Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Kyabje Rinpoche works through the Svatāntrika Middle Way’s detailed analysis of selflessness in this 45-minute teaching. He distinguishes between gross and subtle emptiness of both phenomena and the person — clarifying that the person lacks permanent, unified existence and also lacks self-sufficient substantial reality. Different practitioners take different aspects as their primary meditation: hearers emphasize the selflessness of the person; solitary realizers the gross emptiness of phenomena; bodhisattvas the subtle emptiness of phenomena. Rinpoche then explores the three turnings of the wheel of dharma, distinguishing interpretive teachings (illustrated by the Buddha telling King Ajatashatru to ‘kill father and mother’) from definitive ones, and showing how the Buddha skillfully adapted teachings to circumstance and audience. For serious practitioners already engaged with Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-11-24 – 24B – KR.mp3
UUID: c959946e-8000-4ce1-a831-ee438731bd50
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Tenets
Date: 1994-11-24
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~2,750
In this tenet explained as the subtle subtle selflessness of phenomena or subtle emptiness of the self of phenomena and when this subtle selflessness or subtle when such devoid of existing from their side is understood in reference to aggregates then that becomes the subtle selflessness of phenomena. When that understanding is referred in relation to a person to the eye then that as well becomes the subtle selflessness of phenomena similarly when that understanding is referred in relation to the flower it becomes so similarly in relation to table it becomes subtle selflessness of phenomena. In that way to all phenomena when such understanding is referred that they don’t have existence from their own characteristic that then that is what is understood subtle selflessness of phenomena. The Svatāntrika middle way tenet following the Yogachara. In other words the subtenet of Svatāntrika which follows mind only theory to certain degree presents selflessness of phenomena of two type one as a gross selflessness of phenomena or in other words one approximate understanding of selflessness of phenomena and that gross or approximate selflessness of phenomena is the emptiness of the form and the valid knowledge perceiving form devoid or being of separate substance.
The emptiness of the form and the valid knowledge perceiving form being of the being of not being of separate substance. Now that presentation of selflessness of phenomena according to mind only tenet is considered to be the subtle understanding of self or selflessness of phenomena but here although this subtenet of Svatāntrika do accept such assertion about selflessness of phenomena but they classify it as the approximate or the close understanding of it. Similarly, here in this tenet, the selflessness of person is classified to be of two types. One being gross or the approximate understanding of it and the other the correct understanding or subtle understanding of it. The gross selflessness of person or gross no self or person is the emptiness of person being permanent single and independent.
What this understanding means is in the past during the classical times some mistaken some followers of mistaken belief systems held the view that person is the consciousness and the nature of consciousness is permanent, that it does not disintegrate or perish moment by moment, that it is single, that it single in the sense it does not depend on its parts and portion and it is singly and solely there and it is independent that it does not depend on causes and conditions. Obviously such viewpoint was mistaken therefore the Buddhist tenets correctly understood according to the instructions received that these three attributes are not found with the person, the mind, instead a person, the other subconsciousness whatever do disintegrate moment by moment and it’s not single it depends on its parts and portion and it’s not single and it’s not independent because it depends on causes and conditions. So out of that then came this approximate understanding of no self person where a person does not have or is emptiness of or is devoid of permanent, single, and independent nature. In the case of Buddhist tenets, the basis of person explained is the mental consciousness. That it is the mental consciousness which at the time of persons that when the body is left behind the mental consciousness is the one which transfers or transmigrates from this life and takes rebirth.
So the person when pinpointed down is the mental consciousness. And the consciousness meaning the mental consciousness which is the person here meaning in Buddhist tenet is understood as impermanent in nature because it disintegrates moment by moment as well it is with parts and portion therefore not single and it does depend on causes and conditions therefore it is not independent. So the person has the mental consciousness lacks or is devoid of the nature of being permanent, single, and independent. And then there is another classification of selflessness of person or no self for person, which is the subtle selflessness of person. And that is the person being empty or lacking existence self sufficiently in substance.
So in other words to be exact the emptiness of person existing self sufficiently in substance. So that is the subtle selflessness of person but as far as subtle selflessness of person goes this tenet’s understanding is no different to the understanding of it of the other lower tenets, the Discourse Group and Mind Only, that they also explain the subtle nature of no self a person in that way. Here, when there is the mention about subtle selflessness of person as the emptiness of person existing self sufficiently in substance. What that in meaning means is firstly let’s look at what is meant by if there is person existing self sufficiently in substance. Let’s look at that.
To look at that, firstly, let’s look at how person actually exist. Well, person is dependent on the aggregates, the five aggregates. Not only that the person is dependent on the composite of the five aggregates as well as the continuity of the five aggregates and there so that is how person nominally in general functioning exist but to contrary to that if one views that the person exist independently from the composite or the continuity of aggregates as if the person is there independently on its own, being controller as well as the utilizer of the aggregates, the controller and the utilizer of the aggregate then that is a misunderstanding because there isn’t such a person existing in that manner so that exactly is then another way of saying the emptiness of person existing self sufficiently in substance. The person lacks or is devoid of existing in that way. So this very nature about person lacking that manner of existence is called the subtle selflessness of person.
This very point of practice where one contemplates on the subtle selflessness of person is the main topic of practice for those of lower vehicle system. Let’s say in the case of hearers or the listeners of the lower vehicle in their case they consider and take the meditation on the subtle selflessness of person, the emptiness of person existing self sufficiently in substance as the main topic of meditation. And they consider the afflictive obscurations as their main obscuration or main mental shortcomings to overcome. And as a goal, they keep liberation as the main goal. In the case of solitary realizer or independent enlighteners, they can they consider the gross selflessness of phenomena as the main topic of meditation and gross obscuration gross knowledge obscuration as the main shortcomings to overcome and liberation as the main goal.
This obviously is speaking of course from the point of Svatāntrika middle way tenet. The subtle selflessness of phenomena as the main topic of meditation and the subtle knowledge obscurations or subtle obscurations to omniscience as their main shortcomings to overcome and they keep the state of omniscience as their main goal. But there is slight difference between the two subtenets of middle way tenet, the Svatāntrika middle way tenet. The Svatāntrika middle way tenet following the Discourse group explained that there is no difference between the topic of meditation and aim and objects of focus between hearers and solitary realizers that they both equally keep subtle selflessness of person as their object of meditation and afflictive obscurations as their main shortcomings of mind to overcome and liberation as their main goal to achieve. So that is in accordance to the other subtenet of Svatāntrika middle way, the middle Svatāntrika middle way following discourse group assertion. And then next topic probably it might be And then the next topic probably would be good to go ahead a little bit on this tenets perspective about the three series of teachings given by the Buddha called the three turnings of wheel of Dharma.
We might go ahead or probably not, it’s quite getting late. Nevertheless if we do go ahead a little bit let’s say Buddha gave first series of teachings, the first turning of wheel of Dharma at a place which now come to be known as Varanasi and second series of teachings at a place place called Rajgir, and third series of teachings at Vaishali, a place called The Vast Place. So there are those three series of teachings given which came to be called as the three turning of wheel of Dharma. Now according to Autonomous Middle Way tenet it explains the first series of teachings were of interpretive meaning as well the last series of teachings meaning the third also is of interpretive meaning. Only the second series of teachings are of definitive meaning as they are literal they are as they mean.
So now that is firstly the difference about the three series of teaching from this point and the postscript part delivery was probably this topic we didn’t discuss in the past so might be a good idea to bring it this evening. Generally, the teachings of the Buddha are of the classification one type being called the sūtra or the discourses and they are called as by such classification and the meaning of it is that those are the discourses or the teachings which Buddha Śākyamūni gave while being in the aspect of a fully ordained monk bhikṣu. And then those and the other series of teachings which were given in the aspect of a Buddha Vajradhāra and others of different manifestations, they are the second type of teachings called the mantra or the protective teachings, the tantric teachings. Therefore, then when we come across the mention the discourse or the teachings of interpretive meaning and the discourses or the teachings of definitive meaning, what that means is the interpretive meaning discourses are those which as they are explained in meaning, they are to be interpreted differently. That they should not be taken literally.
Whereas in whereas definitive meaning discourses or teachings are those which as the Buddha has taught and expressed the meaning cannot be interpreted differently. That is what as it literally stands. The meaning as well truly stands on the same same way. For example, the teaching or the discourse which goes all compounded phenomena are impermanent, all contaminated phenomena are bound to be miserable, all phenomena are empty and selfless, nirvana is peace and virtuous. Now as that discourse or teaching in its literal expression says, the meaning as well stands true that really compounded phenomena are impermanent and contaminated phenomena are are bound to be miserable and all phenomena truly don’t have concrete identity and are selfless and in the same way nirvana is peace and virtue.
So as it stands, it is as it expresses, it stands like that. So that is our definitive meaning discourse. In the past, there was a king by the name of Ajatashatru, who after certain period of time through circumstance happened to murder his father. Later on the king felt so much remorse and therefore was extremely depressed and when the king approached the Buddha the Buddha told the king the teaching father and mother are to be killed. Now the intention of the discourse at that time to the king was in order to remove the immense depression of the king.
There was no other way. So that was the teaching given the father and mother are to the king. So such discourses by the Buddha are not to be taken literally. Therefore, they are interpretive meaning discourses where the meaning has to be interpreted otherwise. At that time, the intention of the discourse actually was to calling the karma and impure thoughts by the name of father and mother and then appropriately give that teaching to the appropriate person to accept in that way of depression.
So the intention meaning by the Buddha the intention was thinking of karma and impure thoughts and using the appropriate words at that time to the person as father and mother and then saying that they they are to be killed. So in such case these this type of discourse should be interpreted as having otherwise intention behind that and in that way are to be interpreted differently. And such type of discourse are called interpretive meaning discourses. As Buddha is extremely skillful therefore according to different different circumstances appropriate appropriate teaching for discourses are given therefore the intention may have been something different while the what was literally said meant if taken that way differently so such way of teachings are of interpretive meaning. If the king Ajatashatru was told by the Buddha that father and mother are not to be killed then the king was so depressed and was going to be more depressed and could have committed suicide.
But instead it was appropriate to release by knowing the person’s state of mind. It was appropriate to teach that and say father and mother are to be killed and later on the king recovered from the depression and gained awareness and realized that the Buddha meant karma and impure thoughts as father and mother and they are to be killed or eliminated. And eventually, the king attained the state of arhathood. The meaning of interpretive meaning discourses and definitive meaning discourses explained by Svatāntrika middle way is slightly different because in their case they say any teachings of which the content is about emptiness they are definitive meaning teachings or discourses and any other teachings which don’t contain emptiness as its subject they are interpretive meaning discourses. Nothing.
So if you have any questions, we shall leave few minutes for that. Well, I will have tea. That was the explanation of the presentation according to Svatāntrika Middle Way following Yogachara that in their perspective the gross selflessness of phenomena is the form and the valid knowledge perceiving form being empty or separate substance. And the subtle selflessness is similar that phenomena don’t truly exist. And in the case of the Svatāntrika middle way following discourse group, it would have to be said that they don’t have gross selflessness of phenomena.
They only have subtle selflessness of phenomena and that is the emptiness of phenomena truly existing or existing truly. You have missed the point. Because they of course do say things exist from their own side slightly and there’s label from the concept part and together that’s how they exist. But the point if it was missed would have been they say if suppose they’re saying if things truly exist then they will have to independently exist totally from their side without being labeled by a concept from one side then it completely without depending on anything labeled so forth then it would be truly existing but they don’t — own reasoners say but phenomena don’t exist that way so they don’t accept or they don’t assert phenomena exist completely from their side therefore they say phenomena don’t truly exist and the second part again was have listened more. Is that the point?
There wouldn’t be, in the case of pain, something underneath it that is beyond label. There isn’t. Yeah. That is from karma and then the individual sicknesses arise by that way of karma. So you have then different label as well after that the TB sickness, cancer sickness, fever sickness, the abdominal sickness and so forth and then the labeling happens.
Yes. In the case of the five sensory consciousnesses, the phenomena which are perceived by them appear from their side slightly slightly and those consciousnesses label towards them and that is how a dual combination manner of existence is. Now in the case of things or phenomena other than the objects of five sensory consciousness such as phenomena like space and the selflessness and later on emptiness. In their case there has to be a concept meaning the mental consciousness, a concept which labels that this is selflessness and this is space and emptiness along with which according to Svatāntrika, there has to be slight existence from their side to be combined dual dual existence in that way. So when in the subtle selflessness of phenomena, the definition says that which is not presented due to appearing to thought or concept.
So the concept has two or thought has two conceptual thought and non conceptual thought both. In other words that thought has two types sensory which are non conceptual and mental which are conceptual. No.