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 provides a rigorous exposition of emptiness according to Madhyamaka philosophy. He begins by establishing how phenomena and their emptiness serve as the basis for valid conceptual imputations—using true cessation, liberation, and Buddha as examples. He then develops the core insight that emptiness itself is empty of inherent existence, and explores how this understanding differs between ordinary practitioners, who realize emptiness conceptually with appearance of true existence still present, and enlightened beings like the Buddha, who perceive without any latencies of misconception. Through vivid examples—a person with jaundice seeing white conch as yellow, mistaking a rubber snake for a real one—he illustrates how appearances arise from our habitual tendencies rather than from objects’ own nature. He examines how different Buddhist philosophical schools define the self, explaining why only the Consequentialist Middle Way school can properly establish a non-inherently-existent I. Finally, he demonstrates through logical analysis that space, like all phenomena, cannot exist either identical to or different from its parts. The teaching concludes with a Q&A addressing whether enlightened beings make imputations, and how beneficent forces like Tārā respond to requests. Pitched at serious Buddhist practitioners with background in Madhyamaka tenets.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 09 E.mp3
UUID: dbc06d60-56d9-4516-b7d9-f59cd58af78e
Teacher: Lama Lhundup
Collection: Emptiness (Lama Lhundup)
Date: 1987 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 46.1 minutes
Words: ~2,220
Various abandonments of the obstructions and also the So, also the true paths which act as a method for the attainment of cessation. These are the parts. So when these parts aggregate, aggregate, that is the collection of the abandonment of the obstructions and the two paths which are the methods for the attainment of the methods which act for the attainment, when these aggregate come together, these act as the basis of imputation for true cessation. When they aggregate together, they become the basis of imputation, and then upon this basis we impute true cessation. Likewise, for liberation, we impute liberation.
Likewise, Buddha is a non-product, and upon the basis of imputation we impute Buddha. So, with respect to Buddha, there are four bodies to the Buddha. So within these four bodies there’s the factor of being a product and the factor of being a non product. But Buddha himself is a non product. Buddha has the factors of non product and product, but Buddha himself is a non product.
When we say a Buddha superior or an ārya Buddha, that is a non product. Product. A prime cognition or a valid cognition establishes what is a proper basis for imputation. A prime cognition, or sometimes called valid cognition or a valid cognition, establishes the proper basis of imputation, and then upon that the conceptual consciousness imputes the object. The conception imputes the object upon that basis.
Likewise, emptiness. Emptiness, the various parts of emptiness. The phenomena, the quality of phenomena, the phenomenon’s quality of emptiness. All the various phenomena, their quality of emptiness. Upon that we impute emptiness.
So if there’s no quality which acts as the basis for emptiness, then there’s no emptiness. So phenomena, the quality the phenomena’s qualification by emptiness is the basis for imputing emptiness. Now, if there weren’t these bases of emptinesses, that means the phenomena, there would be nothing which is empty of inherent existence. So all these phenomena act as the basis of their emptiness of inherent existence of all these various phenomena act as the basis for imputing emptiness. So, when we say the I does not exist naturally, does not have natural existence, this is the emptiness of I.
Now, there was nothing possessing the quality of being empty, then there would be nothing which lacked natural existence. If there was nothing which was not naturally existent, there would be no basis for imputing emptiness. Would be no emptiness. Because due to the power of different degrees of vastness, the phenomena being qualified by emptiness, there are different degrees of the vastness of emptiness. Likewise, emptiness is also upon the aggregation of its parts.
All these phenomena which are qualified by, have this quality of non-natural existence on the aggregation of these parts, then upon that we impute emptiness. Emptiness itself is also non inherently existent. So we ask, Is emptiness, is it inherently existent? No, emptiness is also empty of inherent existence. So emptiness is empty.
Emptiness also is not naturally existent. Emptiness is empty. When an ordinary person first realizes emptiness, he realizes it through conception, and at that time, emptiness appears to be truly existent. Because he does not realize an emptiness directly. But when he realizes emptiness directly, then the true existence of emptiness does not exist.
So, whatever conventional phenomena appear to sentient beings, as truly existent. Whatever conventional phenomena appear to a sentient being, they always appear truly existent. This due to the latency or predisposition of conception of true existence. So, whatever appears to a Buddha does not appear as truly existent because he has no latencies or predispositions to the conception of true existence. So, whether, you know, if we sum it up altogether, and whatever exists and whatever does not exist, all nothing whatsoever truly exists.
But the place upon which we’re realizing emptiness realizing emptiness must exist. If we realize the non inherent existence of the horns on a rabbit’s head, this is not a realization of emptiness. The basis of the emptiness that we’re realizing, upon which we’re realizing emptiness must exist, must be in existence. So, you know, we can all of us can understand that the reflection of a face in the mirror is not a face. The reflection of a face in the mirror is not a face.
It’s not established as a real face, but we don’t understand the face to be non truly existent. Whatever appears to us, I, form, but in the case of, for example, your friend or enemy, when they appear to us, we should come So, we should at the time when there’s an appearance of something we like, something we don’t like. When something appears we like, we become attached. When something appears that we don’t like, we develop hatred. At that time, we should understand that this being created this appearance is being created by our own conception, by our own mind.
For example, when somebody appears to us to be bad, we should understand that this appearance is being created by our conception. If, in fact, he existed the way he appeared, then he would always have to be bad. But this is just a temporary phenomenon, occasionally. The person appears bad, sometimes he appears good. If it was in his nature, there are cases when a person has a good nature but upon that good nature we impute or we create, by our conception the appearance of bad upon that person.
For example, sometimes if someone has jaundice, bile jaundice, and then at that time, even when he looks at a white conch shell, a white conch shell, it will appear to him to be yellow. So, it appears yellow through the force or the power of his sickness. There’s nothing from the side of the conch shell which is yellow. So all the people who do not have jaundice will see that same conch shell as being white, not yellow. Likewise, due to the latencies of the conception of true existence, everything appears to us to be truly existent, but in fact they don’t exist that way.
Okay. So it’s like the case when someone sees a rubber snake, you know, a rubber snake, you know, first he sees it and becomes very afraid. So you think that rubber snake is truly a snake, a real snake, truly a snake. When you first see it, you think Even though it’s a rubber snake, you think it’s really a snake, and we become afraid. Is through the force of a mistaken consciousness, we’re becoming afraid.
But if we investigate, we go over and look at it, and then we pick it up, then we see that we were mistaken and it’s not a real snake. It’s not truly a snake. So the snake which we saw at first is completely nonexistent at the place where we saw it. So that snake which appeared was merely through the power of name. Likewise, when we think I, upon that place where we are conceiving I, when we look, we will not find even the least bit, anything of that I the way it appeared to us.
It’s the same as that snake appearing to us in a place where there really wasn’t a snake. So, as the I appears to us, when we look at the basis where it’s appearing, that is the collection of body and mind, We don’t find that body at all, but it appears to us through the force of apprehending that which does not exist as existing. We’re apprehending something which does not exist to actually exist. So the I, we say nominally exists or conventionally exists. Now, what can we illustrate?
What do we use as an illustration of I when we say I? So each of the various tenets have to have a different way of positing the illustration of I. So the non Buddhists posit as the illustration of I that the self which is permanent, partless, and independently existent. They cannot posit an impermanent self as the example, as an illustration of I. Therefore, because the non Buddhists cannot set forth a fully qualified liberation or path to liberation because the basis upon which this liberation takes place is based upon a conception of permanency, which is mistaken.
So, within the Buddhist tenets, the first, a great exposition school. The great exposition school posits as the illustration of the I the continuum of the aggregates. The continuum of the aggregates is the I. Some of them say merely the mere collection of the five aggregates. The next is the Sūtra School.
They posit the mental consciousness as the I. The mind only school posits the mind basis of all as illustration of I. The Autonomy Middle Way school posits the mental consciousness. The mental consciousness as the illustration of I. So, all of the schools from the Consequentialist school, the Autonomy, all the way down to the Autonomy Middle Way school, including autonomy middle way school, are not able to posit a non inherently existent I.
Why is that? Because they’re all saying that in terms of the aggregates, if we search for the I, we should find it. We have to be able to find it. If we cannot find it, then it doesn’t exist at all. Because they say, If I don’t exist inherently, then I don’t exist.
So, explanation is according to the Consequentialist Middle Way school. So, in order to attain liberation, we must realize emptiness. In order to realize emptiness, it has to be realized in accordance with the Consequentialist Middle Way school. So, until we’ve actually realized the meaning of emptiness according to the Master Nāgārjuna, we cannot attain liberation. Depending upon any other type of emptiness outside that’s set forth by Nāgārjuna, we cannot attain liberation.
Now, why is that? Because in order to attain liberation we have to bring an end to suffering, or that is to say, we have to bring an end to cyclic existence. The root of cyclic existence is the conception, apprehending, and inherently existent I or inherently existent phenomena. So, root of cyclic existence is this conception apprehending an inherently existent I and phenomena. Without abandoning the root of cyclic existence there is no attaining liberation from cyclic existence.
So the conception which causes us to turn within cyclic existence are the afflictive emotions. And the root of the afflictive emotion is ignorance, and this is ignorance which conceives of inherently existent phenomena. Until we actually negate, refute the adhering object of this conception of inherent existence, then we cannot be liberated. The referent object. Question?
So, if space existed the way it appears to us, that is, existed, then it must exist either the same or different than its parts. If it exists the same of its parts, for example, the space which is above Australia, then it would be inherently the same as the space above Australia and it would be indivisible from the space above Australia. So therefore, when we found the space above Australia, that would be the same as all space. The space of Australia would be all space. That means America would have no space because it’s all above Australia.
Now if it was different, inherently different, then we could take all the various parts of space and would be a space which was totally unrelated to all of its parts, all the various parts. It would be totally unrelated, no relationship whatsoever. There’s space in there as all of its parts of it. It was the same size, Where’s Yeah. Just do enlightened beings impute?
Mhmm. Just do enlightened beings impute. So, the Buddha has no conceptions. No conceptions. Therefore, he doesn’t have a conception, an apprehending conception.
He perceives objects. There exist people who do bad actions, people who do good actions. Therefore, the Buddha sees this. So the Buddha doesn’t think this is good, this is bad. In in where you that you know, in your monastery?
Yeah. Does Tārā help only because you ask or because it’s a worthy cause or good project? So whoever makes requests, whether they’re good, bad, whether they’re monks, lay people, whether even an animal, then Tārā whoever requests, then Tārā will help them. So if there was no benefit to oneself or others, Tārā would not help. But someone who is doing bad would have a difficulty in making a request to Tārā?
Because you have to have believing, there’s faith in Tārā in order to make it. So, you wouldn’t make requests unless you had faith in Tārā and the only way you would have to have a confidence in the law of cause and effect. And if you had confidence in the law of cause and effect, you wouldn’t be going around doing bad action. Probably Ronald Reagan doesn’t make requests to Tārā. People could request, couldn’t they?
Right. Well, the Chinese might have requested help to overcome Tibet, you know, in their some of them might have. And So the Buddha said that to hurt others is wrong. This is bad. You’ll go to hell if you do this.
You didn’t say if you’re good, you’d go to hell. We could ask