Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 46-minute teaching, Lama Lhundup unpacks the philosophical foundations of emptiness through a detailed analysis of how we perceive phenomena and the flaws in that perception. He begins with the logical problem of sameness and difference—if objects inherently existed, they would have to be either identical with or separate from their parts, yet neither option holds. He applies this reasoning to time itself: past, present, and future are conceptual imputations on a continuum, not inherently self-standing entities. Moving into deeper terrain, Lama Lhundup explains how all appearances are posited by valid conception but appear to exist independently of mind, using the mirror-reflection analogy to show how objects depend entirely on mental imputation. He then applies this framework to non-associated compositional factors and non-products, working through the examples of a year (posited on twelve months) and space (imputed on directional parts), demonstrating how nothing exists the way it appears to us. The teaching concludes by distinguishing conventional truth as “truth for a deceiver”—false in the way it appears, yet conventionally functional. Suited for students engaged with Mādhyamika philosophy and analytical meditation on emptiness.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 07 E.mp3
UUID: d872926f-64fd-40fb-9e9b-54fdd7b3f814
Teacher: Lama Lhundup
Collection: Emptiness (Lama Lhundup)
Date: 1987 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.3 minutes
Words: ~2,384
One with either past time, present time, or future time. What happens if time is inherently existently the same as past time or present time or future time? So, know, things are we have this same and different. Here we’re talking about inherently the same, inherently different. If something is inherently different, it has no relationship.
It’s unrelatedly different. You know, like time and future time, They are different. They are different. Why? They’re different because they have different isolates.
They’re different, but they are one entity. They have the same nature, same entity, but they’re different. Same nature, same nature, but different. But this is the way conventional phenomena appear to us. That is, this is truth deceiver.
Truth for deceiver. So, the way things appear when they are appearing to truly exist, yeah, way things appear when they’re appearing to truly exist, if they’re in this way, when they appear to be one, then they’re completely identical. When they appear to be one, they’re completely identical. If they appear different, then they’re unrelatedly different. There’s no way they can be unrelatedly different.
The definition of time is an object which is either past, present, or future time. Would you like to clarify your question to make it clear? Is time the product of something? Yeah. So it’s a product.
So, there’s no time? Time is momentarily. It arises So, time arises from mere aggregation of causes and conditions. There is no time when there hasn’t been time. When the causes and conditions of time aggregate, time comes into existence.
You want to ask what are the causes and conditions? Just use now this time you first. Yes. This is you in harmony. Just now exist.
Past is past. Time past your past. So, the cause of the present is in the past. Because of causes, you have what you have. Therefore, you make cause.
You understand? So whatever the phenomenon So, whatever the Pham Phenomena is, whether it’s a product or a non product, it’s posited by the power of conception. Now, this conception does not arise haphazardly by any old way. So it’s a conception which is non analytic, non-erroneous conception. Factually concordant conception.
Correct? For example, a conceptual wrong consciousness is not used to posit phenomena. A conceptual wrong consciousness cannot posit phenomena, cannot establish the existence of phenomena, cannot posit phenomena. For example, the conception grasping at a truly existent person does not posit the existence of the person. So, this conception, this positing conception must not be a wrong consciousness.
It must be a factually concordant consciousness. It must be a conception which is positor of conventional existences must be concordant consciousness, a conception. So it must be factually concordant consciousness, which is a conception which is positing the nominal existence or conventional existences. It cannot be a wrong consciousness. Factually Concordant Awareness.
What do we mean by factually concordant awareness? As it’s being apprehended, that’s the way it exists. The way it’s being held is the way it exists. This is what we mean by factually concordant consciousness. The way it’s being apprehended, the way this consciousness is apprehending the object, that is in fact the way it exists.
So we have to distinguish between these conventions. When we say I exist, I do not inherently exist, I exist, but I do not inherently exist, which does not mean I don’t exist. So I exist, but I don’t inherently exist. Because I don’t inherently exist doesn’t mean I don’t exist. So, we have to understand these different things.
So even some of the great scholars of the Mind Only School, of the Autonomy Middle Way School, if they say, If I don’t inherently exist, I don’t exist at all. That’s their understanding. If I don’t inherently exist, I don’t exist. First, we have to in the beginning come to be able to intellectually understand. When we say that something doesn’t inherently exist and that it doesn’t exist, and that something inherently exists and it exists.
The differences between these, we have to come to intellectual understanding of differences. So, you know, if we speak roughly, you know, whatever objects appear to us like form, when a form appears to us, it appears to us as if it has no relation whatsoever with our mind, with our awareness. Likewise, when we think about self and other, they appear to us to have no relationship to our mind, their appearance is. So, when a subject and object appear to us, the way they appear is totally unrelated to our mind. There’s no relationship to our mind.
So that way that they’re appearing, they don’t exist that way. We used the example of the reflection of a face in a mirror. The reflection is being cast. A face is casting the reflection of that face in a mirror. Without this face So that reflection is dependent upon this face being cast into the mirror and reflecting.
Likewise, whatever appears to us is dependent upon being imputed from the mind. Using this example of the reflection in the face of mirror, can come using this as a reference, using the same idea and applying to all phenomena, can easily come to an understanding. So all the various objects that appear to us, you know, the forms, sounds, tastes, smells, touches, they appear to us and we assign to them being pleasing, unpleasing. Now, for example, we see a pleasing form. Then, how does that pleasing form arise?
Due to the ripening of a latency, We have latencies which have existed from beginningless time which ripen. We have a special latency which will impute the conception of that object being pleasing. So when latency is ripened, then we impute upon that form, for example, to be pleasing. And then we see the form as being pleasing. Whatever appears to us is merely an inner factor of the mind.
Whatever appears is merely the appearing factor within the mind. That’s not very good. So, is apparent is merely an inner object of mind. For example, you know, have dreams. Over a few hours of dreaming, many activities.
You know, we go through many types of activities in our dreams. It might appear horses and elephants. There might be many people we’re talking, fighting. All kinds of things go in our dreams, but when we wake up, none of those things we can’t find any of those things. None of those things can we find.
It does not exist. So These are just inner appearances to the mind. So likewise, these dreams as the dreams everything that appear to the dream are merely internal factors appearing to mind. Likewise, all that is imputed by conception is merely inner factors appearing to awareness. Now if we say, Well, do they exist the way they appear?
No, they don’t. They don’t exist. So, none of these things exist the way they appear. So, all the phenomena which appear to us, they are merely a factor of appearance to our mind. Do they actually exist the way they’re appearing?
No. These appearances are all false. Everything that appears to us is false. These are mere factors of appearance to our awareness. These appearances do not exist in reality.
They’re all false. So the I and the emptiness of I are the same entity. The I and the emptiness of I are the same entity or sometimes the same nature. Same entity, same nature. Though the I and the emptiness of I are the same nature, So, difference of entity does not exist.
I and the emptiness of I, the difference of entity does not exist. The entity or the nature of I is emptiness. The I which is empty of inherent existence, that I, the term I is merely being posited by name. So, we shouldn’t think I is one thing, emptiness of I is another thing. They’re two separate things.
This doesn’t exist, the separateness. All phenomena, you know, conventionally existed phenomena or whatever are mere appearances. Now that mere appearance, that appearance, that appearance is false. There’s two ways to translate this word. The appearance is a conventional truth, or it’s also translated as truth for a deceiver.
So all appearances are truths for deceivers. The non inherent existence of that appearance is the ultimate truth. Only the non-appearance. The non-existence of inherent existence of that appearance is the ultimate truth. That appearance is a conventional truth or a truth for a deceiver, but it is false because it’s not true.
So, if we return to the examples of non associated compositional factors, non-associated compositional factors, non-associated products. Then we take the example of year. Year. Now year is merely imputed by conception. Year, month, week, month, year.
Year is merely imputed by conception, but the way a year appears to us is as if it had self powered, or that is to say, it existed independently. So, if we use the example of year. The year is merely imputed by name to the collection of twelve months. Upon the collection of twelve months, upon that we impute year. But the year, it appears to us to be independently existing, that is to be inherently existing.
Now, if it existed way it appeared, then does it exist at the place it appears, that is, the twelve months, it has to be either the same or different, either identical with the twelve months or different than twelve months. So if we look and we examine, we look, for example, at the first month. Now, if a year is inherently existing as the way it appears, it should be inherently the same as the first month. That means even the first month should be a year. The very first month should also be a year because it’s inherently the same as a year.
If we can’t find it, well, maybe it’s different than years. But we can’t find no year other than the twelve months. There’s nothing other than twelve months which we can say is a year. So as the year appears to us to exist inherently, we cannot find an inherent year which is the same or different than the twelve months. So that’s non associated compositional factors.
Now, can go to non products. So we have products and non products. Products are those phenomena which arise dependent upon causes and conditions. And non products are phenomena which do not arise dependent upon causes and conditions. Non products do not arise dependent upon causes and conditions.
So, non product would be space. Space is merely the negation of obstruction. So this is a non affirming negation, just like emptiness. Emptiness is a non affirming negation. So, we say non affirming negation, that means when the object is negated, that means when the object is refuted, no other conventional phenomena appears to the mind.
Nothing else is implied. Nothing else appears to the mind at that moment. If we’re meditating on emptiness and we are trying to negate You know, when we’re meditating on emptiness, if we actually are understanding emptiness, at that moment no other phenomena is appearing to our mind. No consciousness, no I, only emptiness. Only that emptiness is appearing to our mind at that moment.
So, you know, at the moment, during the period of meditation, if any other phenomena such as the mind or the eye is appearing to us, at that time we’re not understanding emptiness. So emptiness is a non affirming negation. Space is a non-affirming negation. It is a negation of obstruction. The negation of obstruction is space.
So is space naturally existent? No, it’s not. Space has a limitless number of parts. We’re talking about the space inside our stomach, the space inside our body, the space under the ground, the space inside this house, the space over this house, all these different parts of space. So upon the collection, the gathering together of this collection of all these parts of space, we impute space.
So there’s all the different parts of space. When we look up in the space, we’re seeing one particular direction of space. You know, there’s the various space above the four continents, know, the Purvavideha and all these four continents. And each of the countries in the world Australia has the space above their particular country. So, there’s a space above the United States, for example.
These aren’t the same spaces they’re different spaces, aren’t they? There’s the space where the sun is rising, the space where the sun is not rising, where the sun is yet to set. So, they’re different spaces. So, in dependence upon these various parts, dependence upon those spaces arises. Likewise, this absence, you know, we view space and this absence that we see, it appears to us not to be imputed by mind.
So does it exist the way it appears? It doesn’t exist the way it appears to us. So, if space existed the way it appears, does it mean if it actually inherently existed, then it would have to be either the same as all these various parts or it would have to be different in all these various parts. So, if space exists the way it appears, that it’s inherently existent, it’d have to be either inherently existent, one or many. So if it was inherently existent the same as its various parts, then for example, the part above Australia, the part above America, it would have to be the same as the part above Australia, for example.
The part of space which is above Australia, that would have to be space. But if that were the case, then the Americans would get very angry because they wouldn’t have any space. So this fault occurs when if space were naturally existent the same as its parts. Now, is the space naturally existent separate or different from its parts? Aside from all these parts, we cannot find anything which is space.
Therefore, we can understand that it completely does not exist the way it appears. If we take another example of non products, for example, true cessation or nirvana, beyond-sorrow nirvana, these are also non products. So the true cessation