Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 42-minute teaching, Lama Lhundup explores the subtle distinction between the inherently existent self and the merely conventionally existent self, a central point in understanding Buddhist emptiness. He begins with the mirror analogy — just as a reflection appears in a mirror but has no real face, the self appears based on our aggregates but possesses no independent, truly existent nature. The most critical step in realizing emptiness, he explains, is correctly identifying the object of negation: the self that appears to exist from its own side. Lhundup clarifies the common pitfall of conflating inherent non-existence with total non-existence, which leads to nihilism. He illustrates the realization through the magician’s illusion metaphor, showing how a realized meditator perceives phenomena as nominally existent yet empty of true existence, much as the magician knows his conjured horse is not real. The talk includes responses to student questions about compassion and the appearance of emptiness during meditation. Aimed at practitioners with foundational understanding of Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 03 E.mp3
UUID: 2f88fcb5-0074-4acf-a889-08cc0d32589e
Teacher: Lama Lhundup
Collection: Emptiness (Lama Lhundup)
Date: 1987 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 42.4 minutes
Words: ~2,244
Then we might think, well, I don’t exist. But in fact, the mere I exists. I appear. The mere appearance of the I is the way it actually exists. Just like in a mirror we see a reflection of our face, so our face appears in the mirror.
So when we look into the mirror and we see the reflection of our face in the mirror, it’s merely appearance of our face. There’s no real face there. Nothing there. Nothing there, but seeing. So this is when we look into the mirror and we see the reflection of our face, and we understand that there is no face in that mirror at all.
This is merely an appearance of a face. Likewise, in dependence upon our aggregates, the conception imputes an I, a self, but there is no real self that is merely the appearance of itself that is not even atom of a truly existent self within that basis of imputation. So, though the self appears from the side of the aggregates, it in fact does not exist at all in that way. As it appears to be, the way it is appearing to exist from the side of the aggregates, it is not established that way. There is no I existing from its own side, it appears because of the superimposition of conception which imputes an I upon the aggregates, appearing from its own side, due to the superimposition of this conception, then we develop attachment to this self which exists from its own side.
And we seek to bring in happiness and in dependence upon that. We have been continually circling existence. Do we have other questions? So, all phenomena which arise from causes are things. These are things.
Anything which is able to perform a function. That just it’s it’s all Australia people come to your room today. That’s okay, Paula? No problem? No.
This is this is this is this but we not angry for the Chinese. We’re not accepting an enemy. But why they could come more? They just more suffer Tibetan people because they destroying culture and the Dharma, everything. But they wish.
Therefore, we don’t want to. No beneficial for them. Destroying Yeah. About great compassion. You’re saying great compassion finds it hard to bear the suffering of others.
But in enlightened being, should would not find it shouldn’t find that same sort of the thing. I mean, I think a very very I Yeah. He’s just he just, you know, all the time working, thinking, looking far. It just it just seems Yeah. His job.
It just seems that great compassion where where you’re feeling that great suffering from No. No. Beginning, we practice. How practice? Compassion.
How we actually that good, that compassion. So practice, this, just first, you know, helping for those who do not see, do not realize, we do not. So we all just thinking on practice. Because we realize, we go there, completely want to relax. You don’t don’t attach.
You don’t want to understand. You don’t know what anymore you You don’t So, in in a way, that that sense of suffering you feel when you have that great compassion. So you have that. Then you have that That that leads. Yeah.
Okay. You have renunciation. Also, have strong renunciation while you’re thinking suffer yourself. Mhmm. So then yourself, how much you’re all suffer, then you think, oh, too.
They have suffered. Compassion. Does it make sense? Great compassion. The Buddhists have great compassion.
They’re not able to bear the suffering of other people. So this feeling of unable to bear, you cannot bear. Is this a suffering? Is perhaps what? So this mind of feeling unbearability, there’s no suffering involved in there.
There’s not a suffering. So it’s just when we see suffering, we want to eliminate it. We aren’t willing to be patient with it. We aren’t willing to be not patient, forbearing it. This idea of unbearability.
We aren’t willing to allow it to go on. It’s not a suffering mind. We just won’t allow it to go on when we see it. We can’t bear to see it to go on, to continue. Existence of the I.
The non-inherent existence of the I and the non-existence of the I are a big difference. So, if we don’t understand this difference, then when we negate the existence of the inherent existent I, then we negate the existence of I. When we think I don’t naturally exist and if we don’t know the difference between that I exist — the fact that I go, I sit, that there is a nominally existent I. If we think that the apprehension of a truly existent I, the naturally existent I, and the apprehension of a nominally existent I are the same, then when we negate this truly existent I, we will fall to the extreme of nihilism. In this way, we will never arrive at a pure view.
Many people make this mistake. So, we meditate this first point, the I which is the object of negation, what appears to the mind is the type of I which is naturally existent. This is the object of negation. When we think if the I actually exists as it appears, there’s an I which is appearing, which appears to be naturally existent. If this I actually existed the way it appears, then there would be many faults.
We use reasoning to refute that the way it appears actually can’t exist this way. When we completely refute this appearance, then we have realized emptiness. In realizing emptiness, the most difficult point is identifying the object of negation. So we’re not going to get this realization all at once. It’s going to take a lot of creating merit, purification over months, years.
But once we actually identify the object of negation, then it’s quite easy to realize emptiness. So this inherently existent eye, it has the appearance. It appears it doesn’t depend upon anything. It doesn’t rely on anything. It’s not dependent upon being imputed by conception.
It doesn’t rely on aggregates. It appears very concrete. So, to our mind, at present, the appearance of the inherently existent I and the appearance of the nominally existent I or the conventionally existent I, it appears like water mixed in with milk. We can’t tell the difference. Frog?
But once we realize emptiness, then the inherently existent I and the nominally existent I will be able to tell them apart. It’s like a frog is able to distinguish between the water part. You know when you mix water and milk together, a frog is able to distinguish which is the water part and which is the milk part. So the a frog is able to distinguish between the water. Separate milk and water.
He can make separate. He can make separate. He cannot make separate. That’s so, not separate. The frog will drink the milk part and leave the water part. A swan is able to drink the milk part of this mixture and leave the water part of the mixture.
So, when we refute the object of negation, the inherently existent I, from the point of view of the mind, from the point of view of the ascertainment there is the emptiness of the inherently existent I. From the point of view of the appearance there is the appearance of an absence which is a non affirming negation. An absolute negation, a non affirming negation. It’s an absence, an emptiness. This is the appearance.
From the point of view of an ascertainment there’s the ascertainment of the emptiness of the inherently existent I. And from the point of view of the appearance there’s an absence, an emptiness which is the non affirming negation and absolute negation. Which which word didn’t you understand? For example? What word didn’t you understand?
We can go through. Amundip can explain the words. Non affirmative negation, please. So a non affirming negation is the mere negation of the object of negation. The mere refutation of the object of negation or the negation of the object of negation.
The mere negation of the object of negation is a non affirming negation. Without me, you work. I can So if we get an explanation of each of the words when we meditate, are going to make mistakes. But we have an explanation of each of the words. Then if we make mistakes we know what mistakes we’re making when we meditate.
There’s no easy way to explain the vocabulary of what’s necessary to understand emptiness. Just to understand the words that we’re using, you have to spend months and years just to understand the words of explanation. So, Susan, When we come to the understanding, we think that the inherently existent I, which is the object of negation, does not exist at all. We think that this I does not exist at all. Then not only does the inherently existent I not appear, but also the nominally existent I does not appear.
Nothing whatsoever appears as a complete absence. So, when there’s this non appearance of I, then we should not think that the I does not exist. So, the time when the I is not appearing, we are not realizing the non existence of I. We are not realizing the non existence of I when the I is not appearing. What we are understanding is non existence of what we are realizing is the non existence of an inherently existent I at that time.
So So, after having realized the nonexistence of the inherently existent I, then what is left over? Then we understand the I to be Then we understand the mere I, or that is, the I as merely name. The I as merely a name. The mere name I. To such a person who has realized emptiness, then all the conventional phenomena from then on appear as illusions.
It’s as if in the case of a magician, a magician is able to conjure up a horse and an elephant through his magic. He’s able to emanate horse and elephant. Now to the magician, to his sense consciousness, the horse and elephant appear, to his sense consciousness. But to his mental consciousness, though it appears, he understands it’s not really a horse and an elephant. Likewise, to the person who has understood emptiness, though the inherently existent I appears, he understands, he realizes that it doesn’t truly exist.
It doesn’t exist as it appears. And therefore he understands that the I is merely a name. He understands the mere termed I, the merely named I. He understands that all phenomena, whether happiness, the appearance of happiness, the appearance of suffering, the appearance of virtue, the appearance of negative actions, etcetera, are all merely termed or all merely named. They do not truly exist.
This horse and this elephant that the magician conjured up, Even though he sees the appearance, but he knows it’s not true. But for us ordinary people, if we were to see this, there would be this horse and this the horse and elephant would appear to us and we would say this is the way it really exists. We would not be able to tell the difference between how it actually exists and how it appeared. We would think that it really exists this way. It’s true.
So for ordinary people, any object that appears to that person, it only appears to exist truly. It never appears to not truly exist. But there are some people who, in the case of the magician, who haven’t been affected by this mantric substance, this mantric substance that is placed that the magician uses to conjure up this illusion. For these persons the horse and elephant don’t even appear. There’s no question about thinking they’re true.
So likewise those who have direct perception of emptiness, then nothing appears to truly exist. But for an ordinary person who has realized emptiness, then things that do appear to truly exist. For example, the I appears to truly exist. But while he’s in meditative equipoise, in meditation on emptiness, he understands that I does not at that time the I does not appear to truly exist. But when he arises and attains the subsequent attained wisdom, arises from meditation, then things again appear to exist truly to him.
So there are these three modes or ways of appearance of appearing. We use the example of the magician. For the ordinary person who’s in the audience who’s been affected by this mantric substance, there appears a horse and an elephant and there’s this appearance and they hold this to be this is the way it really exists. They hold this as being true. To the magician who understands it’s only conjured up, he’s not being affected by the mantric substance, there is the appearance of a horse and an elephant but his sense consciousnesses or to his mental consciousness he does not attach to it as being true.
And then for the person who has not been affected at all by the mantric substances he does not even see the horse and the elephant. There’s not even the appearance of the horse and the elephant. Likewise, there are three with respect to appearances. Are ways of relating to the appearances. For ordinary people, hold — objects appear.