Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 121-minute session, Lama Zopa Rinpoche explores how emptiness and dependent arising function as the two essential foundations of all Buddhist teaching. He clarifies how the four classical Buddhist philosophical schools—Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Cittamātra, and Mādhyamika (subdivided into Svatāntrika and Prāsaṇgika)—all assert dependent arising but interpret its meaning in progressively subtler ways, with only the Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika view capturing the Buddha’s ultimate understanding. A critical insight emerges: the key to realizing emptiness is recognizing that the lack of inherent existence and dependent arising are not two separate concepts but one. Rinpoche then transitions into extended Q&A, addressing how selflessness of the person and selflessness of phenomena merge into a single meaning in Prāsaṇgika view, how merit dedication becomes authentic through understanding emptiness, and how the Four Noble Truths themselves point toward emptiness as their foundation. Throughout, he emphasizes that genuinely beneficial compassion and practice arise only when emptiness is understood as the ground of causality, not as mere nothingness.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 02 Emptiness.mp3
UUID: aedbbcf1-4942-4294-9116-76d42f104d84
Teacher: Lama Zopa Rinpoche 3
Collection: Emptiness (Lama Zopa Rinpoche 3)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 121.1 minutes
Words: ~11,074
Correct. The attitude. The view and attitude. A view and the character. So the view, the character or the attitude is non-harming.
If it can be able to benefit, do benefit to others. If it cannot benefit, at least practice non-harming. You know, not harming others through one’s body, speech, and mind. Then the view of dependent arising. So all the eighty-four thousand teachings are concise with these two categories.
So in Buddhist philosophy, there’s four schools of Buddhist philosophers: Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika and Cittamātra, Madhyamaka. The Madhyamaka come into two sub-categories, which is Svatāntrika Madhyamaka and Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka. But every school asserts the view of dependent arising, the view of Guru Śākyamūni Buddha, which was observed by Guru Śākyamūni Buddha. But then these four schools interpret the dependent arising in different meanings. These four schools interpret dependent arising into different interpretations, different meanings.
Even though everyone uses the same word called dependent arising, you know, because it’s the view, as being a Buddhist, which is supposed to, you know, which is supposed to understand the existing in the nature of dependent arising. But how, you know, how to characterize or how to find the definition of dependent arising, then the four schools including the sub, the Svatāntrika Madhyamaka school, interpret in different meanings. Then of course, general teachings of Mahāyāna teaching, both Mahāyāna Sūtrayāna, Mahāyāna Vajrayāna, observe the view of the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka view, which is dependent arising, but it’s totally different from the dependent arising asserted by the earlier three schools. Earlier four schools including the sub, you know, the sub-junior Madhyamaka school, which is the Svatāntrika Madhyamaka school. You see?
So this dependent arising is referring to the view of dependent, to the emptiness. And many schools, I know certain schools, they don’t even use the name called emptiness. You know, they don’t use the name called emptiness. But then, of course, as far as concerned with the Madhyamaka school, both Svatāntrika and Prāsaṇgika, they use the term called emptiness. But then that emptiness, that dependent arising again, the meaning, you know, is far, far different.
You know, it’s a great different in the meaning. Yeah. Great different in the meaning. Even though from the word, there’s very little, you know, like, differentiations, but the meaning is like, changes the whole thing. You know?
It’s a whole different concept. So in order for us to have a clear and firm understanding on Buddhist view, which is emptiness, which is dependent arising. In order to understand the firm, the ultimate view of Guru Śākyamūni Buddha or Lama Tsongkhapa, which is the view of emptiness which observed by the Buddha, then it’s necessary for us to find out the definition of that particular — what really means by dependent arising as stated in the Three Principal Aspects of the Path, the Lamrim teaching which is composed by Lama Tsongkhapa, that the lack of inherent existing, until one cannot establish the meaning of lack of inherent existing as dependent arising, one will not actualize the ultimate view. So that is the quote. That is the quote which emphasized by Lama Tsongkhapa.
So that means even one able to interpret lack of inherent existence, but if we are unable to interpret the meaning of lack of inherent existence as dependent existence, we are unable to reach to the final or the highest view of Buddhism, which is the emptiness view observed by Lama Tsongkhapa himself or Śākyamūni himself. So this also we have to find out. You know? What’s that? And the moment, the day that one’s understanding of lack of inherent existence, one’s understanding of emptiness is the understanding of dependent arising, that’s the day that one understands emptiness.
We do understand lack of true existence, lack of permanent existence, lack of creation such as God or ultimate phenomena. We do understand nothing exists on its own side. We do understand it’s merely labeled, but if we are unable to interpret or understand dependently existing in the meaning of labeled existence, Lama Tsongkhapa said we still do not understand emptiness. You see? So like that.
Then as we discussed yesterday, I mean, with the example of the chair. I know somebody asked. You know, somebody asked the selflessness of the person and selflessness of phenomena. Why in certain teachings of Madhyamaka, why certain teachings of the Madhyamaka school, why Mahāyāna, you know, the general school, which is based on the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka view, instead of mentioning the lack of inherent existence, rather they mention the selflessness as a describing of emptiness, why do that happen? And how to bring about the selflessness as meaning of interpretation of emptiness itself, lack of inherently existing itself. You know? There’s one single point. It’s like one single key.
Once you know that key, you can be able to establish the no differences of selflessness of person as selflessness of phenomena in Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka view. There’s only one key, so we need to discover that key, the door. Once we discover that door or that key, the answer is there. Selflessness of the person, selflessness of phenomena or the selflessness of aggregate. It comes into one meaning in Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka view, not in Vaibhāṣika, not in Sautrāntika, not in Svatāntrika Madhyamaka, but only in Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, selflessness of person and selflessness of phenomena comes in one meaning.
Why? There’s one key. So we have to discover that also. So once we discover that, then we will realize that in many of the Lojong teachings, it’s not necessary have to mention about selflessness of phenomena. As long as you mention selflessness of a person, it’s mentioning about lack of inherent existing.
You know? So like that. So anyway, so today is the Q and A on that. Anything to do with Buddhist view, Buddhist view. So if you have any question, would like to share, so please, you know, ask.
Happily ask. I’ll try my very best. Okay. Mister Kwan. Yep.
They use Mahāmudrā or Dzogchen. In Gelug it is, you can say the teachings on special insight. You know? So not really use the label as Mahāmudrā or Dzogchen. So these labels are mainly used by Kagyu and, you know, the Kagyu teachings.
Anyway, it’s all about emptiness. And all four Tibetan Buddhist schools, this interpretation of emptiness, actually based on the Prāsaṇgika view, Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka view, not a Cittamātra view. But it sounds like because everything is merely labeled by mind or merely labeled. You know? Merely labeled.
And in certain teaching, they use merely labeled by mind. So it sounds like the ripening of imprint of the mental projection. And that kind of like, we misunderstand. It could be Cittamātra school-based.
I would say the mind-only school. But actually, it’s not. Actually, it’s based on Prāsaṇgika school. Did I answer the question? The consciousness, the interpretation of consciousness is still based on the Buddhist philosophical interpretation.
So it’s asserted by all the four Tibetan traditions. You know, the assertion of different stages of concentrations, you know, different stages of consciousness. Sorry. Different stages of consciousness is based on the four schools of Nālānda’s tradition. So if that’s the case, there’s no different.
Yeah? Then as far as concerned with the practice of Buddha nature, the assertion of Buddha nature also is equal to all the four traditions. Again, they’re also based on the Nālānda tradition. You know? The clear light mind practice also is equal to all the four traditions.
The only thing is the term, the technical term that they use is, you know, like, slightly different, but the meaning still comes the same. Vaibhāṣika School, Sautrāntika School, Cittamātra School, then Svatāntrika Madhyamaka School, all assert true existing, true existing. Observe true existence. In all these, you know, first three schools as well as Svatāntrika Madhyamaka School, assert true existence. But then Vaibhāṣika school, Sautrāntika School, Cittamātra School assert, we’ll say, inherent existence. But then Svatāntrika Madhyamaka school, even assert true existing but do not assert inherent existing. You get a difference here. Like, first, number one, two, three, four, assert true existence equally. Then second, number one, two, three only.
Assert true existence, that true existence referring to inherent existence. But then the fourth one, Svatāntrika Madhyamaka School, the true existing not referring to inherent existing. Actually, true existing is a different meaning than the inherent existing. Then the last, final, do not even assert true existence because the true existing and inherent existence are synonymous. Vaibhāṣika, Vaibhāṣika, the difference comes from the, you know, the mentality, the acceptance of Buddha’s teaching.
Vaibhāṣika is, you know, how to say, you know, there’s eighteen different categories of, you know, the practitioner, different kind of societies established during Buddhist time. Following based on their traditional practice, at the same time take the view of — they take a common view: all phenomenas are empty, selflessness. Nirvāṇa is peace, the four seals, you know, under the assumption of four seals. Then as far as concerned with the Sautrāntika School, the second school, they — the view is still same based on the assertion of the four seals, and then they live a life following strictly the Buddha’s own sūtra quotes or the Buddha’s, you know, Buddha’s own sutras, teachings without interpreting, means accepting, you know, literally. That’s why we call the Sūtra Follower.
You know, the Cittamātra — instead of, I must say, Sautrāntika, in another word, they call Sautrāntika, in another word, they call Sūtra Follower, the school of Sūtra Follower. Means to follow strictly what Buddha has taught in Sūtra without interpreting, without, you know, like, interpreting like that. But then the fundamental view is the four seals. You know? Then but then Cittamātra, fundamental view is four seals.
Then on top of that, the earlier, I have explained different assertion of true existence, you know, of the different schools. Then there’s no external true existence. But everything exists mainly as the existence of the ripening of the karmic imprint, the mental imprint or the karmic imprint. So that’s why they call it the mind-only school. There’s nothing external, even in relation to the cause and condition.
The external phenomenas are non-existent, non-truly existing phenomena. Rather, all external existents are merely ripening imprint of our mental projection or the result of our karmic imprint. So that means every existence is just a result of our karma. Which is a result of our mind or result of our mental imprint. So that’s why we call the mind-only school.
All the four schools, you know, assert the four seals. And whether it’s a Buddhist philosopher or not, whether you assert the four seals or not. So the differentiation of whether you are in the category of Buddhist philosopher, know, Buddhist philosopher school follower or not, or just a Buddhist or just a Buddhist follower of the school of Buddhist philosophy. It’s a differentiator based on whether you assert the four seals or not. All the functioning phenomenas are in the nature of impermanent.
Impermanent. All the phenomenas. First is all functioning phenomenas. Second one is all the phenomenas empty. You know, empty. Then empty. I mixed up. First one is impermanent. All the functional phenomena are impermanent.
All functioning phenomenas are impermanent. All the contaminated phenomenons are suffering. All the contaminated phenomenons are suffering. All the phenomenons are empty and selflessness. Selflessness.
Nirvāṇa is peace. So here, all the functioning phenomenas, all the existence categorized into two in general understanding. All the existing, you know, all the object of perception of omniscient one. All the existing categorizing two. Impermanent phenomena and permanent phenomena.
Functional phenomena and unfunctional phenomena. Functional phenomena is an impermanent phenomena. As an example, your own body, aggregates, house, car, trees, plants. Permanent phenomena like space, emptiness, nature of all the existence, and including the Buddha is a permanent phenomenon. And cessation of negativities, also a permanent phenomenon.
So those are just some examples. So then the second one, second seal is all the contaminated phenomena are suffering. So what are all the contaminated phenomena? All the samsaric phenomena are contaminated phenomena. All the samsaric phenomenas.
What are the samsaric phenomenas? Your mind, the samsaric being’s mind, samsaric being’s aggregates, including tree, water, elements, contaminated, suffering. So the question might arise. How can you say tree is suffering? How can you say water is suffering?
How can you say wind element is suffering? You know? Easy to accept mind is suffering, body, aggregate is suffering, but then rest of the thing, it doesn’t sound like suffering, but it’s still contaminated. It’s all suffering. So anyway, better clarify.
Yeah. Elements are suffering. Elements are contaminated. The elements are contaminated, like tree, waters are contaminated because it merely exists as the result of the deluded karmic imprint, as the result of deluded karmic cause. Means due to your karma, that’s why the elements exist.
So therefore, the karma is polluted, the cause is polluted, contaminated, the result is contaminated, polluted. Why trees are suffering? Because why trees are suffering? Because the perceptions are suffering. Perceptions are suffering.
Why perception, human beings’ perception? Why samsaric beings’ perception suffer in relation to elements or even a tree? Because it’s a result of impurity, contaminated. So when you project that, when you perceive that imputed — or when you perceive polluted, contaminated object, either you arise attachment, either you arise ignorance, you know, negligence. Either you arise jealous, hatred, or the delusion arises.
So what brings about those objects is suffering to the perception of mind. That’s why it’s called suffering. You know, when you look at the tree, you know, I start to get suffering. When I look at the tree, you know, tree is not moving. I feel a bit uneasy.
But now tree is moving, why is moving uneasy? You know, somebody comes and plucks the flower, you feel heart pain. If somebody comes and destroys your beautiful garden, you feel heart pain. You know? Or you plant such a beautiful tree, but then people come and instead of praising, ignore or criticize, you feel heart pain in relation to those objects.
So that because of that reason, called the contaminated phenomena are suffering. So then, of course, empty and selflessness all existed, nirvana is peace. Okay? Yeah. So both perceiver and the — in order to actualize this, the second seal, both perceiver and the object have to be contaminated by karma.
Same flower for Buddha is not contaminated, so therefore, it’s not the object of suffering. For samsaric being like me, it’s my coming, you know, the exist — the flower. That’s why it’s suffering for me because it’s contaminated by my own deluded karma. Then in other word, it’s like saṃsāra is suffering, but in Buddha’s perception, saṃsāra is not suffering. Samsāra is suffering to samsaric being’s perception.
But for Buddha’s perception, saṃsāra is not suffering. Yeah. That’s why deity yoga comes up, comes only about, based on the emptiness. From foundation of emptiness, deity yoga actualized as a cause for enlightenment or liberation. Without emptiness, yes, even deity yoga, it can be virtuous, but it’s still a cause — can be cause for saṃsāra.
So that’s why it makes now so much, you know, reasonable and acceptable, you know, based on what said that we won’t feel comfortable until we can be able to interpret emptiness as dependent arising in any aspect, practice of compassion. You know, practice of compassion in relation to detachment only can happen if we have an understanding of dependent arising. And the dependent arising is about karma. You know, why you need to generate compassion? Because by knowing the suffering being is the consequences of past negative causes.
You can be able to liberate by generating compassion because you create the condition. You are creating a condition. So by the power of such an ultimate nature, you feel so confident and so inspired that I can definitely liberate the suffering person. Why? Because it lies with ultimate nature, which is dependent arising.
If you create a cause, there’s a possibility of liberation of that suffering person. If you don’t create a cause, the person cannot liberate. So you see, because of dependent arising understanding, you know, the emptiness become such an inspiration, such enlightening, you know. So compassion becomes so intense. You know, you get what I mean?
Yeah. It becomes so intense. Otherwise, it’s like, you know, you, the helper, the dedicator, dissolve into empty, become like nothingness. My compassion also dissolves into empty, become like nothingness. It’s like quite discouraging.
It’s like, you know, you did so much suddenly like dissolve into nothingness. Nothingness. And you feel like at the end, like, feel a bit — feel like empty-handed. At the end, it’s like you have to return back home empty-handed because it’s all dissolving to empty. It’s all dissolving to empty.
It sounds like that. But then you try to bring the meaning of that empty: dependent arising, that it makes sense that you are really benefiting. You can carry something back, which is the merit, which is the power of your benefit to the person. See? So that’s why whenever we think of emptiness, we all the time have to put extra effort to bring the meaning of emptiness: dependent arising.
You know, somehow at the initial part, all the time, emptiness means dependent arising, cause and effect. And cause and effect means cause and effect like fire and wood. Cause and effect like father and child. Or cause and effect — or in another way, cause and effect is like part and particles. You know, part and particle.
You know, a seed and fruits, you know, what is it? Negative causes, suffering results. Positive causes, happiness results. You know, by making, by putting so much effort to be more wise, to be more free from the darkness of ignorance, that creation will cause there is so-called omniscient enlightenment. You don’t know about emptiness, but by starting today, tomorrow, you might know better.
It’s cause and effect. And that also establishes that there is a Buddhahood. There is an omniscient, there is a perfection. So I’m not good now, but if I create a cause because it’s the nature lies in dependent arising. If I create a cause, yes, there is a result, which is perfection.
That brings about — you might be able to establish Buddhahood is definite, free from karma is definite, end of saṃsāra is definite. Even enlightenment for every single living being is also definite because all lies in the nature of dependent arising. Means all lies in the nature of emptiness. Yes. In fact, one of, you know, in the common teachings of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, and in particularly, you know, when you teach emptiness to the Hīnayāna disciple, you know, hardly use the term of the Hīnayāna system, rather use dependent arising based on the understanding of the Four Noble Truths, cause and effect.
So actually, Noble Truth, if you understand thoroughly on the Four Noble Truths, that very much helps to understand emptiness. And actually, the great masters, they use this technique. So the Four Noble Truths is like either initial kind of inspiration to understand emptiness or use that as to understand emptiness even deeper. Because the Four Noble Truths, the ultimate Four Noble Truths is about emptiness. The hidden, the integration teaching of the Four Noble Truths is emptiness.
Because the Four Noble Truths teaching is the leading means to liberation, and it shows the path. And the path, the third noble truth, the path, noble truth of the path, actually is talking about emptiness. Emptiness. But in order to understand that, first, you have to understand the karma. You have to understand the karma.
Means you have to understand the nature of the cause and effect, which is delusion and karma, which brings about the suffering, the first two noble truths were taught. So after knowing the cause and effect, then you flip, as he said, flip other side, then you see that, in fact, the true nature lies in the — there’s no inherent existence. Since there’s no inherent existence of suffering, yes, there is a peace of nirvana, which is called liberation. So it goes like that. Yeah.
Okay. Yes. So when we do dedication, let’s say that just did one candlelight offering to Green Tārā. So you already created such a wonderful merit. So I want to dedicate this merit into emptiness.
Or first I say, I want to dedicate this merit to bodhicitta. Means may this merit be a complete cause to actualize fully enlightenment. Actualizing this action of creating merit by offering the light, including dedicating to be the cause of enlightenment, is establishing as an existing cause, establishing as a real, you know, the cause which can be able to bring about enlightenment, itself is actually dedicating in emptiness. You know? It means dedicating emptiness means establishing in the real.
Normally, dedicating emptiness, we say, dedicate into empty doesn’t mean dedicate into nothingness. Rather, into emptiness means dedicate into an existent. Existing of what? Existing of the merit. How to establish the merit as really there through understanding emptiness that you can really feel the merit is definitely there.
Because you create the cause, you create the action, and of course there is the merit. That itself dissolves into a nature. Nature itself, which is becoming a cause for enlightenment, is dissolving your merit in the dedication of emptiness. Did I say the right thing? Dissolving.
Dissolving. Now I don’t know how to say it the second time. You already actualize the merit as a cause for enlightenment. Yeah. Cause for enlightenment.
Blah blah blah blah. Okay. Dedicate for enlightenment like that. But then you need to establish, you know, that dedication into emptiness, dissolve into emptiness means dissolve into the true nature, the ultimate nature, which is the reality of existence of such cause is there. Normally, don’t have a conviction that such cause is there.
Mainly, like mentally, yeah, I dedicate to be a cause for enlightenment, but I’m not quite sure. But when you understand the dependent arising or emptiness, you tend to establish a kind of like confident conviction that there is such a real existing cause for enlightenment. I don’t know. Maybe it sounds like what it sounds like. Don’t know what I’m saying.
In short, in a few words, dedicating something is existing like a merit into emptiness means establishing in an ultimate existence. And that ultimate existence means that ultimately, they’re actualizing the merit or the cause, establishing that. Then purification, cease into emptiness means, ultimately, since you created the cause of purified — chant mantra or whatever prostration, whatever. Now you have to dedicate into or cease into emptiness so that you can completely purify. How to do that? Dissolve into empty.
Means your purification really establishes in real, not just merely thinking of it. It dissolves into real. Why is it real? Because you created the cause and actualize the result means become real. You know?
Means basically, purification, you know, actualizing in a real purification is dissolving into emptiness. Creating a good cause, actualizing a real cause, not just merely say, but real cause, which really will bring enlightenment is dissolving into emptiness. You see, now you see, basically, it’s understanding of such things really exist by understanding of dependent arising. Create the cause, that’s why result is there. Because sealed by emptiness understanding is like kind of like conforming.
You simply say so, but later, when you think of emptiness, you really like, you really mean it. You really establish kind of like in an ultimate, you know, the truthful level. Not just merely say so or merely say become a cause of enlightenment like that. Not just merely say. You really understand there is such a real cause is established in my mind.
So when you establish that, the imprint, you know, become so stable until that, you know, even the anger cannot shake me. So that, again, it’s — you know? Yeah. Of course, chasing number is a wrong method. You know, the purpose, the purpose is because we are stubborn.
We are very difficult people. You know? Why not don’t count number? Just live in emptiness. Then no need to count number.
No need to do anything. Just say the greatest, most forceful purification. You know, the emptiness is the most forceful antidote for the purification of any karma. You see, just live in that. It’s so possible, but we don’t do that.
So we don’t do that. We need something to inspire us. So do homework. Do two hundred thousand, one hundred thousand. So at least one person of our mind will remember to do something so that hopefully building up so many imprint of remembrance.
Hopefully, one day you become like really, yes. Okay. Become a spontaneous way of, like, purification. It’s kind of like a reminder. You know, in Buddhist time, you know, like even a mantra practice, like, say, one hundred and ten thousand.
You look into Kangyur and Tengyur, you will not find. There’s one single word say that, okay. Mantra practice, mandala offering, one hundred and ten thousand, no such thing. Then you look into Nālānda’s seventeen pandits’ work. You cover every single scripture, one word by one word.
You will not find any one word saying that you must do mandala practice one hundred thousand. And now you flip into Tibetan mahasiddhas, the masters’ books, hundreds of teachings will say do mandala practice, ten great mandala practice, twelve great mandala — the initial mandala, the great mandala practice is one hundred thousand, then like three hundred thousand, then Nyingma is some other type, Gelug is some other type. Because the Tibetan mahasiddhas came much later within the existing Guru Śākyamūni Buddha’s teaching. By that time already, the practitioners are much more lazier than before. Much more stubborn, much more lazier.
So the lamas skillfully give them some homework at least to do one hundred and ten thousand, do twenty thousand, do five hundred thousand. And three-year retreat. You look at the Nālānda’s work, but then you won’t see. Yeah. But then it came — tradition came from Tibet.
But it’s valid because there’s a reason. You know? And basically, it’s like, you know, like to help us to discipline because we need discipline. You know, basically, practice needs discipline. Even the vow, when first Buddha have ordained, Śāriputra himself was ordained through the, you know, in front of the presence of ten direction Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.
Not using abbot, rather he used his own hand, cut his hand, and received the ordination, you know, you can say ordination vow. You know, normally, when you do ordination vow, you need at least four fully ordained Sangha members who possess the fully ordained vows. Otherwise, cannot proceed. But Śāriputra was the exception. But then when he first ordained his monks, there’s no vow.
No vow at all. There’s not even a vow of not killing. Not even the root vow is there. But then tends to make gradually tends to make mistake. You know, one of his fellow monks happened to kill somebody.
Oh, from today on, cannot kill. You’re not mindful. You’re not disciplined enough. So from now on, as a monk, if you kill, you know, such and such consequences. Then stealing, same thing, all the five.
Then after that, gradually, more and more creations of problems because it tends to be more and more degenerate. Then until two hundred fifty-three, what the rule is, I mean, no way to run. But in today’s time, you need more than that. You need more than that. Well, even not remembering the two hundred and fifty-three vows.
Because it’s too tough, but we need now — summarize and, you know, can adjust in our life. So that until now I start to say, as long as you don’t break the five root vows, then I think, okay. You know? So all the secondary downfalls are, like, kind of, put aside. You know?
As long as you don’t break the — even the Sanghas tend to say, as long as you don’t break the five root vows, you are pure Sangha. So the rest of the vows are already closed. So basically, all this is a, in other way, you could say, man-made rule. Man-made rule. Because it has a reason because it wants to discipline us.
So, basically, needs discipline. Any practice, we need discipline. Okay. Can I say one more? Yes.
Because now I only read that I can receive. Dedicated in MDS. That’s why what? Can you read the quote? No.
No. Yeah. Okay. Does not make phenomena empty. Phenomena itself yeah.
Emptiness does not make yeah. Means, emptiness does not make phenomena empty. Yeah. Of course. Ah.
So it’s wonderful. Emptiness does not make phenomena empty. Means emptiness does not make phenomena nothing. Here empty is not referring to emptiness. Emptiness does not make phenomena nonexistent.
Phenomena what? Phenomena themselves are not empty but in emptiness. Phenomena themselves are not nothingness, yet they are emptiness means they are existent. Two truths. Two truths.
No. It’s ultimate truth. Yeah. So empty and emptiness have to differentiate. Emptiness means existent.
-ness refers to existent. Empty refers to nonexistent. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.
Oh, the key. What do you think is the key? Actually, it’s quite yeah. It’s actually very — Vaibhāṣika, like Vaibhāṣika, they don’t even assert selflessness of phenomena. Just selflessness of the person.
That’s it. Sautrāntika and Cittamātra also don’t mention about the selflessness of phenomena. Svatāntrika Madhyamaka does mention both selflessness of a person, selflessness of phenomena, but in different contents and in different meanings and different definitions.
But then, selflessness of a person and selflessness of phenomena is one definition. So that’s the key. That’s it. One definition, one meaning, and it’s talking about the same thing. It’s one thing.
That’s it. Because of the assertion is selflessness means selfless phenomena. Selflessness phenomena means also selflessness of — no. No. Sorry.
No. No. Don’t say it like that. When we talk about emptiness, we have to talk two points. One is the negation side.
One is the perception side. Emptiness understanding comes either differences because of the perception is different or the negation is different. As far as concerned with the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka view, the selflessness of the person and selflessness of the phenomena, perception is different because one perceives selflessness of the person, one perceives selflessness of the phenomena, the aggregate. But the negation is one, lack of inherent existence. So because of one same negation, that’s why it’s all talking about the same thing.
So that’s why in the many Lojong teachings, you don’t see about selflessness of phenomena or you don’t even see much of lack of inherent existing, but talk so much about selflessness because that covers lack of inherent existence in every single existence. So it’s still talking about the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka’s view on emptiness within the Lojong teachings. You got the — you got the key thing is two things, remember. Two things, perception. Emptiness always comes differences because either perception differences or either negation differences.
Object of negation differences or perception differences. Here, for Prāsaṇgika, perception different, but object of negation is same. What is the same object of negation? Object of negation is lack of inherent existing.
It’s just that’s it. We don’t say lack of inherent existing. It’s lack of inherent existing. There is some. So because of that one key, clarify the question.
Answer the question. Yeah. Before I forget, excuse me. Can I just insert that? The set of — what you call just down the word, set of framework.
A set of framework for argument is — they use — the Sautrāntika, true existing and inherent existing is two thing. True existing and inherent existing one meaning.
So that’s the step. Can you go back before go to Prāsaṇgika? Where the Sautrāntika? Because little bit comes from where? Yeah.
Because how do they think? Yeah. They’re thinking because the things are constituents of parts and particles. You need parts. You cannot have something.
Can’t — little bit is the part and particle. No matter how little bit is the part and particle. That existing — can I just add on this? Existing — what Tsongkhapa said, you’re right. But Tsongkhapa actually the existing actually using true existing, not just existing.
Existing is there, but you know, based on this Prāsaṇgika view, debating or debating to the Svatāntrika, you know, perceivers, telling them your assertion of true existing is no different than inherent existent. Your assertion of true existing is no different than inherent existent. As long as you assert true existence, that means you’re naturally asserting inherent existence. So they even like score, you know, like some other person gave me a score. You are worse than Vaibhāṣika school.
Why? You’re so-called as a Madhyamaka, yet you even don’t know how to differentiate. You even don’t know how to differentiate true existence and inherent existence. So that means, the meaning of true existence and inherent existence. So then just now you say little bit, little bit is referring to the true existence which asserted by Prāsaṇgika.
But that little bit, even though there’s a word, they still use little bit, you know, something little bit have to come from the object side. If you use that in phenomena. Phenomena. Phenomena. Little bit must have something little bit from its own side.
Otherwise, you cannot establish the base. Cannot establish base. Prāsaṇgika says, cannot have, you know, cannot have any true existing base. Prāsaṇgika didn’t say, Lama Tsongkhapa didn’t say, cannot have any existing base. Make sure this is clear.
Cannot have any true existing base. But didn’t say cannot have existent base. This makes sure — I have a different shape, isn’t it? One thing is, no solid thing existent. No, there is a solid thing existent.
There is a solid thing existent. There is existent. If not existent, then no existent, then how to label? If Eugene, if Eugene, the base not real existent, then how to label Eugene? The true existence of the base of Eugene is nonexistent.
But the existence of Eugene is existent. But how to differentiate now? It sounds like the same. Okay, you argue with me. I assert — arrogant, happily, true, happily, definitely, obviously exist, exist, but truly — but in the true nature — but in the true nature, my aggregates does not exist.
If I assert that, how you’re going to argue to differentiate true existence and real existence? Can you find — because you can find a word to, you know, debate that. Yeah? I don’t have the word to make it — I can try to answer that, but it’s based on my understanding. Okay.
The Prasangikas have more relative. That means they are not basically — Okay. Prāsaṇgika, not relative. I find Sautrāntika is more relative. I find the other way.
No. I find this way. You know why? You know why? Sautrāntika really makes sense.
You know, without any base existing, how you’re going to establish the conventional label? Without bone and flesh and father-mother substance and karma, how are you going to establish the label of Tenzin Zopa? No way. And Sautrāntika is like referring that, you know, without such a kind of such a true existing, such a real existing, so then they’ve got — they say how to label. Yes.
I accept merely label, but merely label, you must have something to label. You need to define or you need to establish the object of designation. If there’s no object of designation, how you’re going to designate the name? That’s why I say they are resulted.
But then they know — it’s almost like there’s no base. There’s no base. It’s merely label, just empty word in the space. Like, how can you just simply — or you look at the sky, how can just in this way? No.
No way. You know? I think — so alright. Just for debate purpose. So most are — because you’re one plus one, then again, there’s another score, you know, worse than.
Than. Worse than. You know, according with your view, Prāsaṇgika view, no, in order to establish teacher and student, no need teacher. No need student. No need teacher.
No need student. Sautrāntika is so nice saying that, okay, in order to have a teacher, first need to go to university — I mean, school, study properly, then, you know, finish the study, then you’re confident, then you face to the student and teach, and the student accepts. If there is people, at least human being should come and listen. After that, oh yeah, he sound like a teacher, and I, okay, accept like student. Then only teacher and student.
Then teacher and student. Then only establish. Every final only. No final. Then I think that only seventy-five or quarter-five.
Okay. Finally. But already finalized. Right? Already teacher and student exist.
So nicely exist. You know how nicely exist? Because there’s a right qualified teacher, right qualified student, then student and teacher exist. That’s all. The thing is need to establish the conventional truth and the conventional truth so nicely actualized because all the — anyway, the teacher and the student is still established.
Nothing more to establish. And nothing more to — you cannot establish on teacher-student, isn’t it? No. No. You cannot establish teacher as not teacher, isn’t it?
Yes. You have to — not as a teacher. My form is two — Okay. That never mind. That one, never mind.
Yeah. Thank you. But I don’t accept. No. Really?
Okay. Okay. The one plus one? It’s just two. You know, no one plus one, suddenly two comes.
It’s like, if you are, you know, the business can get went beyond the ultimate conventional — conventional truth. Now no cause-result is there. Know? Nihilism. Worse.
Zero, one, two, ten — one plus one, ten, only two come, isn’t it? No one — no one plus one two exist, isn’t it? Two is a result of one plus one, isn’t it? Yes. And zero in math.
But I can say that one plus one, two, isn’t it? Yeah. Here say, no need one plus one. Two just come. Okay.
You see, so you see now, you see — you see is actually just talking blah blah on the space. That’s it. If you cannot establish the — you cannot establish any conventional existence. You know? So is — Sautrāntika is still better.
Maybe we should — we should go to — we should reverse back, talk to Nāgārjuna, and put the ultimate Sautrāntika as ultimate school and Prāsaṇgika, the junior. What do you think? Okay. Everything is relative. Okay.
Now I ask you a question. Now I ask you a question. Okay. In order to establish conventional truth, yeah, do we have to establish the base of the imputation or not? You are always be Prāsaṇgika.
Okay? You always be the Prāsaṇgika. I am just questioning based on Sautrāntika. I’m asking you, you know, in order to establish any existence, do you need qualified base to impute the label? Opposite.
Yes. Yeah. Does everybody say yes, you know? So he is still saying no. Okay.
So I will give, you know, the consequence to you first. You know, in the Khorsum, it’s like something wrong. Like that, something wrong. Okay. So there’s no qualified base you can be able to establish existing phenomena.
Yeah? So that means why not — why not I can — why not I can establish Eugene on Suji? Why not I can establish Eugene on Suji? Yes. You totally against the — you totally against the conventional truth, which is out of the border.
Existed twice. How can you exist twice? No. I’ve existed twice. Existed twice.
Existed — No. Existing — what do you mean by existing twice? No. No. How can for — anger, if I look from every single ten direction angle, you are not Suji.
You are just Eugene. Yes. So, anger, whatever anger you look, you would never find — never find Eugene on Suji. Never. Never.
No way. It’s a reflection. Not even next life. Not even past life. Not even when you become Buddha.
No. Not even when you become Buddha. Yeah. You cannot find yourself on Suji. Yes.
But you can always find one in relation subject to the other. The relation is husband and wife. It’s okay. Brother and sister. No problem.
Black. Oh, father and mother also. No problem. On the relative basis? No.
Relative basis — Yeah. You cannot actualize on Suji. You cannot actualize. You cannot — I can — no one can — no one including Buddha can establish Eugene on Suji in relative level. Including Buddha cannot establish.
That’s the whole idea. That’s the whole idea. That’s why — that’s why why not — why not you simply — why not? Because you don’t need qualified base. You don’t need qualified base.
So if you don’t need qualified base, okay. Don’t talk about Suji. Why not? You — why not Namdrol say, Eugene. Namdrol say — pavilion sitting there, the metal form.
It’s Eugene. It’s a non-qualified base. Just simply I impute. But if you don’t have somebody qualified, if I impute? I sit there for ages and pray Eugene, Eugene, Eugene.
Namdrol will never reply as Eugene. But if you don’t have a base, which is — you cannot impute. My assertion, you must have a qualified base. Only. My objection — you must have a valid base or qualified base to establish a valid existing or qualified existing.
My friend is totally against that. Yeah. But there’s no way to run because you can’t — you you know, other than Eugene, other than qualified Eugene’s existing — Eugene’s either aggregates or mind or consciousness or karma existing. In all over universe, you go to search Eugene, you cannot establish Eugene. Isn’t it?
You cannot establish Eugene anywhere. You cannot find Eugene in any existing phenomena. No way. Only on the qualified base which is your own karma, your own existence of your aggregates. You know, when all this comes together, it become a qualified base to impute.
This is Eugene. Yes. You say that? Think one actually only on the account of — otherwise, the four comes. What I’m saying otherwise, the four comes, Eugene will exist.
Me, then it’s Eugene. It’s not. Missus Ghan is Eugene. No. Namdrol says it was Eugene.
It’s not. A tree Eugene. No. Water — only Eugene. Is important.
Then there is no — I don’t exist. Yeah. In — Okay. I need to ask. What do you mean by — what does Mister Kwan mean by existence?
What do you mean by the existence of Mister Kwan? What kind of Mister Kwan is exist? Looking about. Okay. But the thing is that if we don’t exist, then I think we are wasting our time here.
Yeah. Can I ask — can I ask what is the — where is the existing Mister and where is the nonexisting Mister? Can you just put one somewhere here? The nonexisting Mister Kwan put in front of Tārā. Existing Mister Kwan put in front of — we?
Can you just put two separate? Because you know what? You know, the existing — the nonexistent Mister Kwan — the nonexistent Mister Kwan and existing Mister Kwan, both are struggling within you. There are two persons in me. Right?
One — Oh, no. No. No. There’s no two persons. There’s only one person.
You see, the problem is two. There’s no two persons. Mister Kwan, in the whole universe, only one. Well, no. That nonexistent Mister Kwan, so it’s still you, isn’t it?
Relevant. Okay. Okay. Can you — Let’s see. Can you differentiate?
Can you, like, draw a picture? The relevant existing Mister Kwan and what? The other one what? The one that he — nonexistent Mister Kwan. Can you just, like, like, describe the picture?
No. No. No. No. There have to be two.
One is described as nonexistent. One described as existing. But it’s still two thing. Two phenomena, isn’t it? One object.
Or two thing but one object. You have two understanding. Right? You understand me. Mister Kwan, you know, you switch your words so fast.
No? More of this is the — is the perception of — Only perception. Only perception, isn’t it? More than that. You say no.
No. No. You put it. Yes. Yes.
Is it nonexistent, Mister Kwan, is only a perception label, isn’t it? Yes. Everybody here, yes. Yes. Existing Mister also merely a perception label.
Yes. Yes. So now existing Mister, merely perceptional label also nonexistent because it’s just merely perceptional label. Did I say right thing? No.
You are — I going around. No. I didn’t go around. I didn’t go around. I go straight.
I go straight. It doesn’t make sense. It’s straight. You know, you know, because Mister Kwan, what he answered, nonexistent Mister Kwan is nonexistent because it just lies with perceptional label. Just perception only.
Just mental label only. Just mental label only, isn’t it? You stick on the the what you said before. No. Just mental perception only, isn’t it?
Because no. No. So — Oh, no. So crucial. Okay, it’s very important — mental perceptional label, merely — merely mental perception — oh, merely label — merely labeled Mister Kwan is nonexisting.
Merely labeled Mister Kwan is not existing. Oh, merely labeled Mister Kwan does exist. Sir. Sir. Sir, you — you need so fast.
Okay. So now merely label Mister Kwan is exist. Now what nonexistent Mister Kwan? What is not merely label? Oh, not merely label.
We always label that that — No. What? That nonexistent Mister Kwan. Nonexisting Mister Kwan also merely label, isn’t it? Not existing.
Mister Kwan also — No. No. I — no. I want to find out because the exist — the merely label — the existing Mister Kwan was merely label. Then then then non-existing Mister Kwan also seems like merely label.
So now I’m asking a very relevant question. Non-existing Mister Kwan also merely labeling, merely label, isn’t it? I’m just asking that simple question. Is that also merely label, isn’t it? Not the same basic.
Oh, not simply. Merely label, isn’t it? Exist merely label. Yeah. Exist based on merely label, isn’t it?
Yeah. Then that also become existing. Why? Because you established the reason why the dependent arising Mister Kwan existed because it exists merely label. So comes the same reasoning, nonexisting Mister Kwan also I established in you that that also truly exist in you.
Why? Because that also merely label. So now no difference with nonexistent Mister and existing Mister. It comes to the same conclusion. We have to solve this problem.
Please, come. This is the struggle. We have to solve this for everybody. Anybody. No problem.
Come. The same basis. No. General. Oh, no same basis.
How can you use the same basis? No. No. No. No.
How can you say same basis? Nonexisting Eugene’s — No. No. Don’t go — don’t go there. Please don’t go there.
I want — I want existing I, existing Mister Kwan, existing Eugene, and nonexisting Eugene. Yeah. Just like you are — you agree what Mister Kwan answered to me? No. No.
No. Okay. You don’t agree what Mister Kwan answered to me? Now, please, can you establish to me — please, can you establish to me what, you know, in what relevant that the existing Eugene is actualized? In in in in what — when he called out to ask.
Hi. Okay. Thank you. That sounds like, you know, nonexistent Eugene and existing Eugene sound the same. No.
Not the same. Only different. Or different. Then we have established different establishment. How to establish different?
Can you give me the differences? Not the difference. Have difference of argument. Okay. Difference — No.
No. I don’t want the difference argument. I want the differences, the establishment of existing Eugene and nonexisting Eugene. Because until today, we are confused because we confuse existing ourselves and nonexisting ourselves. Because of that, we create the karma.
That’s called delusion. That’s called self-grasping. Whatever. Because that — no emptiness, isn’t it? So now the fundamental key here is how to catch the existing Eugene and how to catch nonexisting Eugene.
It just all comes down like two relays into one river. So one case. One case. No. You have to establish first — Yeah.
The conventional truth — Yeah. Of existing Eugene — Yes. And conventional truth of nonexisting Eugene. Yes. Ultimate nature is one taste.
Phenomena or one taste. Ultimate nature, one taste. We agree. Yes. I agree, though.
But — We agree. What you’re saying. But I — I want to — I really need the answer. Please establish the conventional existing Eugene and nonexisting Eugene. Establish the nonexisting Eugene and existing Eugene.
There is no difference to be established. No difference. No difference. There’s no difference. That means — Sixteen.
Yeah. In one. No — In one. So that means nonexistent — nonexistent Eugene is the existing Eugene. Yeah.
Said existing Eugene is the nominal Eugene. Why you say that? Why why you say that? Yeah. Why you say that?
Because the argument nature argument of these two things are still empty. Oh. Oh. Then then then everybody — everybody same. Yeah.
Everybody same. Oh. Women and men same. Women and female and men also same. Only based on the men — arriving at this time.
So tell me what is the difference — is the dependent arising existing of existing Eugene and not existing Eugene. No. You get what I mean? Yeah. Yeah.
No. Dependent arising of — Yeah. If you don’t want to use another word, what is the establishment of through the understanding of dependent arising, the existing Eugene and nonexistent Eugene? Because we do confuse these two. I’m asking how do they exist?
In in what kind of, like, a picture? Can you just, like, help to draw a little bit? Describe the picture. Just now — just maybe you said, oh, yeah. I mean, existing Mister Kuan, exist merely label because label — label exist.
That’s why it exist. You said that. So something like that. Because of base. Yes.
So you need valid base? Now you come down to Sautrāntika. That’s why you — you all the time, you are using same. You do same. Now you come down.
Now you cannot establish. Now you cannot establish real Mister in this life. Oh, oh, wait. Now you can establish real — now you can establish real Mister in person you can view. You have to come back to Sautrāntika view to establish a base.
Sautrāntika. Base. Without base nothing exists merely label. You need something, some substance from the from the base so that I can label — The difference? As existing.
So you come back. You see? Oh, you need a base to label. Then why say — Then then then then why you — then why you use word — merely label. Merely label.
It’s only labeling. Nothing. Nothing from nothing from any point of view, but just merely label. They don’t use — the Sautrantrika people, they don’t use merely. Yeah.
Because — Why they don’t use — because they need — why they don’t use, Mister Kwan? Please kindly. Yeah. Why didn’t you use? Because they — missed something from the fundamental object side.
They have the true base. Whether it’s true base or not, as long as something that need from the object side is already established the true base. Yes. This sounds good, isn’t it? Oh, blame to me.
Change the — no complaint on me. Oh, that’s okay. Yeah. Think I — I don’t know. But seems like, you know, like — Yeah.
Sautrāntika, what you — you know, you need to establish the what you call the — you need to establish valid base or qualified base. But that qualified base, the establishment of qualified base or valid base is not about establishing true existing base. So it’s what you two are saying. So I think I think that’s the only difference maybe you’re going to come. So, anyway, any other question?
So that’s why it says that not necessarily that needs to be valid existing just by merely labeling. Even though have to actualize existing merely labeling, but not necessarily have to be valid existing just by merely labeling. Simply cannot just label something else as a different label, you cannot establish a valid existence. So now the conclusion is you need to establish the conventional valid base. Means, you know, by the Buddhist time or even like, you know, like in many aeons of that time, whatever.
Or maybe when the when this world was formed, then, you know, the Tibetans, you know, labeled based on this structure, this you know, the valid base, label as a — now I don’t know. Mark is English, isn’t it? Tibetan, what do you call it? I also don’t know.
But I think better use this one. English, book. You know? And I don’t know. Sanskrit, or something like that.
So also valid. Debt, also valid. Book also valid. Yeah. But but then maybe Italian, they call something else.
Chinese, call something. Isn’t it? So whatever in the world, how many languages you have, they all have one label for this, agreeable label for this. But then other than that label, you try to label something else that is nonexistent in this. So that is called the conventional validity.
Validity? Validity? Validity? You call validity? Conventional valid.
Conventional relevant. So conventional relevant have to based on the reception of past Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, humans, you know, perceptions. Like one bowl of liquid, for Buddha, nectar, for human being, water, for pretas, blood and pus, same liquid. All three are valid and valid base. Yeah?
But then, other than that, in the existing consciousness, in just existing perception, there’s no there’s no other than these three labels. So if you happen to label something like mutt, it’s nonexistent. But if you label for human being as water, existing. For Buddha, nectar is existing. For pretas, blood and pus also existing.
But then suddenly, one crazy man, me, come and say, mutt, it becomes nonexistent because it’s not a valid conventional base. It’s not there. So so so it have to be something like that. So when we establish a valid existing in in in this kind of, you know, this kind of.
So I don’t know. Something like that. Mind label itself. Label outside of your mind is — if you have a base and you can label — Oh, you label the mind itself. Oh.
Oh, I see. Because, you know, there’s like, we can say thought. There’s a picture, you know, maybe it’s another color, not nothing, but it’s some kind of like a description. So based on those based on the conventional exceptions of those description, then label, like, oh, is it, like, you know, like, urge for — urge for what? Urge for.
So urge for. And your your conscious, your your mind labels, oh, the desire for something. You know? But urge for Takwaitheo comes, I have tasted Takwaitheo before, and there’s such kind of like a kind of ingredient, I would say the herbs and put together, find together. You know, you have some kind of mental picture and a mental urge, you know, and that is the valid base, conventional valid base.
Then your mind says, oh, that is not wisdom. You won’t say that’s a wonderful wisdom. You’ll say, oh, there’s a desire for something there. So you see. So that means that mind is a dependently existing real desire, that’s a valid idea of mind.
So similar. So you have to have a kind of events going in the thought. Then based on the valid events, then you have to label different things like that. Yeah. Yeah.
Outside of causes and condition. Is that — Yeah. Existing, but it’s outside of — yeah. Outside of — yeah. Outside of cause and condition.
It’s permanent. Yeah. I think can say can say that. So not inherently? Not inherently existing.
Dharmakāya does not actualize through conditional causes. Dharmakāya is a result, but it’s not a result of cause. It’s a result, but it’s not a result of cause. Again, it’s a result — is a result — is a result of actualizing Nirmāṇakāya, Sambhogakāya or enlightened omniscient. That’s why the actualize the Sambhogakāya, actualize the Dharmakāya.
Means actualize the lack of inherent existing of omniscient. With the moment, omniscient exists, lack of inherent existing of omniscient actualizes. Means the nature of omniscient actualizes. So the nature of omniscient itself is called Dharmakāya. Emptiness of enlightenment is called Dharmakāya.
Emptiness nature — emptiness nature of omniscient, emptiness nature of Buddhahood called Dharmakāya. And that not — that that does not come about through conditional cause. There’s no conditional cause for that. There’s no conditional cause for that. But that actualizes as a result of actualizing the rest of the Buddha’s form by practicing the causes such as bodhicitta and emptiness or six paramitas or whatever like that.
So it sounds very funny, but it’s like that. Yeah. The permanent phenomena, which is out of cause and condition, which is permanent, but which is not inherent existing. It’s not inherent existing because it’s not sub-independent existence. Because it’s not inherent existence because the first meaning, you know, the first initial meaning is not sub-independent existent.
Secondly, there’s no — there’s no — if you go to research, there’s no truly, you know, existing such a phenomenon exist there. Yet, there is an existing — yes, there is an existing which is which is able to perceive — which is perceivable by the omniscient one. At the same time, unshakable, unmovable, unchangeable, no need to depend on the survival of that existing, no need to depend on the cause and condition. So that establishes the permanent existence which is lack of inherent existing. Wisdom is the — the wisdom actually referring to the suchness.
This wisdom is referring to the emptiness, and the suchness actually referring to emptiness. Suchness, emptiness, voidness, all synonymous. One different word, but one meaning. Because of course, is all Buddha’s Buddha’s form, but actualized in different function. You know, function, different function, different labels of existing.
Nirmāṇakāya is a physical body, you know, manifesting the benefit of enlightenment to the ordinary living being. Sambhogakāya is to the Ārya beings. In a physical form, but Ārya beings. Of course, all possess the Dharmakāya, which is enlightenment mind. But then the Dharmakāya itself is no other than lack of inherent existing of enlightenment itself.
Dharmakāya is no other than, you know, lack of inherent existence of enlightenment than anything else. So because of because of because of the voidness of omniscient, the nature of the voidness nature of omniscient itself is — exist but not momentarily changeable. This way it becomes permanent. There’s no — yeah. There’s no functionality.
You can say that. Yeah. But the function — function is a is a manifestation such as the Sambhogakāya and the Nirmāṇakāya and the blessing of the enlightenment. But the voidness nature itself is like kind of like exists, but you can say it’s not functional. Work hard to discover.
Work to discover. Work to discover. Because it’s already there. The only thing is you need to discover. We did recover.
Okay. That means you lost the contaminated karma. Oh, no. No. No. Didn’t lose.
It’s it’s always there. Yeah. But it’s always there. Yeah. Really.
Yeah. It’s like you need to go and search. You have to discover. You can say — you can say it. In a way, existence in this way is very much as you will be experiencing a human psyche, authentic experience.
Not necessary. I mean, every single living being has Buddha nature including ants. Yeah. But then ants not necessarily say that spiritual being is in it. The spiritual being is — can say those who have inspiration and conviction in some belief, you know, like, whatever.
It’s basically the conviction rather than the capacity. No. No. No. Yeah.
I think it’s more on conviction, not capacity. Capacity, I think all living being has capacity to become Buddha because of its Buddha nature. It’s — No. It’s different — selflessness of the person is referring to the object. It’s perception only.
Perception only. Perception. The perception that — that perception that holding I, me, you, that thought only. Perception only. Selflessness of phenomena is referring to the aggregates, the whole — including the bones, flesh, everything aggregates out of existence.
Selflessness of person — when you go to find the nature of person, we have to go and find the substances of that perception of called I. There’s no solid existing, only the I, only the perception label. You you can — can you can you sing nicely this one? Can you make nice so everybody can understand? The, you know, the object of object of search for selflessness of the person is only perception, not in a solid form.
Just a perception, just a thought. Object of selflessness of phenomena is the aggregates. Like all the elements. So when you go to find whether a person truly exists or not, you have to go and find the perception, so-called as I is truly exist or not. If you go to find the aggregates exist or not, then you have to go and find the form within the form aggregate, that form aggregate exist truly or not.
It makes sense? No. No. Those are aggregates. Well, aggregates are all within the category of phenomena.
Also phenomena. Not necessarily. Five aggregates plus all the other existence are phenomena. And the person is only the perception called I. That’s it.
No. No. Consciousness is not self. The consciousness creates a perception called I. Yeah.
Yeah. So as long as that that perception, you you change it. Oh, nonexistent I. Then you realize selflessness. As long as you hold, the I exists and that — as long as that perception remains, I-grasping remains.
Okay. So we stop here. Thank you. So I’m leaving.