Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 44-minute teaching, Lama Zopa Rinpoche uses the example of an ordination name to distinguish between two major Buddhist schools. While Svatāntrika cannot reconcile that phenomena are labeled by mind with their apparent independent existence—falling into either eternalism or nihilism—Prāsaṇgika offers a seamless resolution: phenomena are merely imputed by mind and completely empty of inherent existence, yet they genuinely arise dependently. Lama Zopa then identifies the deepest misconception underlying saṃsāra, subtler than simply believing things exist independently. It is the lingering sense that even though something is merely imputed by mind, there exists something more—some additional existence from the object’s own side beyond what the mind labels. This barely-perceptible extra, this whisper beyond mere imputation, is the precise ignorance that generates all suffering. For practitioners with philosophical training.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 04 1991 08 08 E.mp3
UUID: 4644913d-625d-48c6-b6a3-4da47d8e2926
Teacher: Lama Zopa Rinpoche 1
Collection: y Emptiness (Lama Zopa Rinpoche 1)
Date: 1991-08-08
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.1 minutes
Words: ~2,474
Mind only school, there is no object. Such as the I, you know, the eye and the sense object, they said the form, so forth, you know, form, sounds, and so forth. It is is The imprint of the subject’s that which is left in, the eighth conscious mind, all of this. Hurry up. So without having nothing from their side, without the imprint of the substances that was left on any consciousness to experience manifesting out.
The imprint of the subject’s, that which is that which are left on the consciousness manifesting out. This phenomenon that exists depends on imprints that are left on this consciousness manifesting out, actualizing. So in the appearance of the eye, there is also this one. That eye exists in functional side without depending on the imprint that is left on the conscious, imprint left on the consciousness manifesting out. For this, this is a wrong view, this hallucination is also there.
So this my own school. Believe that That it is the imprint of the blue color, the imprint that was left on the consciousness. This one materializes, one becomes an object, the object, blue color, Then one manifests in the consciousness. The consciousness which sees the blue object, so one object, one imprint manifests in the consciousness. So consciousness which sees the blue.
So like that. So therefore, according to Mind Only and Sautantrika, these objects do not exist from their own side. So, however, in the appearance of the eye, there’s also this hallucination that the eye exists from its own side without the imprint left on the consciousness manifesting out. So this concept, believing this is true, again, true, this is the root of saṃsāra. In appearance of this I, there’s also this one that the eye is existing completely from its own side, without depending on appearing to the undefective eye and the undefective mind.
So that eye that eye is completely existing inside. That without depending on appearing to the undefective mind. And undefective mind unlabeled. Undefective mind labeled. The object, the refuted object from the fourth school, in Madhyamaka school, the first one, Svatāntrika school.
So so this this refuted object is also there. You see? In our students, there’s also this refuted object there. The fourth school’s view, the refuted objects appearing before the eye. Then all those are like, nothing exists completely from their own side.
They are labeled. They are labeled by the undefective mind, by the undefective mind. You see, first of all, appears to the undefective mind and undefective mind is labeled. So the on this I, there is this appearing object. That is completely existing from its own side.
That is appearing to the undefeated mind and undefeated mind labeling. And then see, believing, apprehending that this is true. It’s not the root of saṃsāra. This is not the root of saṃsāra. Even this is not the root of saṃsāra. So now, that the I For the n, they say that, for example, For example, when we have taken drugs, the dust, the whole ground is worms.
It appears as warm. Whole ground appears as worms. As if one is on the ground of worms. However, this this appearing appearance, for example, see, appearing the worm appearing in the ground, that that depends on the, you know, that depends on the defected mind.
And defected mind, you see, defected mind, but also it depends on the ground. First of all, there’s something there, the the ground. So without the without the ground without the ground, you can’t see. Without the ground, you can’t there’s no basis to be able to see worms. The actual example that is used is a magician person is transforming the stone or wood into elephant or horse and things like that.
So that’s the example that is used. However, So without the ground, you see, there is no appearing of the worm. This, you see, appearing of the worm. Worm doesn’t happen. You see?
So so therefore, I say, It is a that appearance that is a that worm, you see, seeing that worm, it happened depending on the defect of the mind and then and then the ground. So therefore, thing wrong. It it is left it left it is it is labeled about the it is labeled by the mind. Also, it exists from its own side. It exists it exists from Sun side.
So like this, like this, every so everything the ground is the basis for the hallucination. However, like this example, that all the things that which exist, they are labeled by the mind, the undefective mind, but also they exist from their own side. Exist from their own side. They exist, you know, They also exist from their own side. So like this.
For example, We agree that you see? When we talk when we talk about For example, It is like that — Tsampa. It’s arguable that the name Jampa is labeled. Jampa is labeled by the abbot, abbot who granted the granted the ordination. Jampa is labeled.
By the abbot during ordination. That is and that is agreeable, that is etcetera. That is a label by the abbot. And that’s how Tsampa, you see, exists. But even though one realizes even though one realizes the name Jampa is imputed by abbot, the who granted ordination, even though that is even though one is able to realize that, you know, but, say, But the way the exists the way Jampa exists, being merely imputed, you see, by the mind, by the abbot’s mind, the way the tsampa exists being merely imputed by the abbot’s mind.
You see, being merely imputed by the abbot’s mind. So that’s all. So that’s all what Jampa is. That one, one one comes to accept that, then one comes to accept that. Because of the belief that Tsampa is labeled, of course, you see, the way it exists, labeled by the abbot’s mind, but it should have an and it is but but but but there should be something from some side.
There should be an existing from some side. There should be something from some side. So because of this of this philosophy, because this belief, you see, so when one comes to accept that the way Jampa exists, being merely labeled by the abbot’s mind, then that means Jampa doesn’t exist from its own side. Jampa doesn’t exist. That you see, not that Jampa doesn’t exist at all from its own side.
Nothing exists. There’s nothing exists, you know, from its own side. So the is completely empty. Completely empty. You see?
From from you see? Completely empty from its own side. So the person comes to the point if it comes to the point that if it doesn’t exist from its own side, then it doesn’t exist. How can it possible if it if it doesn’t exist? If if it if there’s not something from other side, how is it possible that it can exist?
You see? One cannot one couldn’t see it can exist without having without without having some existence from its own side. So So the problem here, the Svatāntrika, so one one accept Tsampa exists, then one falls into eternalism. So according to Prāsaṇgika school, then or according to reality or according to Pasangiri school, then one one accepts this philosophy that if example exists, then it should have an existent from side, then this falls into eternalism, exaggeration, or eternalism.
Then when one comes to accept, you see, the that is merely labeled, you know, merely labeled, you see, then and that that means it that that means it it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist from its own side. That means it doesn’t exist. So so and then false nihilism. For the problem, can’t unify the one object we see.
It can’t see that is empty from the side. And it is existing, Jampa is existing, Jampa is existing, being merely labeled about mind, and that is empty existing from its own side, so could not unify the dependent arising and emptiness. Could not unify them: dependent arising depends on the aggregates and the abbot’s mind, then it depend on those two, then Jampa is existing, you see, depending on arising. So examples existing being merely labeled by the mind. So this subtle dependent arising.
So this is samba, this subtle dependent arising being merely labeled by the mind, the abbot’s mind. So this one, and The Tsampa, the dependent arising exists, existing by dependent arising, and that is empty from its own side. That Jampa is empty from its own side. So these these two things, you see, could not unify could not unify. So now in Svatāntrika, the second — the fourth school, Madhyamaka school has two: Svatāntrika and Prāsaṇgika.
So the second one, Prāsaṇgika school, according to the school or according to reality, the way the Tsampa exists is nothing other than, nothing slightest more — the way the Tsampa exists, what Tsampa is, is nothing slightest more than what is merely imputed by the mind. So, therefore, some therefore, therefore, Therefore, chamber is completely empty, chamber is completely empty existing from its own side. Therefore, Tsampa has no slightest inherent existence. Not the slightest atom inherently exists. There’s nothing from its own side.
Tsampa has nothing, nothing slightest, you know, atom, nothing from its own side. From its own side, it’s completely empty. So even what one even what one feel, there should be something from inside. There should be something from inside. Otherwise, how is it possible to exist?
So even that even that thing, you see, Even that, there should be something from the side. Even that one is completely empty from the side. So what exists is the the slightest nothing more, nothing more than what is merely imputed by the mind. Therefore, what is it it become extremely say, subtle, the dependent arising, extremely subtle. Extremely subtle.
There is completely empty from the inside. Tsampa is completely empty. What appears existing from the side, appears existing from the side, what appears that it has an existence from the side, you know, something from the side that is completely empty from its own side. Something which appears existing from the side that is completely empty from its own side. So so like this.
So like this. So like this. You can see. So now by concentrating in this, you can see now how so like this whole existence, the whole existence are like this, you see, completely. They don’t they don’t exist.
Nothing exists. Nothing is, say, The whole exist whole existence do not have anything from their own side. They don’t exist from their own side. So everything are completely empty. What appears existing from their own side is completely hallucination and empty.
So therefore so therefore, you see, what exist is what exists is a what is merely imputed by the mind. What is merely imputed by the mind. So therefore, you can see how everything is one taste in emptiness. Everything, There’s no I in the emptiness, there’s no me, there’s no you.
In emptiness, in emptiness, everything is in one taste. There’s nothing in emptiness, there’s nothing to differentiate. You and me and the, you see, here and there and this and that. You see, bad and good, all these things, you know, pure and impure. So now So that is the so is it the the I that I appearing that I is appearing like as a complete existence without the appearing to the undefective mind and undefective mind labeling.
And believing this, so this is not the root of saṃsāra. So now, what is the root of saṃsāra? It is very specific. It is a very subtle one. It is a very subtle, very subtle one.
It is very specific concept, the root of the whole of saṃsāra entire saṃsāra. Even that is not the root of saṃsāra. So the reality or the Prāsaṇgika’s view or reality of what the root of saṃsāra is, I is labeled by the mind, but it should have something — it should exist from its own side, or it should have something from its own side.
There should be something from the inside. So, however, even even this what is left, even this even this at at the very last at the very last, even this even this one even this little thing that what is left, this and even this hallucination or this even this how’s it? Some something you see? You see? Something extra.
You see? That I, you see, even, you see, something more, some you see, slight, slightly more, slightly more, slightly more than than than that is being merely imputed. Slight more than what is being merely imputed by the mind. You see, slightly more than that. Something little bit more than that.
You see, appearing like this appearing like this. Something little bit more than is something additional. Something a bit more than is it it slightly more than what is being merely imputed. So even this is completely doesn’t exist in the reality. Even this complete empty, you see, This what appears is completely empty, existing from its own side.
So so this so this is the ultimate nature, ultimate nature of the eye. The ultimate nature, the ultimate nature of the I, then Because this I is merely imputed by the mind, merely imputed by the mind, So this appearance, there should be something slightly more, something slightly more than what is merely labeled. Appearing something slightly more than something additional, something from its own side, beyond what is being merely labeled? So believing, apprehending, apprehending that this is true, apprehending that this is true. So that that little thing of that something little additional, something, you see.
And then what’s the mere level? So believing, apprehending that is true. So this is the is the root of saṃsāra. This this concept is the root of saṃsāra. The so it’s a very so it’s a very specific, very specific, very particular, it’s subtle.
The refuted object, the refuted object is the most subtle refuted object, and the concept is a wrong concept. It’s also subtle, it’s a wrong concept. So this, in reality, so this concept is the of the whole. This is the ignorance that which starts the rest of saṃsāra. This is the one that creates saṃsāra. So like this.
So now even more even more specific describing this ignorance, then so how how we make up this ignorance? Then so you see, first of the first of all, the aggregates appear. So depending on the aggregates, by focusing on the aggregates, you see,