Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. A verse from Buddha Śākyamūni himself opens this 77-minute commentary by Khensur Rinpoche — a deliberate corrective to the impression that only later masters like Nāgārjuna explained emptiness. The session focuses on the three doors to complete liberation: examining any phenomenon — illustrated first with a flower, then with oneself as a person — through three lenses (its entity, its causes, its results), showing that inherent existence cannot be found through any of them. Rinpoche explains how the lower Buddhist philosophical schools’ failure to see this perpetuates saṃsāra, then reads through Nāgārjuna’s Precious Garland verse tracing the chain from ego grasping through karma to rebirth — and how realizing the aggregates as not truly existent breaks that chain. A Q&A closes the session, addressing how to distinguish the three investigations and whether a self persists through bardo.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 06 Ch9 Wisdom 1994 10 25.mp3
UUID: 8a637f9a-c994-4622-886a-1144390c2596
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Śāntideva Ch9 Wisdom (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1994-10-25
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 77.3 minutes
Words: ~4,568
Buddha Śākyamūni in his teaching says, By not knowing emptiness, peacefulness, and the mark of non birth, the migrating beings wander in suffering. Therefore, through hundreds of reasonings, the emptiness is explained. So that’s one of the teachings, and it may be interesting to bring this part for the evening because generally whenever there is a teaching or a talk or mention about emptiness, the popularly mentioned references are the names of the subsequent Indian Buddhist teachers such as Nāgārjuna, Candrakīrti and so forth, which perhaps to some people might give the wrong impression that only these great commentators were the beings who explained emptiness and Buddha Śākyamūni, the historical Buddha himself, didn’t teach emptiness at all. So this verse, by going through it, would be helpful to indicate that Buddha Śākyamūni as well taught emptiness and therefore we shall go through the meaning of the words. In this particular verse of teaching, the Buddha explains the manner of ultimate reality, the emptiness, by relating it to the three doors to complete liberation.
Regarding three doors to complete liberation, well, there are the aspects about emptiness which, when understood, leads to liberation from suffering and impure thoughts. And precisely for that reasons, those three which will be explained later on are called the three doors to complete liberation. The verse starts by giving the advice that the ordinary migrating beings, by not realizing these three doors to complete liberation, are uncontrollably under the influence of suffering and impure thoughts, and the unwholesome actions are done through those motives. And that’s how it starts so far. Let’s look at an example.
If there is a house which has an entrance, then that entrance would be called the door. And if the house only has one door, then it is quite obvious that to be able to enter the house one has to go through that sole door to the house. So no matter whatever manner of entrance to the house it would be, it is definite that whoever enters the house has to go through that one door. Similarly, the compassionate Buddha has taught the way of realizing reality through three main entrances which come to be called the three doors to complete liberation. And the reason for that is firstly, the Buddha, with great compassion, has taught so many countless ways through which the suffering, migrating beings could be elevated from their problems and sufferings.
And when it comes to the explaining of reality, explaining of emptiness, the Buddha has taught it through presenting countless ways of comprehending it through countless reasonings. Buddha Śākyamūni, when taught emptiness, was later on put into translations in our Tibetan case where if we are to give a rough picture of how much and how many varieties of approach given about emptiness. Well, in Tibetan texts, which we perhaps can relate as a book, be so a thick volume and of big paper size, and the extensive version would be twelve volumes. And if that is what’s called summarized into middling average version, then there are three volumes of the middling version. And even the most concise version is of one full volume of big size.
And in total, the average way of cataloging brings the entire rough teachings in translation in Tibetan into twelve huge volumes, Or sixteen huge volumes, sorry. When emptiness is explained by the Buddha, obviously it is explained in reference to what is to be negated as not existing truly or inherently. So in the most skillful approach of teaching, the Buddha brings in most cases firstly the obvious things which people can relate to in the investigation of reality of emptiness. So the referent object of which the emptiness is being explained, firstly, preferably explained, is the functioning things which are products, in other words, things produced and which we can visibly see in the form of solid matter or visible things. So anything, a functioning thing or a product, it is explained in that form.
And in that way of presentation, things we can relate to. If we say in way of example, let’s say flower, a flower is a product, a functioning thing, something which is produced. So when it comes to explaining emptiness in reference to flower, it is explained firstly by way of analyzing the very entity or nature of flower, And then the emptiness explanation investigates the flower from its cause’s point of view, what was produced by it and relating to its cause. And then the investigation analyzes the results or the effects and so forth produced by flower itself. So in a way with each functioning thing or product, the investigation roughly falls into three major avenues: investigation of the thing’s entity, of its cause and of its result. Those who follow the teachings of the Buddha in order to forsake suffering saṃsāra and in order to attain happiness can be grouped into four types of philosophical thinkers or practitioners.
Philosophical practitioners are what is called the four tenets: the lowest upward, the specific exponents, discourse groups, mind only, and the middle way proponents or the middle way followers. So in essence, we can say the followers of the Buddha’s teachings can be grouped into those four philosophical thinking or thinkers. Amongst the four Buddhist tenets or Buddhist philosophical thinkers, the three lower ones, ones they three by and large uniformly assert things as truly existent. What this in reference to example means, they would say the flower as object from its entity exists truly, as well the very seed, the cause which produced the flower as well exists truly, and the result produced by the flower as well exists truly. So in their case, in the case of the three lower Buddhist tenets of the school of thought, it is explained all three avenues of the flower exist truly.
And the mind to which grasp onto wrongly the flower, its cause and result as truly existing is called the truth grasping or grasping at existence, and it is synonymous with ignorance, the mind of ignorance. Out of such mind of ignorance one engages into contaminated actions. And if the action is a wholesome action, although basically tamed with ignorance, then that wholesome actions bring good rebirth and happiness therein. And if the action is unwholesome, being also basically tamed with ignorance, then that brings a lower rebirth and the sufferings that goes with that. Therefore, in our case, if we really want and need ourselves to be free from saṃsāra, the mundane existence, then we need to gain the realization that the flower as an entity does not truly exist.
The cause, the seed of the flower as well does not truly exist and the result produced by the flower also does not truly exist. So it is necessary to realize the lack of true existence about all three. Until we have not realized these three, then there is no way to attain liberation. Therefore, the wisdom realizing the flower as an entity not existing truly, as well the wisdom realizing the cause of the flower not existing truly, as well the wisdom realizing the result of the flower not existing truly are called the three wisdoms, given the name the Three Doors to Complete Liberation. And the reason for giving that name to the three is because for anyone to attain liberation free from all suffering from saṃsāra, to be free from saṃsāra, one must produce the realization of these three wisdoms within one’s mind stream, without which it would not be possible to enter into liberation.
So they are like doors, the entrance in its true sense towards liberation. The earlier example we can relate again that if a house has only one door as an entrance into it, then one cannot be into the house, by and large, conventionally speaking, without going through that sole door into the house. So it is like that. If the flower is to exist truly, then we should find that true existence upon the flower through any of its three spectrum, whether the true existence of the flower is present in the flower as an entity or whether the true existence of the flower can be found in the cause, the seed of the flower, or whether it could be found in the result of the flower. But in the analysis, if we investigate, we would find that the flower as entity is not to be found truly existing, as well its true existence is not to be found in its cause and as well in its result.
So it would be quite conclusive that the true existence about the flower cannot be found at all. That flower is decisively to be proven as not existing truly. Same with the flower, the whole reasoning can be applied to everything. Say we take the next shift of example to ourselves, that one’s soul is not truly existent from viewpoint of the entity as well one’s soul is not truly existent from the viewpoint of the true existence to be found in the causes which produced us, such as our parents and so forth. Similarly, the true existence of oneself cannot be found in the result we produce.
So in reference to ourselves, as an example, we don’t find one to be truly existent. The true existence about oneself is not to be found at all. So then we can apply the similar way of going about those spectrums of investigation to just about any other phenomena. So in that way we can just about apply to any other phenomena. Now going back with the example, say the flower, if it is supposedly existing truly, then it should exist as an entity without depending at all on its cause, its conditions, the factors on the name and the label flower being given upon it, as well on its fragment parts, the component parts, and so forth.
That if the flower is existing truly or inherently, then it should exist without depending on any of those which it normally depends on, that it should exist by itself solidly, independently, inherently, truly in that sense. But that’s not how it actually exists. To start with, that a thing came to be related as thing comes to be related as flower only subsequent to having given the label a flower. So it does depend on the label being given flower upon the thing and then from then onward it exists as an entity of a flower. Likewise, it depends on its causes, factors, conditions, parts and so forth.
So the very fact it depends on all these parts, labels and so forth means the flower is not truly existing and this can be described in other alternative ways that it does not exist by its own characteristic, that it does not exist inherently. We don’t need to limit just to the flower. Instead, we can relate to ourselves. Ourself, if as a being, as a person, supposedly does exist truly, inherently, then it would mean that we are oneself, that oneself exists without depending on parental semen and blood, does not depend on previous karma actions done in the previous lives, not depend on impure thoughts preceding this rebirth in the present form as a human, as well does not depend on the individual name given to oneself as a person through which one comes to be related and or exist in that fashion. So if oneself is truly existing inherently existing, then it would mean that one does not depend at all on any of these, that oneself should be an entity existing by its own without depending on anything at all.
But in actual fact that’s not so, that we do depend for start with formation of our body with dependence on parental semen and blood, on previous lives, actions, impure thoughts, and the individual name given to the person by which we relate. So in that way, we as a being oneself does not truly exist. Here at this point we can relate to a very precious and inspiring teaching line from great teacher Nāgārjuna from his writing called Ratnamala, The Precious Garland. This particular teaching of the verse is extremely inspiring. Therefore, it would be quite okay and very helpful to you all if a little bit about that is explained at this point.
Generally, when there is the feeling that I am going, I am sitting, I am eating, that I, the ego, the self, that I is conventionally existing, what literally is called the mere nominally existing I or ego. That is undeniably to be presented there as functioning. And that I is the I presented or to be seen as merely labeled with dependence on the aggregates of the body. So that eye which is conventionally or mere nominally functioning and merely labeled with dependence on the aggregates of the body is not to be denied. It’s there, it exists, although not truly.
Yet the very misconception, thinking that there is a solid I or ego or entity which exists on its own without depending at all on the body or the aggregates that it exists on its own. That very misconception, thinking the I or the ego or the self exist in that way, that very misconception is called the ego grasping. So there is firstly that difference. You all please listen attentively these extremely precious points. Due to such ego grasping, which is synonymous with ignorance, the mind to ignorance, there comes about actions being done by the being, the karma.
Out of the force of karmic doing or karma the aggregates or the birth or the body comes into being in the rebirth. So that’s how it is explained. Also the basic, the root or cause of our body to come into being, our body in the sense of ordinary existence in the ordinary physical state, the root cause of that is the ego grasping and the ignorance mind. And regarding that ego grasping, the ignorance mind which has produced this body, well it is a mind, the ego grasping, the ignorance, it is a mind which is completely confused, mistaken, totally opposite to the way the reality exists. The reason why it is completely confused, mistaken and opposed is because the way the ego or the I exist is it exists with dependence on the aggregates or the body.
But the ego grasping, the ignorant mind, grasps onto the view or it thinks or views that the ego exists on its own without dependence at all. So it is clearly a confused, a mistaken and state of thinking opposed to reality. So we have the basic cause of our body and mind which is in that way. Ignorance, the ego grasping mind, which was the producer of our body or aggregate, is a mistaken mind. It is a deceptive mind, and deceptive in the sense that it is contrary to the truth, the actual reality.
Therefore, if our body or the aggregate is a product of such a mind, then it is impossible for the body to be truly existent. And the reason goes backward that the very fact, the one which has produced this cause itself, that very cause which produced this body, that itself was mistaken, contrary to truth, a false entity. So the result produced by such false entity cannot be a true entity. As the cause was false deceptive contrary to fact, therefore the result produced by such cause cannot be truly existent, that it cannot be true, that it equally would be non truly existent, that it equally would be false. Therefore, relating such reasoning with the context of the referent, which is the body, our aggregate, we can clearly say that the body, the aggregate, cannot be truly existent.
It is bound to be deceptive, it is bound to be false because the ignorance, the ego grasping the mind which has produced it was a false and deceptive one. Therefore, our body, the aggregate, is not truly existent. As it is not truly existent, the very realization of the body as not truly existent makes one able to forsake the ego grasping, the ignorant mind. That’s how it would work. Due to having attained the wisdom realizing the body as not truly existent, one is able to completely get rid of the ignorance mind, the ego grasping.
Therefore, from then onward, as one has gotten rid of the ego grasping, the ignorance mind, in future one does not have to one would not in future one would not receive again any impure aggregates of the body. Having got rid of the ego grasping, one is able to not receive any impure aggregates or rebirth with own miserable body. And that very state of having got rid of all the two, the ego grasping as the cause and the result in the aggregate, that very state of having got rid of the two is called liberation. At that point, in Tibetan language we call ‘da chompa’, and in original Sanskrit it would be called ‘arahat’. Okay.
So how do you think what do you think of this reasoning? Very, very good. It’s very, very good. Such reasoning and the presentation in such clear word, meaning the original where it came from, cannot be found in it’s extremely rare to be found throughout the realms of the universes. Based on such lines of instruction, if one meditates on the meaning, one would really get a feeling of confirmation that liberation is ready to achieved.
It is possible to achieve liberation. Liberation is a fact, it can be achieved. But it is possible through such a way of training the mind one can overcome all suffering, one can overcome mundane existence, saṃsāra, and attain liberation. And when the Buddha was about to pass away, or scriptural language, when the Buddha was about to enter into complete transcendence, at that point, just prior to that, the disciples requested a question asking the Buddha, Who would clarify your teachings on emptiness after your passing away? And in response, the Buddha gave a clear indication of the coming of certain teachers, and the lines these days come to be very prophetic, read lines in meaning, says, After my passing away, after five hundred years henceforth, in the southern part of the country, in the area called Vidarbha, there will be a bhikṣu named Naga and so forth that will revive my teachings on emptiness and so forth.
So the meaning of that prophecy very clearly says that there will come about at that length of time subsequent to Buddha’s passing away the teacher Nāgārjuna, who would clearly explain the profound meaning of the reality of emptiness, clearly forsaking the two extremes: the extreme of nothingness and the extreme of permanence or eternalism and the correct understanding of what emptiness means. So in a way we can then say that relating the whole thing to what just now explained from Nāgārjuna’s Precious Garland can be seen as directly coming as a prophetic and therefore extremely precious teaching on the topic. So about four hundred and so forth years subsequent to Buddha’s passing away, Nāgārjuna came into being. Who’s the? Yeah.
Would you like to — would you like to write down the actual lines if you have paper going? So the first line starts: the aggregates produced by ego grasping. Aggregates produced by ego grasping. Those ego grasping — the second part — in meaning are deceptive.
Those ego grasping in meaning are deceptive. Whose seed — whose seed is deceptive? Karma, truly born. Whose seed is deceptive, karma, truly born. Next part: true birth, how can
So it will be reversed later on. The aggregates are not true, are not true. Having seen that, the ego grasping will be forsaken. That’s all about it. Ego grasping — own hand now.
Having forsaken it, henceforth, there will be no aggregates. Also, that’s the lines and if you think on the meaning and meditate it will be very good. Yeah.
How can? Yeah. It should be reversed. Yeah. So it doesn’t matter.
We can really do that. So the meaning of sort of lines can be profound where it can start with that out of ego grasping there comes about the body or the aggregates. And the ego grasping is mistaken, deceptive, and confused. The reason for that is our the reason for that is the eye or the ego or the self comes about with dependence on its cause and conditions and so forth. But the ego grasping views opposite to that, so it is deceptive, mistaken, confused and so forth.
As ego grasping the ignorance mind which is like the seed, the seed producing our aggregate, that the ego grasping is mistaken and deceptive. That way is reasoning enough to confirm that the body or the aggregate, the product cannot be truly existent. It equally is, or I mistaken, deceptive forms. Also, if one has realized the aggregate being not truly existent in that way of thinking, then by that very power of realizing the aggregate or the body as not truly existent, by that very power of such realization one would be able to exhaust the ego grasping. One would be able to terminate the ego grasping, the ignorance mind.
As in such case, one would have terminated the very basic cause of all one’s suffering, that one would have terminated ego grasping, it is quite obvious that from then onward one would be free of all sufferings and impure thoughts, and as consequence it can be said that one has become liberated from saṃsāra, the mundane existence. We then need to realize the self or the aggregates as not truly existent. And in trying to realize the body as not truly existent, we need to apply as sharp and variant reasoning as one can. Therefore, from next Tuesday evening onward, we shall continue from the ninth chapter, where we go through proving the body, the person, as not truly existent by way of applying major reasoning, major reasonings to prove that. Therefore, has been gone over this evening, especially the last main points, please keep in your mind and please try your best to meditate on them and think on their meanings.
They are extremely beneficial, inspiring, precious, therefore precious. So we then will stop for tonight. And if you have any questions, we shall have a few minutes for that. There would be difference between the entity, analysis of the entity, and the analysis of the result. For example, in the case of the flower as an entity, when one investigate, one is only thinking about it as an entity, and one does not bother investigating into at that point about its result.
This can be more clearly relatable through another example, say, mother and a child, where when the investigation looks at the analysis of the or the investigation of the entity of the mother, then it only thinks investigates the very being the mother as an entity. And whereas when the investigation or analysis investigates into the result of the mother, then it would be thinking the investigation thinks about the child, how it is truly existent or not, and by that way relate it back into the mother as not truly existent or truly existent. And then the mother herself would have her own mother of which she was produced. So analysis into the cause relates more specifically looking into the mother’s mother as truly existent or not. So there clearly are those three entity, result and cause.
And each investigation is a way of redefining clearly into or elaboration further into each of them specifically. Flowers result can be sprout coming out of flower or further branching out germination of from flower. Perhaps you do have flowers which can be saved and that won’t be used as seed for further flowers. So far, the way of looking into the three doors of liberation is three doors to complete liberation is a general way of looking. One can as well go specifically with the same even object of reference, for example, that the three doors to complete liberation can also be investigated or related upon the same object.
Say with the flower, that the flower as entity can be investigated, being one door of liberation, complete liberation. And then there is a part with flower which is flower as a cause of certain result or effect it produces. So the very flower can be investigated in viewpoint of it as a causal thing or anything. And then there is a part with flower which is a result, meaning a flower as a thing which was produced by its seed, therefore it’s a result. And that can as well be seen as the investigation into the flower as a result, thus covering the spectrum of the result investigation.
So upon the same object, flower, all three doors to complete liberation can be related and investigated. That eye as well is dependent on aggregate or a body. So the self or the eye depends on the body in the sense aggregate, even after death and in transfer to the next life through bardo. So your question was put in this way: If the teaching says that there is no ‘I’ in dependence upon the body or the aggregate, that ‘I’ which goes through is it independent of the body or not? So here firstly, yes, there is an eye which goes to the next rebirth through bardo independent of body but not of aggregates.
For example, there are five aggregates: form, feeling, recognition, karmic formations, and consciousness. At the time of death, the eye is independent of the body amongst the five aggregates, but it does depend on the four aggregates on the way towards our next rebirth. So there cannot be any ‘I’ or ‘ego’ which does not depend at all on any of the five aggregates. Even with bardo beings, it does depend on a body, a subtle body, so there is a dependence on the body. Of course, at the time of death it forsakes the gross body of the lifetime.
But at the very moment the bardo state is assumed one acquires subtle bardo of the body. So it would be said that it still depends on that form. So that’s more of a language difference. When one attains liberation, one gets rid of the ordinary contaminated body and the aggregates. So in that time it can be said that that part has been freed and nothing of that is there.
This is still being in accord to your way of relating. But at that point there is a new body of uncontaminated state assumed, which is blissful, peaceful and so forth. So there is still a physical state. So there is no contaminated body which is full of misery and suffering. Instead, there is uncontaminated body with bliss, and it is newly acquired at that state.
But anyway, your question would perhaps make a bit of discussion with other students later on. That’s a different context. And it’s sometimes impolite not to relate it to the teacher, but normally it’s just matter of language.