Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Khyentse Rinpoche explores what emptiness truly means beyond the common misunderstanding of it as mere absence or nothingness. In this 36-minute public talk, he clarifies that emptiness refers to potential—the freedom from fixed identity that allows something to appear differently to different perceivers. Using concrete examples like a flower that appears as food to a goat, a beautiful person seen as ugly by another, and judges at a beauty contest, he shows how emptiness underlies the possibility of multiple valid perceptions while ultimate reality remains unchanged. He then sketches Buddhist philosophical schools—Vaibhāṣika, Cittamātra, and Mādhyamika—explaining how each account for reality, with emphasis on why Mādhyamika views mind as empty of inherent existence yet the basis of all appearance. The talk concludes with a lively Q&A exploring the relationship between perceiver, perception, and existence, pressing the audience to examine their own assumptions about what is real.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 02 PT.mp3
UUID: ef94e851-3a04-476d-8495-62709b5dc174
Teacher: Khyentse Rinpoche
Collection: Public Talk (Khyentse Rinpoche)
Date: 1986 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 36.5 minutes
Words: ~3,439
I’m sure there are lots of people who have received emptiness teaching many times, but for the beginners, the word emptiness is not an empty empty. You understand? Glass is empty of water or something like that. It’s not like that. Emptiness is a very strong word.
Śūnyatā is a very strong word. It talks more about potential. It talks more about potential rather than the quality. For example, this is emptiness. Since this is emptiness, this is a flower for you.
You understand? Since this is emptiness, if you bring here a goat or a sheep, then for them it is a food. For them it is not a flower. Why? Because the fact of this is emptiness.
It has the potential of being flower and being food, or being whatever, but that depends with a different perceiver. But nature or the fact of the reality is not changed. It is not even one minute flower, it is not even half minute food. It is not changed, and that is the emptiness. You understand?
If it is not empty, if what you perceive is a Okay, you perceive this as a flower. And then if you say, The ultimate fact of this thing is flower, then goats and sheep and all these things also have to agree that this is a flower. You see? If you I think it’s better you take the example person. If you perceive this person as a good, good person, and if you think that is the ultimate truth and that is the reality of him, that is the fact of him, then he has no space of bad person, which means You understand?
Then that means that he can never be bad for other people. Everyone must see him as good person. That’s why Buddhists really emphasize more on emptiness. We always say that there, on the top of him or whatever, his essence is nothingness, nothingness. Since he is nothingness, he can be everything.
He can be a good person, he can be a bad person for the different perceiver. But if he is not nothingness, and if he is something, then he will always be that something, but not everything. You understand? It is sort of thanks to the emptiness that he can be everything. See?
Emptiness is more on the potential. Be that something. Well, how can anything be something more strong than the one want to do? Oh, that depends with the perceiver. That’s what I told you.
He can be a good thing if you, perceiver, perceives as a good person, but a fact of him is not good. He can be a bad person if a perceiver, me, perceives as a bad person, but the fact of him is not bad. It is beyond bad and is beyond good. Since he is nothingness of bad and good, since he’s out of bad and good, for us, for our vision, for our perception, he can be both bad and good. That is the good quality of him, you know?
Sometimes I even try to bring this example of beauty contest. You see, in beauty contest, there are some two or three ladies, I mean ten or twenty ladies standing and going up there, and there are ten Okay, they are choosing Miss Universe, sort of. And then there are ten or twenty judges ten or twenty judges who is going to judge for all of the sentient beings. You see, for all of us. Sort of saying that Sort of thinking that he knows our perception.
Knowing that during that contest, there is about a thousand people as an audience, but I’m very, very sure that more Okay, say five hundred things that judges are quite right, but I’m sure that at least ten or twenty people think, Oh, it has happened. For example, when I was in America, I saw this some sort of in TV. The lady which I perceived the most ugly of all, This judge, they choose her as Miss Universe. That’s like that. Good thing about here, there’s an audience who enjoys as beautiful ladies, and there are audience such as someone like me who thinks they are all ugly.
But then there’s one better audience. There’s one better audience. Sublime beings, enlightened beings. They are also there watching. There are three types of audience who enjoys the who thinks that all these people are beautiful, and who thinks they are not beautiful, and who knows the real fact of beauty and ugly.
You see? For them, the real beauty of those ladies are beyond the beautiful which is perceived by some of those audience, and it is beyond the ugliness conception which is perceived by some of the audience. Inwardly, he laughs. He thinks, Now look, what is happening? Some people are judging here, and some people are criticizing, and some people are enjoying.
Then he doesn’t speak much. If it necessary, he speaks. Did you understand this? Any question? Any further question?
So where are we actually? We were talking about reality, anyway. Pardon? Most of the time people always perceive one as something big and something good and always like that, right? Not always.
Not always? Then what sort of? In relationship with nothingness. Ah, then one should think about this. Have you ever heard of egolessness meditation?
Then one should invite that type of meditation. Yeah, right. This is more on the perceiver and perception. I think we should talk about this also. Now, a little bit different.
Is it confusing? Maybe what should we talk now? Do you find this is more confusing? If you think it’s confusing, you can always ask a question or whatever. Okay, say Now, I give you some idea of Buddhist philosophy again.
This is what I’m trying to do, but I’m not going into the main part. Question always starts from what is the reality, right? For ordinary beings, we have this same question: What is the reality of this? And then somebody answers, The reality of this is a flower. Who made this?
And then soul and all this, soil and seeds, and then that’s all. Then you don’t go further than that, and then we are satisfied with that description. Okay, now then there are some people who believe in religion, and for them, now they have a different answer. What is the reality of this? Who made this?
And they said, God made this. Their fact is God produced it, right? Now, in Buddhism there are actually four different schools in India. Now, this is a little bit confusing. Anyway, in Buddhism we have four different schools in Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, and Cittamātra, and Mādhyamika.
As I am practicing more Mādhyamika, of course I’m going to talk about Mādhyamika more since it has more involvement of shunyata, or emptiness, which we have just discussed previously. Anyway, before we jump into the Mādhyamika, we will talk about Vaibhāṣika School a little bit. Vaibhāṣika School of Buddhism is considered as the lowest vehicle. Lowest vehicle. Why low?
Because their intention is low, or there are a lot of reasons. Anyway, their doctrine is not accepted by higher school. Higher school finds some faults in their doctrine. Anyway, these Vaibhāṣika schools, they have a very, very strong logic, and they are actually the most They have lots of popular logics during that Vaibhāṣika time. These days there’s hardly Vaibhāṣika lineage holder, but there is study of this. It is made of two things: the most subtle thing, the most subtle sort of atom, and most subtle mind.
These two subtle things are producer of all these phenomena. This is believed by Vaibhāṣika school. Understand? Very scientific. Vaibhāṣika usually these days many western scholars also find very interesting this Vaibhāṣika school because they are very much like a scientific.
They believe that everything is produced by small atom and even smaller than atoms. What is actually smaller than atom, anyway? We have one, right? Atom? I heard that there is something even smaller than atom.
Yeah, that thing. Anyway, Vaibhāṣika School Buddhists, they believe that everything is produced by these two. Now, going higher, the Cittamātra school. Cittamātra school means mind only school. Now they believe that everything is produced by mind.
Everything is made of mind. That’s their doctrine, and mind is truly existent. Nothing is truly existent, but mind is truly existent, and mind is the thing that produce everything, and this is one of the highest vehicle. Higher than that, Mādhyamika School, they believe that, yes, mind is producer of everything, but mind itself does not exist truly. Mind itself is empty, inherently nonexistent.
So this is supposed to be the highest view of Buddhism, Nāgārjuna’s view. You see, Nāgārjuna himself said, I have made no promise. My doctrine has no promises and pledges, so I have no fault. So he has no sort of a view. He has no view.
He always said that my view is viewless. Anyway, talking about the mind now. This will make you maybe understand you about mind a little bit. In Buddhism, as I told you, that we in Buddhism, they don’t believe that God is the producer of everything. The mind.
Mind is the most important. All the appearance are mind, and mind illusion is inexpressible. That is the famous quotation, one of the famous quotation in Mādhyamika School. Appearance is mind, mind is illusion, illusion is inexpressible. First, why everything is mind?
For this, there’s two reasons in the Cittamātra school, two reasons why everything is mind. The first reason is everything is mind because the subjective phenomena and objective phenomena appears together. That is a very subtle logic now. This has to be explained. This is what I’ve been telling you.
When I say objective phenomena, it’s something like a perception. What I’m talking about is a perception, and subjective is the perceiver, the subject and object. Understand? So what is the characteristic of subject? Can somebody tell Which means that a characteristic of subject is something that needs object, and characteristic of object is something that needs subject.
To be a subject, you need an object. To be an object, you need a subject. To be a perception, you need a perceiver. To be a perceiver, you need a perception. Right?
That’s why this school believes that everything is mind. All the perception and perceiver come simultaneously. Subject and object come simultaneously. That’s why everything is mind. For example, most of you, okay, I am produced by your mind.
I am your mind. I can say this. I am your mind. I am your perception. I am your perception.
That’s why I am your mind. I am your perception which is perceived by individual perceiver tonight. I’m your perception. Other than your perception, there’s nothing here. Why?
Because tonight, before you met me, before you even heard of my name, I was not exist in your world. This needs some debate. Perceiver of world, then there is no world. If there is no giver of name the world, then there is no name the world. You can debate with me.
I’d really like you not to believe right away, you know? Destroy our thesis. Yeah, sure. But the world will go on afterwards. Afterwards.
When you say afterwards, then after what? After the perceiver? After the mind? Do you think you will find even one second of chance of absence of mind? I don’t think it’s just the same with the internal perception.
This is the case, yeah. I’m saying that the existence is just a perception, and perception cannot come without the perceiver. Pardon? Can we agree to this one? What is that?
Oh, yeah, yeah, sure. What is it? This is the example. What you just said, I didn’t understood. It was not my phenomena.
It was not my phenomena. That’s why there was no communication. Now I’m asking you again to repeat what you said. Are saying So you are saying that there are things that exist before perceiving. Yes.
In other words, you are saying like, first there was a God, and he produced us. Yeah, something like that. Who knew that this physical universe, if there’s no one, But who knew that it has been there? The second question is how it would be there, as an object or as a subject? As a round or as a flag?
Right, this will exist because you are now throwing your present projection to the past. You see? Now you can say that, now you have met me, and you see me. Ah, he must have come from India. He must be about You can almost say I’m about twenty to thirty years old, and he must be born somewhere about twenty years before.
You can now throw your projection. Maybe you don’t know my name. I don’t think so. If you don’t know my name, my name is not in your world. My form is in your world, but my name is still not in your world.
Now I have to contribute something to you. Produced by the ego, a comparing mind, right? Comparing mind. Comparing that you are better than somebody.
Know, always there is a You need to have somebody whom you can enjoy your ego throughout. Other than that, you have no ego. I’m talking about the beautiful independent. I’m talking more about the relative and interdependent. Any disagreement?
Any debate? This we should talk, and if we talk more then we will understand more. That is already one phenomena, hearing my name. You see? Before even you heard this, then what happened?
When you hear my name, you have only phenomena of name, my name. Now you have seen me. Now you have only phenomena of Now you have my name phenomena and my form phenomena. Maybe you haven’t weighed me. Now if you wait, you will see my weight.
That’s good. For example, Buddha Śākyamūni, he, almost everybody agrees that he is an enlightened being, but not by his cousin, Devadatta. He thought he was the most terrible man, you see? You see, like that. On the top of that, do you remember that?
I have talked about personal phenomena and group phenomena. We are sharing group phenomena, you see. So what you perceive, I also perceive, and we can have the same agreement to this flower as a flower. With that kind of group phenomena power, we have this karma, group karma. So we have this meeting.
We have this talking. Also, karma itself is produced by mind. You see, karma, karma. Nowadays people don’t use karma so much. Some Buddhist students, they use energy.
It is energy of mind. It is action of mind, sort of. Anyway, things, there isn’t any phenomena that is not a name, is there? Is there any phenomena that is not a perception? A perception that is perceived by six senses: eye, tongue, nose, ear, body, and mind.
There’s no perception. Is there any phenomena which is not a perception? Pardon? Witness of that perception. Witness.
Is that? Nirvāṇa, it’s not a perception for you, but for us we have a disease that doesn’t Ah, you have the nirvana. See? You have something that you don’t have. You are saying that.
Said that you have your nirvana, but we don’t have which you have, and that is what you have, what you have of not having. You understand? No, it is a perception. It’s still a perception. So you are saying that nirvana is not a perception, are you?
Well, I’m thinking from the point of view of the I think you yourself just described that nirvana is a perception, strictly for you. nirvana is a perception that which you think it is not available for you right now, and that which you think think that somebody has, and that which you think difficult to gain, these are all the perceptions. What makes you think these are not perceptions? Existence is a perception, non existence is a perception, and not perception is also perception. See?
This is why. This is why sometimes I think a scientist, if the scientist can produce, if the scientist can have love and compassion, if scientist have bodhicitta, enlightenment thought, I really think they have potential of getting enlightenment through the scientific way. Because what they are doing, they usually use microscope and put one object there and then look into there and then try to dig the reality. You understand? But the problem is they forget about the microscope.
You They don’t worry about microscope. They worry so much about the object itself. The biggest problem is they don’t examine the perceiver. But anyway, they really sort of try to analyze the object. Buddhists, the spiritual people, they try to analyze the mind, the perceiver.
One is searching the perception, and one is searching the perceiver. Buddhist says everything is mind, so that perception is also mind. Hopefully there will be one end, you know? But then there is love and compassion again. This intention you have to involve.
You have given a very good example of perception. Now I think he must have agreed, but it is part of your example. Really? That is actually what I was going to tell you. Maybe you think that he is jumping from the bridge, but maybe he is not thinking that way.
You see? Maybe he’s thinking that he is flying away. Of your ultimate truth. I see. I think.
Mhmm. Yeah. So now any more debate? But I don’t know whether fish thinks this is a universe or not. That’s why universe does not exist if there is no perceiver of universe.
Universe is a label, you know. It is exactly an argument between a Tibetan orthodox lama and a western scientist. Western scientists will say the world is around, but Tibetan lama will say the world is flat. You said the world is flat. Not me, or some stubborn one.
I’m not that smart. So now we will debate. If we if we if we try to make a debate if we try to make a debate about flat and round, we will never end this debate until our habit is end or unless either one of us is influenced, you see. Maybe you, western scientists, should put me into the rocket and bring me up in the moon and see now there the world is round. Or maybe that Tibetan lama, stubborn Tibetan lama, should show some super magic power and make the world flat and show you now this is world flat.
Only then, hopefully, you know, hopefully you can sort of agree. Otherwise, there’s no agreement. That’s why Candrakīrti always says, When you talk about the relative truth, no conclusion. You should never make any conclusion. Because there’s no conclusion.
For the conception, when you talk about the conception, there’s no conclusion. It is exactly the same as those ten or twenty judge, judging that this woman is going to the Miss Universe. You see? One cannot judge for all, you see? But if you really to debate, then we should talk something beyond.
Now, what if you say the world is round? Tibetan numbers say the world is flat. If you say he’s wrong, he will say you are wrong. You see? Now, what is the real thing?
What is the reality of the world? It is neither flat nor round. That is the ultimate truth here. Again, back to the emptiness. Western scientists can enjoy the world as round.
Tibetan Tibetan lamas can walk on earth thinking that it is flat. Oh, yeah. I told you, the name Buddhism is very, very little important, but maybe it is important because we love names, didn’t I say? When you if I tell you to introduce you, real you is emptiness, but you always don’t introduce real you. You always cheat me.
You always say, My name is John, which is not the reality of you. John is just a name. John or whatever. The reality is beyond the name. So in other words, when you introduce yourself to somebody, you always cheat.
You don’t show real you, and you give the fake you, which is just a shallow name given by your father or mother or whatever. Pardon? Now for that we need this guru business again. We need teacher. We need teachings.
We need meditation. Then one’s own wisdom we introduce.