Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 46-minute talk, Lama Lhundup guides practitioners through the logical reasoning that establishes the non-inherent existence of the self. He begins by identifying the object of refutation—the strongly felt sense of a self that appears independent and self-sufficient—then walks practitioners through the logical analysis: if the self exists the way it appears, it must be either identical with or separate from the aggregates of body and mind, yet neither option holds. He illustrates this with examples of a reflection in a mirror and a mistaken rope appearing as a snake, emphasizing that understanding emptiness requires active investigation, not blank-minded thought suppression. He then extends the same reasoning to all phenomena—forms, feelings, consciousness, and time—showing how objects appear inherently real but dissolve under analysis. The teaching is pitched at serious practitioners already engaged with Buddhist philosophy and meditation.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 06 E.mp3
UUID: e00d4a24-428b-4348-a813-7857d5e5958b
Teacher: Lama Lhundup
Collection: Emptiness (Lama Lhundup)
Date: 1987 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.1 minutes
Words: ~2,884
in dependence upon the collection of the body and mind, we have been grasping at an I which does not exist, the type of I which does not exist as existing. The place of the mistake, the place of error is at the body and mind. This is the place where the error is taking place, grasping at something which does not exist as existing. This eye which does not depend upon anything, for example when we investigate the I, the I does not appear to it. So we have to evoke, evoke the I, the feeling of I very strongly.
Example, with great force we want to generate this feeling of I like when we have fear or when somebody says, I lost my money. You stole my money. You know, we get accused of stealing or we have great times when we have great suffering or great happiness. There’s a very strong forceful feeling of I at that time. So then we have to say, how does that I appear?
So, then, you know, if it appears clearly to us, it will appear as So it will occur to be exist only from its own side, self sufficiently. Then we have to think that that I, if it existed, if it exists, then it must be either the same or different than the aggregates. Now, if we think, well, it’s the same as aggregates, which is as there are five aggregates, there must be five I’s or if we think if it’s the same, then when the body is burnt at death, then the eye is also burnt at death. So there are many mistakes which follow from conceiving of the eye as the same as aggregates. Now if it’s different than aggregates, there also follow many faults that we can put forth.
So then we establish that the eye is neither the same nor different than the aggregates and that the eye doesn’t exist the way it appears. So in dependence upon such reasons then we understand that if this eye exists then it must be the same or different and seeing that it’s neither the same or different then we understand I do not inherently exist. I do not exist the way that this I appears to me. Just in the same way that the horns on a rabbit do not exist, this I does not exist. So if we present this, you know we have to think about this reasoning again and again.
If we present this reasoning in a form of a syllogism, then we say I, the subject I does not inherently exist because it does not exist inherently as the same or inherently different. For example, the reflection of a face in a mirror. So this example, you know, just it’s easy to realize that the reflection of a face in a mirror is not really a face. And likewise, though the eye appears to truly exist, it in fact really does not truly exist, just like the face in the mirror. So that previous, add one word to that previous translation.
The reflection of a face in the mirror is not truly a face. Not really a face. Also another reason we can give the I as a subject, syllogism, the I as a subject is not truly existent because it is a dependent arising. So dependence upon this reason dependent arising we can understand that the I is not truly existent. Just as a snake, no, just as a rope appears as a snake can appear as a snake.
A striped rope just as a striped rope can appear as a snake. So unless we examine, make analysis, if we just well I don’t truly exist, we’re not going to gain any realization. We have to make examination. So, it’s like as if someone, you know, we came home in the evening and someone says, Oh, a snake. We came home at night and someone said to you, Oh, a snake just went in your house.
And he became very afraid of going in your house. Now, in order to eliminate that fear, would be if somebody came up to you and said, Oh, there’s no elephant in your house. Him saying that would not help in any way to eliminate your fear of that snake. So, in order, you know, if we really want to get rid of that fear of the snake, what we have to do is actually turn on, go in and turn on the lights in the house and look around the house, search around the house and only in that way. So in the end when we actually see there’s no- when we see for ourselves that there’s no snake, this will be what will actually eliminate the fear of the snake.
So, have this within our mind we have this conception of inherent existence. So we have to investigate the nature of this inherent I. How does it exist? What way does it exist? We have to make analysis.
If it existed, well what faults are there? You know, what faults are there? It existed the way it appears, what faults are there? If it exists, what faults or what is the way it exists, what is the way it appears, if it exists the way it appears, what faults are there? And in this way, we come to the understanding that this conception of this I that we have is mistaken.
And that by again and again using this reasoning, checking up the way it appears, how does it appear, if it really exists the way it appears, then what mistakes are, what faults, then we destroy this conception. Once we destroy this conception and we’ve gotten rid of it, then we have realized emptiness. So when this appearance ceases, just like when we were looking for the snake when we couldn’t find it, conception that the snake exists ceases and likewise when we are investigating trying to find this I, this appearance of this inherently existing eye when it ceases to appear to us at that moment we’re understanding emptiness. So this is the way we meditate on the non inherent existence of the I. Some explain the way of meditating on emptiness such that we want to get rid of all thought.
Any thought that arises, we want to block all thought. That is, we want to have our mind empty like space. Such an explanation of the way to meditate on emptiness is not correct. This is not the way to meditate on emptiness. The beings in the formless realms, they’re meditating on, for example, that all phenomena in nature is space.
All they see is a complete absence. The only thing that they see is space, emptiness, this absence. This is not meditation on emptiness. In general, you know, we we our thoughts are a source of a lot of problems for us. Therefore, we like to block our thoughts.
When we block all our thoughts, then our mind is empty and we’re very happy. So if we were to engage in this practice of simply blocking thoughts, then through the force of this along with our merit, then this would act as a cause to be reborn in a formless realm or if not a formless realm then to be born as a God without discriminating. There is a realm called Gods with non discrimination. It will never act as a cause to bring an end to cyclic existence. It will never act a cause to, as a method to destroy the conception of truly existing self.
So in the beginning we have to make effort at this first point of these four points that is identifying the object of refutation. This is the thought of the great masters such as Nāgārjuna, Candrakīrti, Śāntideva and Tsongkhapa that we must without understanding the object of negation, without identifying it, then there’s no way to meditate on emptiness. We’re not making medication on emptiness. In the beginning, it’s most important that we make effort to identify the object of negation. So, in the same way that we meditate on the eyes being not truly existent, likewise we meditate on we think of the body as not being truly existent.
That is, all forms, all objects, for example, forms, sounds, tastes, smells, touches, think of them as being meditate on them as being not truly existent. And, you know, we have to think, well, how do these appear to me? What is the way they appear to me? And if they existed that way, what faults would they be? If they existed that way, then does that object the way it appears?
Is it one with the object? Is it the same or different? If it’s the same, then there are these faults. If it’s different, then there are these faults. And this way we come to understand that these things are not truly existent.
So, we meditate in forms and then we meditate as we were talking about yesterday on mind or consciousnesses trying to understand the non inherent existence of consciousness. We can take, for example, feelings. There are feelings of happiness, feelings of suffering. When we experience a feeling of happiness, we develop a liking for this happiness, attachment, we make effort. We become attached to it.
We don’t want to give it up. Want more, more. So, the way this happens, you know, any type of contaminated happiness, the way it appears to us is that it is not dependent upon anything. It’s just out there concrete. It’s not being, we feel it’s not being created by our own mind.
And therefore we become attached to it. So, when we experience happiness, then we have to say, well, if that happiness existed the way it appears, that happiness has be the same as my mind or different than my mind. Now by same I mean identical. It has to be oneness with the mind. Oneness or different.
So if that happiness, if it exists that way it appears, that happiness must be identical with my mind. If it’s identical with my mind, if that happiness is identical with my mind, then I should always be happy. I should be permanently happy because, you know, that should always be my mind. But the fact is, we’re not always happy. Sometimes, you know, we’re occasionally happy.
Sometimes we suffer. So that means that happiness is not identical with my mind. Now, is that happiness different than my mind? Or if it was different than as it appears, if it was different than your mind, then we could set our mind somewhere else, we could eliminate our mind, and we would be left with this happiness. So then we come to understand that this happiness as it appears is neither the same as our mind nor different than our mind and it’s not established in any way the way it appears to us.
So then we have to understand that it doesn’t exist in any way the way it appears, the way we’re trying to hold it, the way we hold this to exist, it doesn’t exist in the least as it appears. So then how does that happiness come about? How does it arise? It arises through causes and conditions, through contact with objects, through the conditions of the object, the sense faculties, etcetera. That happiness does not exist under its own power.
It does not exist independently. So, it arises in in dependence upon the mere aggregation of causes and conditions. So we understand that this happiness does not exist the way it appears, but then we think maybe happiness doesn’t exist at all. But, this is not right. Is happiness.
This happiness arises upon the mere aggregation of causes and conditions. It is the mere appearance of this happiness, the mere name, the dependence upon mere name, upon mere appearance. It merely appears to the mind. It really is mere appearance to the mind. So this happiness is a mere appearance to the mind.
Now does it exist as it appears? It doesn’t exist as it appears. It doesn’t exist as it appears. It is a mere appearance to the mind. It exists as a mere appearance to the mind.
It exists as a mere appearance to the mind. But it doesn’t appear as it exists. So how does it appear? It appears to be truly existing. The way to think that it appears, it only appears to be, it only appears to be truly existent.
That’s the way it appears. It appears to be truly existent. That’s the only way. So, the happiness is merely appearing to the mind, it does not appear as merely appearing to the mind. So, place that the happiness is appearing, at that place where the happiness appears, it appears that that happiness is concrete and appearing from its own side.
It’s not being imputed by the mind. So, if you think about this thing again and again, something will appear. Likewise, suffering. So again, you take the example of suffering. You know, when we get a headache, we can’t bear this headache.
We can’t stand this headache. And how does that headache appear? It doesn’t appear that the pain, the suffering is being created by the mind. That is, it’s merely an appearance. It appears to exist very concretely independently.
Now, if we search in the place of appearance for that pain, we won’t find it. It doesn’t, that pain does not exist the way it is appearing to mind. So, when we experience a headache, the pain of a headache, the place where it’s appearing is the head. If we check up whether that pain is the same or different than the head. Now if that pain were the same as the head, then we should always as long as we have a head, we should always have pain, but sometimes we don’t have a headache.
Sometimes only occasionally we have headaches. But perhaps pain as it appears is different than the head. Then if it was different than the head that is unrelated to the head, then we should be able to separate the head and the headache. We should have a head and a headache, but there’s nothing by separating out the head there’s nothing other. There’s nothing left over.
There’s nothing other than the head. So therefore we can understand that as that pain is appearing to the mind, it doesn’t exist. So then we can understand except for the mere appearance to awareness, except for being merely labeled, named, there’s nothing other than that. There’s only that which is being imputed by conception. So, you know, whatever states of mind arise, happiness, suffering, the afflictive emotions such as a hatred, anger, you know when they arise we should examine.
We should make an examination, investigation in the same way. The way that these states of mind appear, do they actually exist that way? And if we do this, then we are, for example, hatred, anger, attachment, etc. Be pacified. So, we have six primary consciousnesses and each of them have objects, there are six objects and all knowables are included within these categories.
So, there are six primary consciousness and there are objects, there are six objects that include all knowables. So these six types of objects, when they appear to us, they appear either pleasing, displeasing, or neutral. When a pleasing object appears to us, we develop attachment. When a displeasing object appears to us, we develop anger. When a neutral object appears to us, we develop delusion.
So, In this way whatever appears to us, if we make this investigation, then this appearance of inherent existence, the way these things appear will become, the strength of this appearance will become less and less and less and less until we finally are able to view any object it will appear to us as being empty of inherent existence. So now we’ve covered forms and consciousnesses and now the third category was divided into three categories. The third category was called associated factors. For example, time. Time.
Time is non inherently existent, so we have to make an examination whether time itself is inherently existent. Now time has there’s past time, present time, and future time. If time so we examine whether time is inherent or existent, well then time must be either one or the same, either the same or different, either the same or different than past, present, or future. Now, if time were the same as any of these as past, present, or future, what faults would occur if it were the same as past or present or future? If it was different than the past, present or future, if we take away past, present and future, is there any time left over?
So when we say time, it is merely being conceived by terms, by name. You have a question? So there’s time. There are parts to time. The past time, present time, future time.
So other than these three times. So all time is included within these three times.