it has movements indicates it has air element. So there are undoubtedly the four elements in it. But it can be said that the four elements are in extremely minutest, most subtle aspect or most subtle volume in the presence in the finger. Now that’s one fact, but if we go further then it can be established that even each of these components of the fingers, such as in this case the four elements, that they each, from their own part, cannot be found as existing solidly or inherently, and in that way each, in their own right as well do not exist inherently. Now at this point, it may be relevant to firstly discuss the three types of tiniest things, tiniest of form, tiniest of name, tiniest of time.
The tiniest of form is the tiniest particle and this will require explanation later on. Tiniest of name is syllable. For example, we would have an expression, what is your name? And the person would give whatever her or his name. And if we analyze what is the building unit of a name, it would be found, it is in syllable.
And the tiniest of time is what is called the last moment of time. So in this way there are those types of classification of tiniest of the three things. Now, with regards to the tiniest of form or mass, it is explained to be the last particle. And regarding the last particle, in accordance with the two lower Buddhist tenets, the specific exponents and the discourse groups, they explain the tiniest particle to be a partless particle standing on its own, that it does not have any relative point, that it does not have any direction to be subdivided and so forth. In that way it is partless.
All partless particles exist with clustering around but not touching. In the case of finger, it would then mean, according to those two lower tenets, that the finger is made up of so many partless particles of the finger clustering around and therefore making it to a gross mass appearing in that form. That is what is explained the two lower tenets, but in accordance with the highest tenets, it is explained that there is not any particle stand No partless particle. If it is a particle, it definitely and necessarily is a part full particle, a particle having relative points of directions and component parts and so forth. It cannot be indestructible or it cannot be on its own without any relative point at all.
And in that way, it would mean there is no particle which cannot be subdivided at all. Like with the case of the hand, if we ask for analyze other bodily parts, head, feet, shoulders, so forth, they too would be found as not inherently existing, because it is inevitable in our course of search with those other bodily parts. The analysis of the search would go deeper and deeper into breaking down of the components of the bodily parts as being made by smaller and smaller particles, and finally even the tiniest of particle itself would be proven and found as not inherently existing, as not solidly existing. Now at this point, it would be extremely important to make clear that there is a difference to be understood. On one hand, we have a case or situation where, if the mind or if the hand is inherently existing, then the time when we search for it, if it is not found, then it is comfortably to be established that it is not existing.
Meaning or to paraphrase, on one hand we have a case where if the hand is inherently existing, then the moment when we search for it and if it is not found to be sold, or if it is not found, then that decisively, comfortably would mean that the inherent existence of the hand is not to be found. It is not existing. That is one point on one hand. On the other hand, if the hand is not inherent, then the moment when we search for it, if it is not found, that does not mean it is not existing. So there are these two points.
Now, with regards to the second point, to make it clearer, what it means is, the second case is a nominally existing nominally what is popularly translated as the conventionally existing phenomena. In this case, conventionally existing hand. With regards to the conventional existing hand, the moment when we search for it, if it is not found, that does not mean it does not exist, because conventional or nominally existing hand is undeniably undeniably feasible, undeniably there on functioning level. So even if it is not found, does not mean it is absolutely not existing at all. So these are the two differences and it would be good to please have it clear in your mind.
Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika or the highest Buddhist tenet explains all phenomena as not inherently existing, as not existing from their own characteristic. In that line, they would say the hand is not inherently existing. The reason for saying that is, if the hand is inherently existing, then the moment when one searches for that inherent existence of the hand, when it searches for either on any of the parts or wherever, then it should be found that this is when searched for, there must be a finding to be assertively be able to say, oh, here it is, the inherently existing. But because when searched for, it cannot be found. So that very fact that it is not found indicates that the hand is not inherently existing.
Or the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, the highest Buddhist tenet, although explains the hand as not inherently existing, but it is still very clearly maintained in that highest Buddhist tenets viewpoint, that if something not existing inherently and when searched for is not found, does not mean that it is absolutely not existing at all. This, in our case, in the example, would mean although the inherent existence of hand when searched for cannot be found, that is no should not become a reason to deny existence of the hand, even conventionally or nominally, because nominally there is undeniable hand, such as by being nominally existing and undeniably functioning, we have the whole expression as well the actual feasibility that the hand is drawing hand is doing the drawing, the hand is doing the cooking, the hand is doing the writing, and so forth, that this is undeniably to be there. So this is extremely clear, meaning sorry, it’s extremely important to be clear that although inherent existence of hand cannot be found, but that does not mean the hand is absolutely not existing. So this becomes the exclusive feature of the highest Madhyamaka tenet, highest Buddhist tenet. The exclusive feature being the understanding that although all phenomena do not exist inherently, do not exist by their own characteristic, but nominally, in mere label, in mere name, in that way, nominally, is undeniable functioning of all things, such as there is sleeping, eating, or staying.
There is creating of actions, and there is experiencing of the results of the actions, and in that way, there is the experiencing of the happiness and suffering and so forth. This is how it is presented. Although things do not truly exist, although things do not inherently exist, but the whole nominal functioning of things cannot be denied. And the non inherent existence of things being compatible with the working of cause and effect, working of karma, is how in this tenet, the highest middle way tenet, highest Buddhist tenet, it is explained. In Buddhism, there are four tenets, and the highest tenet amongst the four is the Madhyamaka tenet.
And the Madhyamaka tenet itself is of two levels, the higher one being the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, and the lower one being the autonomous school, the Svatāntrika. Now what was explained ahead was in accordance with the Prāsaṇgika middle way, the highest middle way, that although things do not inherently exist, yet in that non-inherent existence, nominally things do function undeniably. Now, let’s look at what is asserted by the other tenets apart from that highest tenet. And to go through that, let’s first list briefly what those tenets are: autonomous middle way or the Svatāntrika middle way, mind only, discourse groups and specific exponents. Now, in their case, in those four lower tenets, in their case, they explained, if by searching for hand, if we do not find hand, then that means the hand is absolutely not existing at all.
Therefore, there should be a part with the hand which is existing truly, which is existing inherently. In that way, the lower tenets explain if something is when searched for not found, that means it is absolutely not existing. But that is a view which, when looked at from the highest tenet, is an extreme of nothingness, extreme of moralism. That is how it is. Now, that may be so, so from their part, the lower tenets would say that the very fact that there can be a part with the hand which when searched for is to be found, that on the basis of that findability of the hand as existing in Henley, that then we can present the whole working of the hand, such as the hand is doing the writing and so forth.
So the humor part, laughter part was where the expression went very slowly, the hand is doing the writing and so forth. As there’s a hand, at least the hand would do as normally it does. So that is how the lower tenets explain that it is due to the hand being findable that there is whole working of the hand becoming possible. So between the two assertion, which one you think is better to accept? One is where when the hand is to be when the hand is searched for, it is not found, and the other is when the hand is searched for, it is to be found.
Which theory you would be more comfortable to accept? Anyone go? I’m sorry? The other tenets, apart from the highest tenet, explain that when searched for it can be found. In the case of hand, when whether hand is existing or not, when they search for it, they assert that it is to be found.
And that very theory saying that it does exist and it can be found is no different than invariably saying that the hand exists from its own characteristic. The other opposite to that would be when the hand is searched for, it is not to be found, and that would be synonymous or in meaning hand does not exist from its own characteristic. To those who are disciples who like the theory that things exist from their own characteristic, Buddha has presently taught them accordingly, saying that things do exist by their own characteristic because that’s what they like and they feel comfortable with. So in that way, it would be a case where to those who like the hand to those who like the existence by their own characteristic, the Buddha would have said, yes, the hand does exist from its own characteristic. But Buddha has very skillfully even in saying or teaching that the hand does not exist by its own characteristic.
So the hand does exist by its own characteristic, but it is not truly existing. So it still presses on that point somewhat. Yeah. Oh, That’s right. Yeah.
That’s how it is explained. Or to the disciples who are of the highest intelligence and who could feel comfortable with the view if something is to be searched for, if not found, it is not inherently existing, to them, Buddha has taught accordingly that things do not exist from their own characteristics, and similarly things do not inherently exist. And this is the ultimate view, because that is the correct view, and those who understood it would feel comfortable to receive additional affirmation about such view. And when classified amongst the tenets, they belong to the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, the Prāsaṇgika middle way school. Yeah.
Also, we shall leave or stop here for bit too much. Before the term break, the last session of Tuesday, we had examination on whatever was covered so far on the ninth chapter. And during the examination, the attendance was good. So many have turned up. And all as for later on, when the answers were looked at, checked what was written in most people’s case in most people’s case was good.
And translating third person, Rinpoche felt extremely happy looking at those answers, therefore, wants to say thank you. So it would it, of course, would have been good even to participate in the examinations because that makes one do study, as well review what one has learned and so forth. So, obviously, it was a good activity to have done. Similarly, when this term comes to end, again, towards end, we shall have another examination. Also, especially, the examination makes one take interest, so it is a good thing to induce interest in people towards the topics of study.
As that was first examination, therefore, there was no marking as for no giving of mark. So your numbers marks. If you have any questions, we shall have few minutes for the questions. Well, with regards to the meditation on selflessness phenomena, mainly in that range of phenomena being understood and meditated as selfless would cover principally, mainly, the aggregates and especially aggregates of oneself, so which is another way of saying one’s personality parts, the form, feeling, recognition, and that itself is extremely beneficial. That would help one because there is normally, not only ego grasping, but there is a truth grasping, which is expression meaning grasping onto things as truly existing.
And especially in our case, say, when we are not yet arrived at the levels of realizations, we do have truth grasping with reference to our aggregates. And if we look in the context of saṃsāra, our own existence in suffering or in saṃsāra, we of course no doubt say the root of saṃsāra is the ego grasping. But ego grasping from another turn of way is based on grasping of oneself on the aggregates, one’s bodily parts, one’s personality part, that by being attached and grasping at one’s bodily parts, it increases one’s ego grasping intensity. So it leads to further ego grasping of the self or the person, so forth. That’s how it stands.
Now, with regards to overcoming, it would then definitely mean there’s no way one can completely overcome ego grasping unless one has overcome the truth grasping to one’s own truth grasping at one’s aggregates, and that’s how it would help. Nāgārjuna says, as long as there is grasping at aggregates, there will be grasping of ego, and that would produce karma, that would produce rebirth in saṃsāra. Now what that means is, of course, we do get as ordinary beings born in saṃsāra. Now we ask what is the cause for that? Well, it is due to karma.
But then if we ask further what is the cause of karma or ignorance based actions, it would mean it is ego grasping. But if we ask what is caused what causes ego grasping or grasping onto eye, then it would be found that it is the grasping at aggregates for one’s personality parts as inherently existing, as existing from their own characteristic, that that itself is the cause for one’s grasping at one’s last eye, the ego grasping. So in this way, what’s called linked inquiry, we can say the main root cause of saṃsāra is the grasping at aggregates as inherently existing. And that’s how the things would be found in the like a linked inquiry. For instance, we have the feeling arising thinking, I as well, I am feeling happy, I am enjoying, am suffering, I am depressed, I am being tormented and so forth.
Now whenever these arise, if we look at it, it would be obvious that the very feeling ‘I’ or I’m happy’ and so forth, before they arise there is the notion of oneself being present with the aggregate. So there is, before they arise, is the arising of the notion of my aggregates, my body, my personality parts, or my being components. So it is quite clear that there is no way those other feelings of ego grasping as I am happy, I’m unhappy and so forth, that they would arise without firstly the notion of aggregates or notion of my aggregate arising first. For example, when there arises the notion of the form aggregate such as body, then that arises in the aspect as if the body is inherently existing, and this in turn makes one have the feeling or the notion ‘I’ and that as well is in the aspect of grasping the ‘I’ as inherently existing. So we can say that the very ego grasping, grasping at ‘I’ is dependent on firstly the arising of the grasping at aggregates as inherently existing.
Okay.