Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. “What makes a baby named Mary into Mary?” is the question Ven Jampa Gendun uses to anchor this 39-minute commentary on the Middle Way school’s account of emptiness. Picking up a running series, the session briefly reviews the Hearer stage — questioning a permanent, unitary self — and the Mind Only stage, where subject and object arise simultaneously from a single ripening karmic seed, before introducing the Autonomy Middle Way position: nothing whatsoever truly, that is independently, exists. Emptiness, Gendun explains, is not nothingness but the absence of a fantasized mode of existence we habitually project onto things. He illustrates through a glass of water and the baby-naming example how all phenomena arise through conceptual labeling and social convention rather than from their own side. Best suited to practitioners who have been following the series from the start.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 18 HoM 1993 09 08.mp3
UUID: 08930672-d063-4842-b999-d8e6a383bc37
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: The Heart and Mind of Awakening (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1993-09-08
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 38.6 minutes
Words: ~3,960
Imagine from the heart of Śākyamūni Buddha, a shaft of light extends to the crown of your head. And as we recite the mantra together, the nectars begin to flow along the shaft of light, and nectars and lights begin to flow into your body. Brilliant white nectars and lights filling you from the bottom upward, completely eliminating any darkness, any heaviness. All your negativities and undesirable factors of the body and mind completely purified, completely gone. Your body becoming crystal like, your mind clear, light, feeling a purity, innocence.
Try to feel that as you will as visualize it. Try to feel it, the sense of purifying, the sense of lightness, removal of any guilt, any sense of heaviness. Sense of purity, innocence, and light. We’re going to recite the mantra a second time. And this time, in your imagination, visualizing that the ray of light extends from the heart of Śākyamūni Buddha to the crown of Valerie’s head.
And along this shaft of light, white nectars begin to flow, entering her body and filling her body completely with brilliant white light, nectar and lights, purifying, removing all the darkness, all that’s undesirable within body and mind. Lights of compassion and lights of purification and caring. Śākyamūni Buddha visualized before you, comes to the crown of your head and dissolves into you. And gradually, from the top downward, from the bottom upward, you hear yourself begin to dissolve and disappear. Till there is nothing in vast infinite space and peace.
And gently bring your mind to the breath. Slowly becoming aware of your body. Just gradually, in your own good time, becoming aware of your surroundings. So we’ve we’re looking at the the stages, the four stages in the development of the awakening mind, this wisdom which realizes emptiness, the wisdom which realizes ultimate reality. The third stage is the three fundamentals of the path.
We look we’ve looked at the first two stages, the Hearer stage, the Mind Only stage. Now we’re going to begin to look at the Middle Way Autonomy stage. You know, initially, before we begin to question the world about us as as we are in the process of doing, we were we took everything on face value. We take we took everything for granted that things existed very much the way they appear, very solid and concrete, that things truly existed. And then at the Hearer stage, began to question those appearances, but we accepted the all appearances except one.
And that one appearance that we began to question was the appearance of a of a unitary, unchanging, independent self. That self appears to us especially powerfully in emotional situations. And that is the single appearance that we begin to question. Everything else is accepted to exist the way it appears, to truly exist. When we began to examine, when we investigated that appearance, we found that we could find nothing which corresponds in reality to that appearance.
It is merely a fabrication. It is merely an appearance arising under the influence of ignorance. And in fact, it doesn’t refer to anything in reality, but we think it does. By overcoming that misconception that there is such a a, in fact, a unitary solid, unchanged independent self, we remove it a level of ignorance. We develop a level of wisdom.
At the Mind Only stage, we began to question the world out there. And what we what we discovered was that the appearance of external objects, objects which are external to the mind are false. That, the mind and its objects are subs are not substantially separate, that they both arise, that the that the subject and the object perceiving consciousness and the object being perceived arise arise simultaneously from a single karma, which is ripening, a karmic seed which is implanted in the mind-basis-of-all. That when this ripens, the both the subject and object arise simultaneously. And we began to look at the world out there in terms of with greater precision, and we began to differentiate, objects, distinguish them into their three natures.
Those which are mere fabrications of mind, imaginary natures. Those which, rely upon causes and conditions, dependent natures. And those, which are emptinesses, the absence of substantial difference in entity between subject and object. These are thoroughly established natures. So that insight helps us to overcome a level of ignorance, that wisdom is able to remove, certain distortions from the mind.
But there is still more subtle levels of ignorance that we need to work with, and therefore we have to move on to this third stage, the middle way stage. You know, the the middle way, it has the word middle way has different interpretations depending upon the context. But here, in in this in terms of our investigation of reality, the the term middle way is a middle way between middle position or a centrist position, A centrist position between two extremes. The extreme of permanence on the one hand and annihilation on the other. Permanence and annihilation.
In other words, and what we’re going to try to come to an understanding of a a middle way between, true existence and no existence. What we believe presently, though we may not be aware of it, conscious of our belief, is that if something exists, it must truly exist. If it doesn’t truly exist, it doesn’t exist at all. The the centrist position is these are seen as both extremes. True existence is one extreme, non existence is the other extreme.
There’s a middle way between these two extremes. So these are so the principle assertion of the middle way school is that phenomena exist. They exist. So this refutes their non existence. That is to say, the the extreme of nihilism.
Nihilism is the philosophical view that nothing exists. That it’s just a dream as it were. That there’s no real objects out there. So objects in fact exist. This refutes nonexistence.
But objects do not truly exist. This refutes eternalism. That is to say, the view of permanence. If if if objects truly existed, they would have to be permanent. They would have to be unchanging.
They would have to be eternal, frozen, solid concrete for all time. If if things existed the way that we habitually believe they exist, they would necessarily have to be permanent, unchanging. And this is we’re going to try to develop what the understanding and feeling about what we mean by true existence here. The fact that phenomena appear to a valid cognition refutes their nonexistence. So things do exist.
Why? Because valid cognitions, that is to say non mistaken awarenesses, apprehend objects. Therefore, they exist. And then my eye consciousness, which is not distorted, which I have no reason to think that, that is mistaken anyway, it sees a glass. That that refutes the nonexistence of the glass.
And as long as I can establish that that eye consciousness is valid and I have no reason to question it, then I can that that that certifies the existence of the glass. The glass, in fact, exists. Emptiness refutes that the glass truly exists. Emptiness, you know, when when we hear the word emptiness, what comes up in your mind? Or is this kind of empty mind?
You know, kind of a vacuum. Emptiness. We’re going to talk a lot about emptiness from now on, about what this word means and trying to get an understanding about it, what it’s what it’s trying to get at. Emptiness. Emptiness has the idea of absence, a lack.
You know, this room is empty of pink elephants. There’s a lack of pink elephants. There’s an absence of pink elephants. That’s one way of beginning to have an idea what the word means. It doesn’t mean nothing.
It does has no what nothing whatsoever to do with nothingness. It has an idea to do with absence. We think that something is there. It’s an absence of a fantasized way of existing. The absence of a fantasized way of existing, an imaginary way of existing.
This this imaginary way of existing, we use many different names. We use to get at what what what it means. One term we use is true existence. True existence is an imaginary way of existing. It’s a completely fantasized way of existing.
But it is not it is not a way of existing which has been made up by philosophic systems or Buddhism. But it is our natural habitual way of seeing the world. We see the world, this glass for example, as if it truly exists. I’m seeing that glass in terms of a a an imaginary way of existing. That glass does not truly exist, but I believe it does truly exist.
But in fact, the ultimate way that that glass exists is empty of true existence. It’s empty of my fantasized way of thinking it exists. There is a it doesn’t have that fantasized way of existing. It is empty of that fantasized way of existing, but I can continually project upon that glass this fantasized way of existing due to my beliefs, due to my ideas about the way things exist. So but in fact, in reality, that glass is empty of that way of existing, of my fantasies about the way it exists, of my beliefs about the way it exists.
This we use different terms. The most frequently used term is true existence. Another term is independent existence. There are others as inherent existence, intrinsic existence, self defining existence, objective existence. And we’re going to, you know, make use of these, to see their their various nuances or implications which each of the of these terms are able to bring to our understanding.
But most basically now, the idea of true existence. Emptiness things are empty of true existence. They’re empty of independent existence, But we don’t think they are. We we believe, we fantasize that they exist independently. But they’re empty of that way of existing.
So this is the word what emptiness is trying to get at. And it’s getting at this for a reason. It’s not simply a philosophic speculation. What true existence means is going to be interpreted differently according to the next two stages that we’re looking at in terms of the two middle way stages. The autonomy middle way stage and the Consequentialist Middle Way stage.
They’re gonna have a slightly different interpretation of what true existence means. But basically, all of these stages are trying to bring about a transformation in our way of viewing the world. Our approach to our our approach to the things and the people and the situations about us are problematic, are dysfunctional, are causing us suffering, dissatisfaction, disappointments. So we’re trying to rid ourselves of these dysfunctional views that we have about the world. It is essential So, you know, we’re we’re we’re not talking You know, this has We’re trying to, again and again, remind ourselves that this has some relevance to my lived experience of life.
It is simply not an abstract theory which may be interesting, but it it has no bearing on the quality of my existence. In fact, it does. It it has a a very fundamental bearing on the quality of your life. It is essential to bear in mind that the is a Sanskrit word which means. Okay?
Autonomy school. That’s the one we’re looking at now. And Prāsaṇgika. Prāsaṇgika is the fourth stage we’re going to look at. The Consequentialist Middle Way stage.
That these two schools are above all religious systems, and that their assertions on the nature of phenomena therefore have religious implication in terms of practice of the path to enlightenment, a state beyond all suffering. Here, Friedrich Streng’s definition of religion as a means of ultimate transformation is appropriate. I think that’s a pretty good definition for religion, a means of ultimate transformation. All of the refutations and proofs put forth by the Madhyamikas, Mādhyamika means middle way.
It’s a Sanskrit word which means, the practitioners of the middle way. All of their proofs which they put forth have as their final purpose the identification of the exact nature of the misconception, which is the cause of all suffering and all the subsequent destruction of that misconception. So all of what we’re going to all of what’s being talked about is simply a means of helping us to identify our the misconception that we’re living under, which which we’re bearing the burden of, being able to identify it and remove it from our mind. It’s you know, I’ve talked about the fact that all our problems, all our difficulties arise in the on the basis of epistemological errors. Epistemology are the is the are the rules by which we make sense of the world.
We we are constantly trying to make sense of our experiences, visual experiences, our auditory experiences, our abstract experiences, our mental experience. We’re trying to make sense of other world. And we use certain rules, certain criteria to make sense of the world. That but if our if the rules that we make aren’t somehow dysfunctional, if if there’s some something wrong with those rules, then the sense out that that we make out of that world will be problematic. There’s always going to be some flaw, some defect in the type of world that we create using defective rules.
And defective rules are based upon what we’re calling ignorance, a misconception. So we’re trying to eliminate all the defective rules which we’re making sense out of the world, we’re making use of to make sense out of the world from our mind And use rules which are appropriate, which are which are enhance our way of being, which are not problematic or dysfunctional. The Hearer school asserts that all phenomena truly exist. For them, this for them existence and true existence are synonymous. If something exists, then it must truly exist.
For them, the unitary unchanging self does not truly exist. Why? Because it doesn’t exist. At the Mind Only stage, we began to differentiate phenomena into these three natures. And some phenomena truly exist, and some phenomena do not truly exist.
Imaginary natures do not truly exist. And we’re going back to the mind only school just for a paragraph here, just for one moment. Imaginary natures do not truly exist at the Mind Only stage. Why? Because they are mere fabrications of mind.
Something which is a mere fabrication of mind for the mind only school does not truly exist. It does not really exist. There, you know, for example, there are existent imaginary natures such as space. Space is simply it’s a, the absence of obstruction. You know, I can move my hand.
There’s an absence of obstruction. That’s space. It’s something which my mind simply fabricates. Something which is something a a mental construction. This idea of space.
It’s a reification of terms and concepts. Therefore, it doesn’t truly exist. It exists, but it doesn’t truly exist. Why? Because it’s simply something I’m making up in my mind.
On the other hand, dependent natures like glasses and tables, they truly exist because they arise from causes and conditions. Thoroughly established natures, the the emptinesses, they truly exist because that they’re in the actual nature of things. They’re they’re not a fabrication of my mind. They’re actually the real nature of things. So some things in the mind only school, some things truly exist and some things do not truly exist.
At the Autonomy Middle Way school, the stage that we’re looking at now, nothing whatsoever truly exists. How do things exist? For them, the assertion of true existence is the assertion of realism. That is to say that which assumes that objects which appear to us exist from their own side, independent of our mind. Such independence is true existence and is totally rejected by the middle way school.
So we’re we’re we’re getting at the idea that somehow objects, this glass, this table, do not exist independent of my mind. They are not out there in existing independent of my mind. That that somehow the existence of all phenomena depends upon our own minds. Existence of objects depends upon subjects, upon the perceptual process. And this is what we’re going to begin to get at.
The idea of the nature of reality is as a social construction, as a construction, in which mind, plays a part, in which, it is a participatory universe, which, contemporary physics is beginning to, discover to a greater and greater degree. That we cannot stand apart just as an, as a scientist cannot stand apart from their experiment as a neutral observer without affecting that experiment. The very notions that they bring to the to the experiment that would that the measurements that they make, way the the ideas that they what they’re trying to look for play a part in what they do. I’ll ultimately find that the observer very much participates in what is observed. And this is what the middle way is getting at.
That nothing exists independent of our of our mindset. It is in inextricably bound up in the perceiving process itself. And we can see from our we can see from our own experience that we we perceive objects to exist independent of our mind. And the most fundamental reason for our believing the universe is independent of our own minds is because that’s the way it appears to us. This table, each other, this building, they all appear to us not to be dependent upon our mind, upon language, upon concepts.
You know, we look out at the world. We we see walls. We see people. We see tables. And it it appears to us that I’m not playing any part in the coming into being of all of these things.
This table, these people, these walls. And somehow, I have no part in this. You know, if I were to leave, they would they would remain very much the same. And there could be no sentient life and somehow, all these things would remain forever there. That’s the that’s the way they appear to us.
That’s the way we conceive of them. And that’s the reason that we believe it. But but as we’re beginning to see, hopefully, at some point through this this this journey through to the awakened mind, appearances cannot be trusted. Appearances can be false. That’s what we’re beginning to see.
That simply because something appears one way doesn’t mean that’s the way it actually is. That appearances can be deceiving. So the the the main assertion of the middle way school is that nothing whatsoever truly exists. That is to say, has an independent reality of its own. All phenomena without exception are dependent for their existence upon perceiving mind.
This is fundamental. And it’s dependent upon the conceptualizing process, upon labeling process, the perception perceptual process of the mind. There is no independent world out there independent of our own minds, you know, standing apart from our own minds. The entities that we identify exist in relationship to ourselves. Without us, they would not exist.
It it is a participatory universe. And we can take. So the the the the central assertion of the middle way school is that all phenomena are brought into existence through a process of conceptual designation. And we’re going to talk about this, especially when we get to the next stage. All all phenomena whatsoever are brought into existence through the process of conceptual designation, labeling process.
The mind labels something, perceives something. You know, it is it organizes. For example, you know, we’re trained that everything is dependent upon language and concepts, the existence of everything. You know, we you know, when we say this, this doesn’t mean that if we believe hard enough that fire isn’t going to burn us. That somehow we can put our finger in a fire, it won’t burn us.
It won’t burn us. Or if we think if everybody in this room hallucinated pink elephants in this room, that it would eventually become filled with actual pink elephants. But reality creation or world making is not a matter of when or wishing or wishing on our individual parts. But it there there are definite criteria. There are definite rules which determine what in fact exists, what is real, you know, what can what we can and can and cannot do.
This is, you know, we’re getting at the idea here of a conventional reality, of a social reality. You know, we as individuals cannot simply say that that this that this glass is made out of rubies and may and it makes it so. Why? Because it wouldn’t confit it wouldn’t fulfill a certain social convention, that this was pure crystal, for example. And if I took it to a jeweler, he would laugh at me Because it doesn’t feel that it fulfills certain criteria, which in order to let it be validated as crystal, it has has to follow certain rules or standards.
I simply cannot my thinking doesn’t make it so. But this but, there is a but it is a social construct. These rules are made in terms of conventions, agreements amongst us. You know, for example, this is very give you something to think about because the fact that things are dependent upon the naming process, upon terms, upon concepts, upon language. You know, a mother gives birth to a baby and there’s a there’s a child, an an infant, a body and mind.
And the parents, they went, what should we call it? Let’s call it Mary. So they they call it Mary. It becomes renowned as Mary. Immediately upon being conceived of as Mary, in dependence upon language and concepts.
Language and concepts being conceived of as Mary. Mary came into existence. Previous to being given that name, being labeled, conceived of as Mary, Mary didn’t exist. Mary’s existence depends upon language. Mary did not exist independent of being called Mary, in dependence upon that name, that labeling process.
If she did, if Mary existed independently of being conceived of as Mary, then the moment she was born, the doctor said, here comes Mary. There should have been something merryness about her. Some intrinsic self defining quality which which everybody could identify and recognize. It wasn’t a social convention that she became Mary. It was something completely from her side.
Something intrinsic to her being which identifies her as Mary. But in fact, that’s not the case. It’s something which come coming from the side of the observer, and it let’s call her Mary. And she becomes renowned as Mary. She becomes Mary.
She is Mary. So this is this is the same for every phenomena, tables, people, houses, whatsoever. That nothing is exists independent of the perceiving process, this labeling process, this language, social convention. So this is what we’re going to begin to look into more and more. We’re going to stop there.
Okay? So we dedicate the positive potential that we’ve freed through our practice discussion. May I quickly become an awakened spiritual teacher and lead each and every sentient being to that enlightened realm through these skillful actions. May the supreme jewel of the awakening heart that has not arisen arise and grow. And may that which has arisen never diminish, but increase more and more.
So if you’d like to stay for the discussion, you might like to get a cup of tea. Thank you. Good night.