Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 30-minute teaching, Kyabje Rinpoche systematically guides students through the Vaibhāṣika school’s classification of phenomena into two truths: conventional (deceptive) and ultimate (actual) reality. Using concrete everyday objects—a flower, fingers, a book, a cup—he establishes the core definitions: deceptive phenomena cannot function in ultimate meaning, while actual phenomena do. The teaching centers on how selflessness of person appears on every phenomenon as a permanent characteristic. He then expands into higher Buddhist schools’ conception of emptiness, showing how different philosophical systems arrive at the same realization through distinct logical pathways. Student questions throughout ground the abstract philosophy in direct reasoning.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-05-25 – 8B – KR.mp3
UUID: e4da15c0-5289-4912-b2e5-d0ee800f0197
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Tenets
Date: 1994-05-25
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~1,757
Within the existing phenomenon, there can be divisions. You know, its placements, its divisions. Now that’s where the further classification comes into and we say that existing phenomenon can be of two types the two truths conventional truth and ultimate truth. More literal translation would be deceptive reality and actual reality. So the fourth topic fourth topic really goes into great detail of further extension because of classifying further through the two truths.
Regarding the deceptive reality, it is defined here Regarding the deceptive reality in accordance to Vaibhāṣika, it is defined as a phenomenon which which is not able to function in actual meaning. Meaning. That would be literal translation interpreted as a phenomena which is not able to function in ultimate truth, in ultimate meaning. So that’s the definition of deceptive reality. So we shall not first go into the other definition instead first stick with this one and the next will be about the actual reality.
And now regarding the deceptive reality, what are the instances or examples of deceptive reality phenomena and as explanation we have permanent phenomena. A permanent phenomena is something which does not disintegrate moment by moment so such a phenomena permanent is a deceptive phenomena similarly other types of deceptive reality deceptive reality similarly other types of deceptive reality are phenomena called general characteristic general characteristic here is defined as a phenomena which is not able to function. So in this way, you can say these can be synonymous or same way of looking at deceptive reality. Now that’s the deceptive reality, and now we look into the second truth. The second reality, which is actual truth or actual reality, what popularly is called ultimate truth.
That is the definition of that is phenomena which is able to function in actual meaning. Now with with regards to the actual reality or ultimate truth phenomena, phenomena the instances for example are impermanent phenomena functioning or able to function phenomena and individual characteristics of phenomena. Now these are the synonymous or this similar way of looking at what phenomena are actual truth and also included are truly existing phenomena because Vaibhāṣika accepts the theory that there are phenomena truly existing. So this actual reality also is synonymous with truly existing phenomena. Now with regards to the earlier mention of impermanence of course it means something which disintegrates moment by moment that’s impermanent and impermanent thing also looked as product.
Anything impermanent is also looked as a product because it is it is produced through gathering of through gathering of causes and conditions. So those would be the meanings. Now if you are asked the question regarding flower, is it a deceptive truth phenomena or actual truth phenomena? What would you say? Is flower a deceptive truth or deceptive reality phenomena or actual reality phenomena?
Do you all agree with that? What’s What’s that? Yes. That’s right. So within the flower or upon the flower, there is a selflessness of person.
So what would that would be? The selflessness of person which is upon the flower. What would that be between the two truths? There’s something I’m not understanding. Why are the examples of permanent phenomena and general characteristics deceptive?
Is that because there is no such thing as permanent phenomena? There are no such things as general characteristics? Is that why they’re deceptive? No. Yeah.
So first, we will be the question is being asked and through that, it will come through to Do you all agree that it is an actual truth, actual reality phenomena? No? No? Well, this is an actual truth or actual reality phenomena meaning the flower because it is a functioning thing so it is an actual reality phenomena but also from the way of looking at the definition of actual reality we can come to understand that it is an actual reality phenomena because an actual reality phenomena is something which is able to function in actual meaning. Now there is a selflessness of person upon the flower.
What would you say that is? Deceptive or actual reality? Is the selflessness of person a deceptive or an actual reality? Selflessness of person which is upon the flower, which is with the flower. Would that be deceptive?
Mhmm. Between the two truths or two realities. Yep. Yeah. Of course.
The selflessness of person which is upon the flower is permanent phenomena because it does not change moment by moment. It does not disintegrate moment by moment. In that way it is as well a general characteristic phenomena which is defined as a phenomena which is not able to function. So we then can say that yes the selflessness of person upon the flower is a deceptive reality. Now that same conclusion can be easier established through the definition of deceptive deceptive reality because definition there of deceptive reality is something which is not able to a phenomena which is not able to function in actual meaning.
So that would be the way to look at. Are there no permanent phenomena in Vaibhāṣika school? But there would be. Yep. The selflessness of person is a phenomenon, but it’s also a permanent phenomenon.
So in accordance to the number of phenomena, there would be equally the permanent phenomena along with that. Example to look at it would be we say have five we have 10 fingers. Now 10 fingers individually when looked at are the 10 examples of deceptive, sorry, actual phenomena in accordance to this tenet. Now upon each of the 10 fingers are on each a selflessness of person, and they each are permanent. So there are 10 permanent phenomena upon the 10 fingers.
So that would be the way how upon every exist upon every functioning phenomena there is permanent phenomena in the form of selflessness of person. Between the functioning thing and permanent things, there are more of permanent thing or permanent phenomena, same thing. Now the self of self of person is something not existing at all. In any of the four Buddhist tenets, none accepts a self which exists. If there is a self sorry, self of a person, if there is a self of a person existing, then it will mean that there cannot be any termination or giving up of grasping to self of person, which then would mean that there will be no liberation, no attaining of enlightenment because self of person, if it is there, then the self grasping cannot be abandoned because it is a factual thing, factual perception to an existing thing.
Now the very very very because of the very reason that self of person is not there which in another word then becomes selflessness of person that one can find or one can one can present that selflessness of person just about on any phenomena. So in that way, upon the flower there is a selflessness of person. On each of the five fingers there are selflessness of person. Similarly, upon the book there is a selflessness of person. So that very selflessness of person presentable in the sense that can be proven that there is no self of a person, that there is selflessness of a person and no self of a person upon any phenomena becomes like a presenter and such selflessness of a person no matter upon any given reference is a permanent phenomena.
So that’s what’s called the explanation about how upon these reference points meaning flower, fingers, and books there is a what’s called selflessness of person. Now if we look up higher in accordance to the higher tenets meaning the middle way tenet then in there they explain upon any and every phenomena there is an emptiness of self-characteristic existence, which is another way of saying true existence. So there is emptiness of true existence on any phenomena. For example on table there is the emptiness of it being existing truly. So similarly refer back to the flower.
There is emptiness upon the flower of true existence and that becomes the self absence of such existing self upon this reference. So that’s the way how to, you know, look at. So if we ask in accordance to the the highest Buddhist tenet, in accordance to that, if we ask the question, is the book existing by its own characteristic or not? Is it is the book existing by its own characteristics? No.
No. Yeah. But that’s the highest in it. The very reason book is not existing by its own characteristic would be clear to say that upon the book then there is a part which is lacking true existence by its characteristic. So in other words, because book does not exist by its own characteristic, therefore, there is emptiness of existing by its own characteristic upon the book.
Now similarly, if we ask the understanding in accordance to the Vaibhāṣikas in accordance with Vaibhāṣikas, we ask the question in that tenet, is the book existing as self of person or not? Does book exist as having a self or not? Self in it. No. That’s right.
Because there is no existing because there is no self of person existing upon or with the book, therefore with the book or upon whichever expression you’re using. So with the book or upon the book, there is a part which is the lack of self or person. Yeah. So so that would be there. If the if with the book if with the book there is a self of person or self a person then it would become not possible that there would be selflessness of a person upon or with the book.
Now that’s not so, meaning that’s not possible. Therefore the very reason that there is no self or person upon the book becomes the ground by which we can say that upon the book, there is a selflessness of a person. Mhmm. Now okay. Going back.
Now if there is a self of a person upon the book, then it will not be possible to have selflessness of a person upon the book. Due to such reasoning, it it due to such reasoning, the very fact that there is no self of a person upon the book makes one clear to present selflessness of a person upon the book. Now, for example, with the cup, if in the cup there is a full water to the brim, then it’s not possible in that cup full with full with water to have vacuum. Now if there is no water