Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 101-minute commentary, Khensur Rinpoche anchors his analysis of emptiness in a vivid story: a child who grabs at bread reflected in a mirror, mistaking appearance for reality. He traces the causal chain — grasping at the aggregates gives rise to grasping at “I,” which fuels karma and unending rebirth — and argues that cutting this chain requires realizing emptiness of inherent existence. The core teaching is the syllogism he calls the king of reasonings: the body is not inherently existing because it is a dependent arising phenomenon. He shows how this single reasoning refutes both extremes — nothingness and permanence — and why, per the Buddha and Nāgārjuna, emptiness meditation is the only route to liberation. The session closes with a personal application: genuine compassion toward oneself means undertaking this very practice.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 11 Ch9 Wisdom 1994 11 22.mp3
UUID: 63cd0d2f-9408-4bf9-92e8-16f9f2a07e8e
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Śāntideva Ch9 Wisdom (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1994-11-22
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 101.0 minutes
Words: ~6,777
First, we shall start with a few minutes brief meditation on kind thought where we shall meditate on what is called the precious mind of enlightenment. The development of kind thought which we shall be going to do is in the fashion of the practice done by the Buddha itself, Buddha Śākyamūni, how in the Buddha’s case while training as a practitioner, the Buddha developed the supreme of kind thoughts. How the actual practice on kind thought done was in this way, where one thinks, may all beings be free of suffering and the causes or the sources of suffering. May all beings be with happiness and the causes of happiness. So by way of meditating in this way, one develops compassion and loving kindness.
Having been motivated by compassion and loving kindness, the Buddha then made the determination to work for the welfare of all beings even if it came down that Buddha itself was prepared alone to take that responsibility to work for all beings. So in that way the next part in the Buddha’s development of kind thought, the practice meditated upon was what is known as universal responsibility or the superior thinking. So although at that point the Buddha had developed the universal responsibility, superior thinking, where the Buddha was prepared to take upon itself or upon Buddha the sole responsibility to work in removing others suffering and to bring happiness to all beings. But as an unenlightened being at that time, the Buddha realized that it is only if one becomes freed of all mental shortcomings and acquires all perfections of the mind that one can actually accomplish the project or the very purpose, the goal to remove others sufferings and to bring happiness to them. So in that way eventually in the training of kind thought, the Buddha then made the determination to attain enlightenment in order to help all beings, and that very determination is known as the precious mind of enlightenment.
Following that, in order to attain enlightenment, the Buddha did practices for three great countless eons. Eventually, the Buddha attained enlightenment. Having attained enlightenment, then subsequent to that, the Buddha gave various teachings to cater for the various mental disposition of different beings. Historically speaking, there were three series of teachings given, which came to be known as the turning of the wheel of Dharma three times. Buddha Śākyamūni in the discourse known as the king of meditative concentration advises that whoever does analysis on the two lack of self will come to realize it through that one can have the possibility to meditatively familiarize with that realization, out of which will come the attainment of the wonderful fruit or fruits or results.
In brief, here at this point, the Buddha gives the advice that one would attain liberation from suffering and its causes if one has the realization about non true existence of phenomena. The meaning of the advice here says firstly, all phenomena or everything can be grouped into being of two kinds. One is a person, the self, the identity with which someone is related to be a person. Apart from person, there are the other phenomena such as the other components of the aggregates. And they all come to be considered as phenomena, meaning things apart from a person.
And then person itself, when it comes to be identified what it is, one can say it is merely labeled entity upon the five aggregates or the five personality component parts: form or the body, feeling, recognition, activity and consciousness or mind. In brief, the point here is to start with everything can be grouped into two groups: a person and anything other than person being called phenomena. Now here as a person trying to realize reality, one first needs to hear about the instructions which opens the door of awareness about the nature of these two types of phenomena. Out of hearing the instruction one then needs to do profound reflection, contemplation, through which one analyzes whether these phenomena do actually exist solidly, truly, inherently by their own characteristic or not. And through reflection one does that analysis and out of that one becomes quite ascertained, certain about the nature of phenomena that they don’t truly exist or they don’t inherently exist.
Only then one has the basis upon which one can do meditative familiarization or one can do meditation upon reality. So that is the process of one’s approach to learning reflection and meditative familiarization on reality to start with. This is then how one arrives to the understanding about reality by way of those three processes or approach in one’s practice, now that understanding needs to go hand in hand with the single pointed mastery or single pointed, concentrative mastery of one’s mind able to remain undistracted on the topic of meditation, which is reality. So in that way, that understanding needs to go hand in hand with calmed abiding. And along with calmed abiding, gradually when that understanding develops, then one attains vipassana, the special insight, and two together, then calm abiding and special insight two together will help the person overcome all sufferings and the origins of suffering, which are the impure thoughts, the shortcomings of mind, and through that way a person can attain nirvana, the state beyond sorrow, literally the sorrow transcendence.
And as far as why nirvana literally is called sorrow transcendence is because here sorrow refers to suffering as well as origin of sufferings, the sources of sufferings which are the delusions, the impure thoughts. So the advice here then pinpoints the point that through the combined practice of calm abiding and special insight one can overcome all mental shortcomings and attain nirvana, the sorrow transcendence and by that way one attains liberation. So in this way, if one’s practice is complete with the calmed abiding, which is the single pointed concentration power of mind, together with special insight, which is the understanding of reality, then along with that along with these two, if one maintains the actual practice of meditating on emptiness, then that is the only way by which a person can attain liberation or stay free of all mental shortcomings and sufferings. And in order to precisely emphasize this point, therefore, in the continuation of the advice here, the Buddha then says, Apart from this, whatever other means one may approach, one will never attain peace. So that part of the advice then means if someone does not include in one’s practice the meditation on emptiness and the method to attain wisdom realizing emptiness, then no matter whatever or all sorts of practices one may do, no matter how meaningful those practices may be, if one has not included the meditation on emptiness in one’s practice then there is no possibility for that person to attain liberation.
Also here, point which was just made that only through meditation on emptiness liberation would be attained. No other means would lead to that is a point or advice, which is not made lightly, and it is not made without any basis. There must be reasons for the Buddha to give that advice that meditation on emptiness only and solely is the means by which a person can attain liberation. As far as the reasons go, we can look at this way. In the case of one who has not attained liberation, there is this composite of aggregate, the existence with personality which becomes the basis for experiencing all mundane dissatisfaction and suffering.
So we have this what scripturally call the contaminated acquired aggregate. If we look at the source of where this contaminated or acquired aggregate has come, we would find that it is a product of our doings of the past. So in that way it came from karma. And then karma itself we can trace down having our actions, karma or actions we can trace down to having been a product of impure thoughts. And impure thoughts if we trace further and further, we would find they come from ego grasping at person, or in other words, the misconceived grasping that the person or oneself actually exists truly independently.
And the ego grasping at person itself, when tracked down, we would find, comes about because of ego grasping at phenomena. And how that happens is because when one has grasping at the aggregates and so forth existing truly, then there is a grasping at phenomena and that leads to grasping that oneself as a person exists independently and truly. So in that way, at the root of all our sufferings and problem is the ego grasping at phenomena, the grasping that phenomena or things exist truly. So that is the root source of all our problems. Now in order to attain freedom from all our problems and sufferings, we then need to go down to that very root and overcome that, which only is possible if one has actualized the realization of lack of, or emptiness of, true existence from the parts of phenomena and so forth.
So we need to cut the root by that way. And to give an example, it would be like a tree where if it’s not cut from its root, then the stem leaves, fruits, so forth would come about. If it is chopped from its root, then everything would collapse and dry up and so forth. Nāgārjuna therefore very precisely writes in his one of the writings that as long as there is grasping at aggregates, there will be grasping at person. As long as there is grasping at person, there will be actions, meaning ignorance based actions. Out of that will come rebirth, and in that way, one will continuously wander in the cycle.
So the meaning of that part of the writing in essence says, if to start with, as mundane beings, one as a mundane being, one has the misconception grasping or viewing that the aggregates or the personality parts truly exist. Then along with that, automatically there will be grasping that one as a person or being exists truly. And if that happens, then that will lead in turn for one to engage in ignorance based actions to create karma and one would then receive the experience of these consequential sufferings produced by those karma. Now, we don’t have to take something on the face of it because it has been said so by such and such being in the past. That’s not necessary.
Instead, we take something as acceptable only if when we find it to be valid and appropriate when we analyze through our thinking and applying reasonings. So that would in turn then mean, although something may have been said by a very acclaimed being, but we still need to analyze and think about what was said. If one has good wisdom one can come to understand. How we can understand the truth about those sayings is, for example, if someone calls you in the sense of speaking to it personally. So if someone calls you either in the way of just making an expression hello or whatever your name being called in whatever fashion, then that very moment when you are being called and addressed to instantly, you get the feeling, oh, I’m being called.
My name is being mentioned. So you can probably relate that that’s what happens generally, that someone calls you. You really do get the feeling, oh, I’m being called, my name is being mentioned. Also whenever there is a mention of oneself and one gets the feeling that I am being called, then in such cases we would find that there is an appearance of the notion ‘I’, or the arising of the notion ‘I’. So that is the grasping at ‘I’ as a person, as me.
So in the sense me, in that sense I. But before that, if we analyze and think how that happens is already for the notion of ‘I’ to arise, they would first have to arise the notion of one’s aggregates, which means the personality parts. So there is firstly the arising of the picture or the appearance of personality parts, the aggregates, and then there arises the notion of oneself, me or ‘I’. Of course, that is the sequence of how it happens, that firstly the notion of the aggregates or the personality parts arise and following that only the notion of ‘I’ or me arise. But of course there’s just a very short duration of the sequence, but that is how it does happen.
Also in that way we then can relate exactly when there is a notion of ‘I’ firstly it is preceded by the notion of one’s personality parts. So the moment there are so when there arises the notion of ‘I’ there is already preceding of the notion of aggregate or the personality part so definitely there is there is a time lapse of one being earlier and one being later, although it is momentary time lapse between the two. So we certainly can then say that firstly there is the grasping at aggregate, and then that is followed by the thought grasping at a person, which is thought thinking ‘I’ or me. Now when we look at it, when the thought grasping at aggregate arises, the very moment one’s aggregate or personality parts appear to one’s thought, automatically at the same time as ordinary being, the grasping that the aggregate or the personality part exists by their own characteristics together arise at that very moment the two happens at the same time. Following that then there arises the notion ‘I am being called’ so there is a notion ‘I’. When that arises, that very moment also comes along with the grasping from one side that the person or ‘I’ or me exists from its own characteristic, another way of saying that it exists truly by itself.
So that way this is how then the second grasping, the grasping at person arises. Why that description is so, in other words, why that description is true is because ‘I’ is a label based upon the aggregate. So aggregates are the basis upon which the label ‘I’ is given. So if that’s the case that the ‘I’ or the aggregates or the personality parts are the basis upon which the ‘I’, the label is given, then that would mean that for what is labeled, the notion about what is labeled should come after the what is the basis of the label, the aggregate. So in that way that is how exactly it stands true that firstly for the ego grasping at person to arise, first should be the preceding ego grasping at phenomena, which in this case is the grasping at the aggregates.
Or if we give an analogy example, then we can say if there’s a mirror then the very moment one’s face looks at the mirror, the reflection of one’s face appears on the mirror. So it is factual that if the meeting of the two happens, the mirror and one’s face, then the moment they meet come in contact there is inevitably the reflection of one’s face on the mirror. So you have a scene where one’s face is here and the mirror is over there and the moment the face looks at the mirror there is a reflection of one’s face appearing on the mirror. That’s the general scene. Now if we observe, what happens at that moment is the moment one sees one’s face reflected in the mirror one gets a notion oh it’s my face there so that’s what happens.
So it’s not a case where firstly the reflection of our face appears on the mirror, only then we get the notion ‘my face’. Instead, the fact stands the moment one’s face reflects on the mirror one gets the simultaneous notion, the grasping, ‘it is my face’. So the grasping happens at the same time in that case. So like that example, in our case with grasping at our aggregates, the moment we think of our aggregates, meaning the personality parts, at that very moment we also automatically think that they exist from their own characteristic, from their own side. Although how so to speak unconscious, but meaning how uncontrollably that happens, it happens.
The very moment we get a notion of our personality parts, say body and so forth, at that very moment we as well think that they truly exist, they exist by their own characteristics. So this is something we all can relate, that that is how it happens. Also, the very moment the reflection of one’s face appears in the mirror, one grasps at the same time that is my face. In the case of a child who does not know the conventional labeling name and so forth, in other words, child who is not schooled in the language of naming things, the moment the child sees its face reflected on the mirror, there is not only the grasping that that is my face, that it is my face, it is me. Instead it is very intense grasping from the part of the child. So there is a story in the past, there was a group of kids who were being taught the alphabets.
There were a group of kids who were being taught alphabet and basic schooling, and there was one among them who seemed to be very slow and never seemed to pick up quickly. So the others formed opinion thinking, oh, he’s very dumb. He doesn’t understand anything. Then whoever made that remark tried to prove it to the others saying, we can test how dumb he is. And one day they come up with a piece of a dough, a roasted dough, which actually can be eaten in the case of Tibet.
So you can probably have the example twisted to say a bread. So the kid trying to prove the other person or kid is dumb brought a piece of bread, and in front of the bread the kid put a mirror and this dumb kid actually, the moment he saw the bread reflected in the mirror, grabbed at the mirror thinking that there is bread to be grabbed there. So in the case of untrained or unschooled into the notions of labeling, especially as a kid, that there is the moment things appear, there is a strong grasping that they really do exist from their own side, solidly and truly. And then to interpret on the joke part of the dumb kid, probably the latter part was the kid which generally looked dumb, wasn’t dumb when it came to eating. In our case as mundane being who have not yet realized emptiness, the reality, we are very much like such a child, the infant, not trained on to the notion of identifying well by way of actual label and so forth.
How the example fits that we are very much like the child is because by not knowing the actual state of phenomena or things, the moment things appear we uncontrollably, due to the habitual tendencies of mundane mind, we uncontrollably grasp at the notion or the misunderstanding that, oh, it is really there existing truly, solidly, inherently. So we have a strong grasping at the same time the moment things appear that we really grasp at them to be existing from their side solidly. Now in the mirror, there is a reflection of one’s face and one grasps at it as if that is my face. Now if that thought which grasps at the reflection of face in the mirror as one’s own face is unmistaken, then that would mean that there has to be a face in the mirror. By the same reason that if the very thought which grasps at the notion that there is one’s face actually there in the mirror, if that thought is unmistaken, then there has to be a face in the mirror, in which case then it would mean that there would be the erroneous, the faulty implication that one has two faces.
Not only that, there would be the faulty implication one has two noses, four eyes, four ears — it becomes double, four ears and all that. So the latter part was, it seemed alright, not that too dramatic, two faces, two noses. When it comes to ours, there are four ears. So in that case, if one has one hundred dollars here, then in the mirror, there will be another one hundred dollars and there will be two hundred dollars straight away. And if one has five hundred dollars here, then there will be another five hundred dollars in the mirror. So one will instantly become rich with one thousand dollars. Also, although there appears the reflection of the face in the mirror, but there is no face to be found in the mirror.
But yet due to the mistaken consciousness of the eyes, one’s eyes, due to mistaken consciousness of one’s eyes, there do appear the reflection of the face. And as it appears, one simultaneously grasps at it as if it is truly to be found or existing there. That is how it happens. But when analyzed, one would then find although that’s how it stands, therefore we have two cases. What it appears is not what it actually exists as.
The manner of appearance and manner of existence are contradictory to one another. But now that’s the case now if we analyze them we would find that although in the mirror the reflection of face appears but it is emptiness of actual face there so the reflection of face in the mirror is emptiness of face and therefore it has that emptiness nature about it. So that is the example in the case of the context meaning when referred to one’s aggregates, the personality parts, then we can fit the example very well in this way that although aggregates, the personality parts do appear, but we grasp onto them as if existing by their own characteristic or in other words that they do exist from their own part. So there’s not only the appearing part of the aggregate as existing from their own side or existing truly, but also as it appears, we do grasp onto the mistaken understanding that they exist by their own characteristic or truly. So this is how it happens, but there is no truly existent aggregates to be found similar to there’s no real face to be found in the mirror.
Therefore how it fits here. In that way, as there is no aggregates existing from their own characteristic or as there is no aggregate existing truly, so the very consciousness which views that there is truly existing aggregate is a mistaken consciousness. Or if that consciousness viewing the aggregates as existing from their own characteristic is not mistaken, then the implication is the aggregates have to exist from their own characteristic or the aggregates have to exist truly. If that happens, if that’s the implication, that would mean that the aggregates have to exist without depending on anything from their own side, not depending on anything. Why that is so is because the mistaken consciousness which grasps at the aggregates as existing from their own characteristics is an ignorance, is ignorance and the way the ignorance views is that it views the aggregates or the personality parts as existing independently not depending on anything.
So if that’s the manner how it views then in the actual effect if the supposedly the aggregates do exist in that way as ignorance thinks then they have to, it would mean that they have to exist without depending on anything. In that case then it would mean that our personality components such as body and so forth would have come into existence without depending on parental seeds, genes and so forth, even physically the input part goes. It would then mean that there will have to be an aggregate or person upon oneself which can exist without depending on anything. But in actual fact, we already have personality parts such as body and so forth, which has come about depending on many causes and conditions such as which we have acquired through parental seed and so forth. So that is there on one side.
So the whole implication would then mean that we would have two aggregates, one which depends on nothing and came that way, and one which did depend on things and exists in that way, so we have double aggregates. In the case of ‘I’, it would mean that there will have to be one ‘I’ which came about and exists with dependence on causes and conditions and yet another ‘I’ which came into being and exists without depending on anything at all. But it is absolutely not feasible to have an ‘I’ which exists with dependence on causes and conditions along with another ‘I’ which exists without depending on anything at all. Similarly, it is absolutely not feasible at all for one on the one hand to have an aggregate that came about with dependence on causes and conditions, along with another sets of aggregates or personality parts which came about without depending on anything. If there is an ‘I’ which exists without depending on anything then it would mean that ‘I’ is subject to no birth, no death, no extinction.
So it would mean it is permanent, unchangingly there all the time. Similarly, if there is an aggregate or a composite of personality parts which exists without depending on anything, it would mean that it is not subject to birth, death, and extinction. It is a permanent phenomenon. But in actual fact we cannot, in the case of aggregates in actual fact by their very nature they are functioning phenomena, another word meaning that they are products produced by causes and conditions and that very negates the fact that they might not have been produced by causes and conditions and are permanent, that part becomes ruled out. But between the two possible ways of existence, in actual fact we know that there is aggregate which is here, meaning the entire personality parts.
So there is an aggregate which comes about with dependence on causes and conditions, that it is a fact. If it is then that very fact that it is a product of causes and conditions negates there being another aggregate which comes about without depending on anything because the two, with dependence and without dependence, are mutually exclusive. Similarly in the case of ‘I’, it is a fact that there is an ‘I’ which comes about and exists with dependence on causes and conditions and that very fact is mutually exclusive to an ‘I’ which supposedly exists without depending on anything. So in that way the two other parts gets negated. Now as conclusion, by the very fact that both aggregate and ‘I’ depend on other causes and conditions and are relative for their existence to other causes and conditions.
That very fact means that there isn’t any aggregate nor any ‘I’ or ego which exists from its own characteristics. Or in another word there isn’t, by that very fact, any aggregate and ‘I’ or ego which exists inherently. Now in the case of the reflection of one’s face in the mirror one would when analyzed find that its very appearance, the reflection of one’s face in the mirror, its very appearance to one’s eye is a product depending on many causes and conditions. And that very way it means it is a dependent originated and dependently existing phenomena. How that is so is firstly there has to be the mirror out there, and then there has to be one’s face, and then there has to be one’s eyes looking at the mirror.
So when these three causes and factors are there, the mirror, one’s face and the eyes looking at the mirror, then the reflection of one’s face in the mirror appears to one’s eyes. And in the case when any of them is missing then there wouldn’t be appearance of the reflection to one’s eyes. So in that way, the whole thing is because of gathering of causes and conditions and in that way they are dependent originated and dependently existing phenomena. So by that way we would then conclude the reflection of face in the mirror is emptiness of face. Buddha Śākyamūni, Nāgārjuna, Śāntideva, Jetsün Tsongkhapa, and all the great teachers who understood the reality perfectly and talked perfectly uniformly agree in this presentation of the understanding of view where when it is put in a dialectical analysis format it is presented this way: let body — the word actually is aggregate but for easier comprehension we say body — let body be the investigative referent. It is not inherently existing because it is dependent arising phenomena.
For example, like reflection. So that is the exact format where through the reasoning of dependent arising, because it is dependent arising phenomena, the non true existence or the lack of inherent existence about phenomena is proven. So in this way, by way of applying the reasoning of dependent arising in order to prove the aggregate or the body as not inherently existing is considered as the best reasoning to establish that and due to this very fact throughout the teachings there is a great admiration for the reasoning of dependent arising and the metaphor given for it is the king like reasoning which surpasses or stands above all other reasonings. Why it is considered the reasoning surpassing all other reasoning is because by this reasoning alone both extremes about view can be refuted or can be disproved. Or by this reasoning alone, one can overcome two possible avenues of great blunder, the two extremes. And this is precisely why it is called the king of reasonings. And as far as the two extremes goes, they are the extreme of nothingness and extreme of permanence.
And this reasoning alone by itself can overcome those two extremes. If we look at the details of the format proving the body or aggregate as not inherently existing, then we first have the first part of the format of the whole what is scripturally called syllogism or the format of proof. The first part goes the let aggregate be the investigative referent and this means the aggregate or the body so for easier comprehension we can just say body let body be the investigative referent. What that means is it is called investigative referent because here this is the basis, the particular phenomena, the referent of which one is trying to establish whether it exists from its own characteristic or not, or in other words whether it exists truly or not. And then in the next part we have it is not inherently existing and that is the second part.
So together they become the thesis, the theme of the establishment, the aggregate, or the body not existing inherently. And in the third part, we bring the reasoning because it is dependent arising phenomena. So dependent arising phenomena is applied in order to establish the first attribute about the first part, the aggregate. That because the aggregate of the body is dependent arising phenomena, that it cannot be inherently existing phenomena. Altogether, the emphasis here is the dependent arising because it is dependent arising phenomena.
That very phrase and its meaning is what is called the proof, the reasoning in order to establish the thesis. So as a practitioner on the view we then need to contemplate more on that part the dependent arising phenomena part. Also in this format when one has the line of the thinking going this way let the body be the investigative referent. It is not inherently existing because it is dependent arising phenomena. In that case, we then have the proving of the body as not inherently existing by applying the reasoning that it is dependent arising phenomena.
Through that way, what happens in one’s meditation and reflection on this point is when one applies the reasoning that the aggregate or the body is dependent arising phenomena, by that way when the thinking leads to the awareness that the body has come about due to depending on many causes and conditions, one gets oneself freed from the misunderstanding that the body, the aggregate does not exist at all and absolutely does not exist at all. So one gets rid of, one makes oneself get rid of the extreme of nothingness by the very fact thinking that the body actually exists by way of having been produced by causes and conditions. By the same way when one thinks about the body being dependent arising phenomena then one contemplates that the body is dependent on its causes and conditions for its production and for its existence. So in that way, one comes to understand that the body is a dependent phenomenon, it is relative to its causes and conditions. So the emphasis of the instruction is very much on these two phrases that one comes to understand the body is dependent on its causes and conditions and the body is relative to its causes and conditions.
When one understands that, then that brings the implied understanding that the body cannot be existing by its own characteristic from its own side independently or from its own right. The reason for that is when something is understood to be dependent on others and relative to others, then its total solidity or its independence not depending on anything at all somehow is negated automatically because with dependence on others and with relative to other is a direct opposite to not depending on anything and not relative to anything. The example is like when something is hot then the coldness of it automatically is ruled out and when something is cold then the hotness of it being hot is ruled out. Take in the case of water, if the water has become hot then it means it’s no more cold and when has become cold, then it’s no more hot. It’s directly opposite.
So in that way, by this way of very understanding that the body is dependent on and relative to its causes and conditions, one understands it cannot be existing from its own characteristic. Therefore, it cannot be inherently existing. So that very is the way how one makes oneself be freed from the extreme of eternalism, the extreme of eternalism being the misunderstood view that phenomena or things, in this case the body, exist independently, permanently from its own side without depending on anything at all. So through this way, the very reasoning of dependent arising one then becomes freed from the other extreme, the extreme of permanence. Here therefore when one is to meditate on emptiness one then needs to think very much on the reasoning part. In this case, when referred to aggregate toward the body, that the body is dependent arising phenomena.
The reason for that is when one has reflected so much on the dependent arising manner of the body, then one comes to understand that the body is a phenomena which has come about through dependence on and with relative to its causes and conditions. When that comes about, although at this stage of one’s approach to understand view, one may still be uncertain whether the body is inherently existing or not. But one has, by thinking on the dependent arising reasoning, one comes to understand that the aggregate is relative to and depends on its causes and conditions. So the part to do with the body being dependent arising gives rise to a whole lot of understanding that it is not independently existing because it exists with dependence on and relative to causes and conditions. When that happens, then automatically, gradually, gradually, it will come to make one come to the understanding that if the body is dependent arising phenomena, then it is not possible at all that it can be at the same time an inherently existing phenomena.
The reason for that is if something is inherently existing, then it cannot be dependent arising. And if something is dependent arising or dependent existing phenomena, then it cannot be inherently existing. The two exactly are mutually exclusive. So in that way, one gradually would definitely come to understand that the aggregate of the body in this case cannot at the same time be inherently existing phenomena while it already is a phenomena depending on causes and conditions and therefore dependent arising. If by this way of thinking as a practitioner one is really coming to understand greatly the lack or the emptiness of inherent existence about the present referent or subject, the body, that means one is getting on quite good about realizing emptiness.
These days in especially modern times there’s a lot of talk about people saying I want to help others, want to be compassionate to others that is extremely good but in order to be compassionate and to help others one first need to be compassionate to oneself. If one is wisely compassionate towards oneself then the way to go about would be to work towards one’s future to be without any suffering and be with happiness. But for one self in all future times to be without any suffering at all and to be with all happiness, one to do that one would need to realize emptiness by which the ignorance, the root of all sufferings, can be overcome. The point which was precisely made at the beginning of the evening here. So we then can relate that it is extremely relevant in terms of our own future in that way that we must at any rate meditate and try to realize emptiness.
The actual effort into one’s realization has to be put by oneself from one’s own part because if others have realized emptiness but if one has not realized that’s not going to help us. If others’ realization is directly going to help us, then Buddha Śākyamūni and all the countless bodhisattvas would have been extremely directly helpful in our realization because they have realized emptiness. But in actual fact, that’s not how it stands. Buddha Śākyamūni has given this advice, one oneself is one’s master, one oneself is one’s enemy. So there are two parts with that.
One’s self but one might think that if one’s one oneself is one’s master, then it cannot be true for one oneself to be one’s enemy. But here the two things need to be looked at separately in their own context, where the first part, one one’s self is one’s master, means firstly if one picks up the practices and try to overcome by one’s practice the failings of mind. And in that way, gradually when one makes the realization of emptiness and loving kindness and all the host of excellent quality, the realization of mind that needs to be acquired. And through that way, when one makes progresses and eventually attains liberation and Buddhahood, then one has become one’s own master that one oneself has given oneself that which could be given to oneself. Or the other part, one oneself is one’s enemy means by not having wise, or by not having right compassion and loving kindness towards oneself, one fails to do the practices which brings about happiness and removes suffering.
And in that way, one also fails to meditate and practice on the realization of emptiness and so forth. Instead, one engages into all sorts of ignorance based actions, non virtuous actions. So one creates karma. And all of that, there comes about all suffering that one gets reborn in the miserable rebirths life after life goes on unending in the sense of extremely long duration and through that way one for so long time experiences all unbearable sufferings. So in meaning one really has damaged, one really has harmed oneself so much and that in the actual literal sense of the enemy as one who harms is what exactly one would have then done to oneself and that is how one then becomes one’s own enemy. So to have loving kindness towards oneself and to have compassion for oneself seems therefore extremely important. So I will stop here and if there are any questions we shall leave about five minutes for that. In Sūtra we have to visualize it, means.
The meditation on emptiness can be done in two ways. One where