Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 45-minute commentary, Ven Jampa Gendun addresses the puzzle his series has been building toward: how dependent arising and emptiness, which at a certain stage of understanding seem mutually exclusive, are in fact a single entity. He opens with the three conditions for valid existence — illustrated by a prime minister’s legal investiture, water mistaken for wine, and a scarecrow taken for a person — then works through Tsongkhapa’s verse on the infallible relationship between cause and effect. A rosary and a house serve as his main examples: just as a house and its building materials are conceptually distinct yet physically one, emptiness and dependent arising turn out to describe the same fact about the same object. He closes with Tsongkhapa’s king of reasonings — dependent arising as the logical ground for the absence of inherent existence — and the instruction to integrate the three principal aspects of the path. Suited to students with some prior exposure to Buddhist philosophical vocabulary.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 10 HMA 1997 10 22.mp3
UUID: 1c9aa017-a5be-410b-ae32-eec50af170d3
Teacher: Ven Jampa Gendun
Collection: The Heart and Mind of Awakening 1996-1997 (Ven Jampa Gendun)
Date: 1997-10-22
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 45.3 minutes
Words: ~6,162
Whims that, you know, if I if I think of this this glass of water as being wine, it doesn’t make it wine. My thinking of itself doesn’t make it so. So just in the case of the prime minister, certain criteria had to be fulfilled. The prime minister just thinking of themselves as such is not sufficient. They had to actually run for office.
They had to be you know, win the majority of primary, you know, the votes. They had to be declared the winner. They had to be sworn in by the governor general. All you know, this legal process, these conventions had to be which established the criteria of whether that person is a valid basis for being designated prime minister. Once that criteria is satisfied, then then they have proper basis, then we can conceive them as prime minister and then they come as such due to the force of being conceived to have thought of in that way.
So, you know, there were you know, we talked about that to that there must be three conditions necessary, that the three conditions have to be satisfied in order that an object validly exists. You know, it’s just a matter it’s not a matter of just hallucinating when we when we say that all things are dependent upon language and conceptuality, you know, that beauty is in the eyes of the upholder. If I believe it’s beautiful, then it’s beautiful. If I believe you’re the prime minister, then you’re prime minister. If I believe that’s wine, then it’s wine.
That’s nonsense. And there there that there is a popular convention to which must be satisfied. So the first of these is simply that, that the object must be renowned in the world as that by which we know it to be. And the second is that, you know, is that you know, if I call this wine, it doesn’t make it wine. It’s not known as wine.
In the world, it’s known as water. That’s the that’s the popular popular convention in which we use to designate that object, this particular type of liquid. So we’re if we’re going to talk about that object in a in a meaningful way, in a way which communicates with the rest of the world, unless we wanna be put away somewhere by in a little room, padded room, we’re going to have to we’re gonna have to call that water and and not wine. We’re kind of forced into that. It’s okay, in this case, I think, to go along with that if we’re going to live in this world successfully.
It also has to be not contradicted by a valid cognition understanding of conventionalities. Conventionalities are tables, people, These are what are called conventionalities. If if, you know, if I saw if I was standing with a friend, I think I might have mentioned this example last weekend, and there was a what is in fact was a scarecrow, and I said, oh, know, oh, there’s a person over there. My thinking over that object as a person doesn’t make another person. He would my friend could say, oh, that’s not a person.
That’s that’s a scarecrow. Are you sure? It looks like a person. Let’s move up closer. So we walk closer.
And as we approach it, I begin to say, ah, yeah, it’s wrong. My valid cognition of conventionality contradicts my previous understanding or misunderstanding that it was a scarecrow. In fact, it was a person. I’ve seen it. In fact, it was a scarecrow.
I thought it was a person. My my thinking of it as being a person doesn’t make itself. It has to be it has to be not whatever I think it to be, it has to be not contradicted by a valid cognition. And then thirdly, it has to be not contradicted by a valid cognition which is understanding the ultimate. This is an exceptional case.
You know, if if a cognition I cognize that glass to exist to truly exist. That doesn’t mean just because I think of that glass to truly exist doesn’t make doesn’t mean that glass truly exists. A valid cognition, understanding the ultimate, would contradict that because, in fact, the glass does not truly exist. So this is the criteria. We we are born into a world of meaning.
World making is is is a remaking. You know, we we we come to know this world as appropriate. We come to know it through language, thinking of it as such. And that in itself is not problematic. That is the nature of reality.
But it’s when this when certain faults enter into this this this process and certain distortions occur, that the process becomes a dysfunctional and there there enters an element which is experienced as suffering, as dissatisfaction. There be there’s an there’s an any kind of a a a incongruence between how we think about the world and the way it actually exists. There’s a disparity and there’s a disharmony in a in a way that we approach due to certain distortions how we approach reality and relate with it in the way actually reality reality actually exists. And that that disparity is experienced as suffering, as tension, as anxiety, as struggle, as unpeace, as disharmony. It’s a very interesting notion.
Just somehow our minds have to accord with the way things are. They have to develop a consistent, internally consistent world view which is not contradicted by the way things actually are in their true nature. And there’s been all of our actions become harmonious. Our ways of thinking and relating the world are fit with and our expectations are fulfilled. Our way of relating are skillful in accordance with capacity of reality, what it’s able to give us and bring us.
Then the Tsongkhapa goes on to say, he says very quickly, whoever’s whoever’s seeing whoever’s seeing the cause and effect of all phenomena that’s cyclic existence in nirvana as infallible thoroughly destroys the mode of apprehension of those objects as inherently existent, has entered on a path that is pleasing to the Buddha. I guess he said that. Whoever sees seen cause and effect of all phenomena have cyclic existence and nirvana as being infallible. So here cause and effect is the classical logical reason for establishing phenomena as empty of intrinsic existence. Because effects arise dependent upon causes, they are empty of an independent existence.
You know, it even doesn’t make much sense to talk about an effect which was independent, you know, of its cause or anything else. You know, the very word effect almost means, well, it must come up from something else. It’s an effect. It’s a result of something else. It depends upon something else for it to come into existence.
So this is the classical example that that’s being used to establish dependent arising. in dependence upon causes, they are empty of independent existence. So infallible. There’s an invariable relationship between causes and conditions. You know, again, the idea we simply can’t, think of things any way we want.
There is a relationship between a cause and effect. If you plant an apple seed, you get an apple tree. You don’t get you know, mangoes or you don’t get a McDonald’s hamburger. God forbid, you get apples. You know, there is a similarity of class, of type between a cause and its effect.
That’s in the nature of things. This relationship is said to be invariable or infallible. So infallible refers to this unvarying relationship or similarity. But this similarity, and this I think is is not self defining. We define it.
But to say that we define, you know, that they have a nature. Causes and effects have a nature. And there is a similarity between the cause and effect, similarity of nature between cause and effect. But they don’t define that nature. We define that nature.
They have there is a definition. There is they do have characteristics, but it is we that is through our language and conceptuality which determine that nature. But this nature is not arbitrary. We just can’t say, well, I plant an apple seed I’m going to get a McDonald’s hamburger. You know, it’s an effect.
There is even though they are both that seed and that McDonald’s hamburger are simply merely imputed by language and conception, there is still a nature of similarity between the cause and effect, even though that nature is being defined in terms of language and conceptuality. Effects are defined by a similar class of causes, a similar class of phenomena to the cause from which they arise. So things simply don’t arise from a totally dissimilar class. McDonald’s hamburgers don’t arise from apple seeds. They they only arise from, you know, from beef cattle and all of the know, and the wheat to make the buns.
Though the even though buns and wheat and beef cattle are merely imputed by conception, and and therefore aren’t self defining, still there is there is an infallibility between law, cause, and effect, which which which we have to observe. So this relationship of infallibility applies to all phenomena, all products from atoms to omniscience. If we want to experience an effect, we have to create the cause. That it necessarily depends upon a particular effect necessarily depends upon a particular cause. This is almost the hallmark of Buddhism, this simple minded notion in a way.
If we want to be happy, we have to create the cause for it. We simply can’t wish it into existence. We and hallucination, it is not enough. You know, just to think it so doesn’t make it so. So if seeing the infallible relationship between causes and their effects destroys, and Tsongkhapa says, the mode of apprehension of those phenomena as intrinsically existing.
If you see that, this is you have entered into the path pleasing to the Conqueror, pleasing to the Buddha. And he Tsongkhapa goes on to say, as long as the two, the realization of appearances, and by appearances we mean — he goes on to say, the infallibility of dependent arising. And on the other hand the realization of emptiness, and what is the realization of emptiness? The non assertion of inherent existence. I realize this is quite abstract in a way, wordy, seem when these two understandings appear to be separate, there still is no realization of the thought of Śākyamūni Buddha.
So dependent arising is the other side of the coin of emptiness. Phenomena are dependent arising because they are empty of intrinsic existence. Phenomena are dependent arising because they are empty of inherent existence. And phenomena are the empty phenomena are are empty of intrinsic existence because they are dependent arising. So it’s just like, you know, one it’s just like two sides of the same coin.
So over the course of coming to a quick understanding of the thought of Śākyamūni Buddha, Buddha Śākyamūni, on this ultimate nature of reality, we may pass through, if we’re lucky, through a phase in our understanding where the view of dependent arising and emptiness seem to be two separate understandings, two separate ideas, almost incompatible qualities. Here’s something that is dependent arising. The appearance of phenomena invariably arises in dependence upon other. The appearance of phenomena, this glass, this table, they arise there are these appearances, and they are arising in dependence upon causes and conditions. They are arising in dependence upon language and conceptuality.
This is the conventionality, the conventional nature of phenomena as merely dependent arising, merely dependent appearances merely dependent appearances arising in dependence upon cause and condition, upon parts, upon language and conceptuality. That’s their conventional nature. But when we investigate those appearances, when we investigate that glass, when we investigate the table, we discover the unfinability of the object. When we investigate that pin, for example, we I don’t have it. And then we took the cap off, we you know, we took the point off, we took the tube, we took the liquid.
When we there is an appearance of a pin, which and that appearance has arisen in dependence upon cause and condition, the various parts, etcetera. But we investigate it, we come upon the unfindability of that object. We simply cannot find the object that was searched for. We can we cannot assert its findability. So inherent existence means findability upon analysis.
You know, if something inherently existed, if something intrinsically existed, I mean, if that was if if that was its essence, if that was its very nature, whatever it might appear to be, then if I if I analyze, I should that’s what I should find. That’s its very nature. But when we analyze, when we search, we don’t find it. So this is the ultimate nature, this unfindability of the unfindability of true existence upon ultimate analysis. So this is the phenomena of empty emptiness of inherent existence, intrinsic existence.
And if if I if I thought, you know, that that that that that beautiful woman, ah, this, you know, what is it? You know, Some some kind of impression, some kind of vibration is is captivating my mind, you know, and it is something something is being overwhelming me almost. And that well, what is it? Is it is it you know, is is it her breasts? Is it the curve of her body?
Is it the shape of her mouth? Is is it her cheekbone? And I begin to analyze. And, you know, it’s like there’s something there that’s that’s that’s coming from her side just radiating, you know, this beauty, this desirability. Then I begin to look, you know, exactly what is that?
And can I find some kind of essence in there? You know, is there some kind of and I have a sense. I have a sense it’s there. Some kind of you know, it’s hard to talk about because we’ve never made this kind of investigation. We just take it for it’s an assumption that we’re operating on, a misassumption that we’re operating on, that there is something intrinsic, something there’s some kind of essence.
If I looked for it, I could find that, and that would be the beauty that’s radiating out to me, that’s so very desirable to me, that’s captivating me, that I’m developing attachment for and lust and all that, you know? But when we search, we we don’t find that essence, that unfinability of that essential nature. This emptiness of that nature. So but it appears there’s a but there’s an appearance of beauty, isn’t there? But there’s but there’s an unfinability of an essential beauty.
There’s an appearance of beauty but an unfinability of an intrinsic beauty, an inherent beauty. So there’s appearance and unfinability. So on the one hand, we can understand how phenomena appear through depend how did that appearance come about of that beauty? Causes and conditions, parts, language, conceptuality, all this various conditioning process, society, culture. You know, that’s why the appearance is a product of all of those variables.
That’s the dependent arising aspect, the conventional nature of that phenomenon. On the other hand, we can understand how the phenomena is unfindable. That essential beauty of that, that intrinsic beauty of that object is unfindable. So at a certain point in our understanding we might ask, okay, on the one hand I can understand how the object comes to appear the way it is. On on the on the other hand, I understand how the object is unfinable, the way it appears.
But how can one and the same object appear and be unfinable at the same time? So it it appears that that there’s some kind of contradiction to ourselves. It seems that at this point, the two ideals, dependent arising and emptiness, are mutually exclusive. I think you’re great and you’re doing well if you get this far, really, to be honest. It’s like, you know, it’s like hot and cold water.
That this idea of what we understand as dependent arising and what we understand as emptiness simply can’t exist at the same place at the same time. Like hot and cold water, they’re mutually antagonistic, mutually exclusive to one another. They both cannot exist at the same place at the same time. So it’s Tsongkhapa says, if this is the case, then there is no realization of the thought of Buddha Śākyamūni. We’re getting there, but we’re not quite there yet.
So this brings us to the next verse where he says, when the two realizations the two realizations are the understanding of dependent arising and the understanding of emptiness, the understanding of conventional truth, the understanding of ultimate truth. When these two realizations exist simultaneously without alternation, sometimes, you know, the mind, it has to if it thinks about the dependent arising nature of an object in terms of its appearance, it can’t think about the emptiness of inherent existence of that object. On the other hand, if it thinks about the inherent emptiness of inherent existence of the object, it can’t conceive of the appearance of the object. It has to the mind has to flip back and forth, has to alternate in its understanding. When when these when these two realizations exist simultaneously without alternation and one from only seen dependent arising as infallible, definite knowledge entirely destroys the mode of apprehension of the of the conception of inherent existence, then the analysis of the view is complete.
Okay? So at at some point, the two understandings of dependent arising and emptiness are integrated. Dependent arising and emptiness are no longer seen as mutually contradictory to another. We realize that how dependent arising and emptiness apply to one another, you know, how they can apply to one and the same object simultaneously. I’ll read a short description.
Consider, for example, a rosary. If you have a rosary, string of beads, a rosary is dependent upon its being imputed by mind. So have lots of parts, you have lots of beads in a particular configuration on a string. in dependence upon all those parts, you think rosary. Yeah?
A rosary exists. Yeah? So it exists in dependence upon all those parts, doesn’t it? It exists in cause and conditions of the parts and being thought of, ah, this is a rosary, and then, you know, you play with it. A rosary is dependent upon being imputed by mind.
Therefore, it does not exist as an autonomous entity. Autonomous means independent of itself, self contained, self existent. Therefore, it does not exist as an autonomous entity independent of mental imputation. It depends upon our thinking of those string of beads as a rosary. The rosary’s mere lack of an independent autonomous existence is the emptiness of the rosary.
Its lack of independent existence is the emptiness of the rosary. And this emptiness is the ultimate mode of being of the rosary. That’s its ultimate nature. On the other hand, the rosary that is merely an imputation of mind is the conventional existent rosary. Just the simple rosary, the string of beads which we’ve imputed using language, is simply the conventional nature of the rosary, its imputed nature.
Thus there are two aspects to the rosary, its ultimate mode of being and its conventional mode of being. But although we think of these two aspects as distinct qualities, in essence they are identical. That is to say, the rosary’s being merely a mental imputation and it’s being empty of an existing independently of mental imputation can be thought of and spoken of as distinct, but in reality they are one thing. I hope this is is this pretty abstract, of going off into the ether. So the appearance of phenomena establishes their conventional existence as dependent arisings.
The appearance of phenomena, it is the table the appearance of a table, a table appears to me. That appearance establishes their conventional existence, and moreover, as a dependent arising and refutes their nonexistence. Appearance refutes nonexistence. I mean, that might sound simple minded, but it’s something to to think about. The very fact that a table appears to me refutes that it doesn’t exist.
Yeah? The emptiness of a phenomena establishes the nonintrinsic existence and refutes the ultimate existence of the object. So the table appearing to me refutes its nonexistence. The emptiness of that table as inherently existence refutes its ultimate existence. There are mere appearances.
That is sufficient. That’s all that need that’s all that we need to get by in the world for things to function, for cause and effect to operate. There’s nothing behind those appearances. They they arise in in dependence upon causes and conditions, their parts, and in thinking them as such. There’s nothing more than that out there.
There are these mere appearances which arise dependent upon those factors. But that is reality. Nothing more over and above that is needed for the world to operate successfully, for it to operate coherently, consistently, infallibly for it to function. But when we think about the point that I think Tsongkhapa is trying to make, maybe I’ll have to finish next week. No, there is no next week.
Yes, there is. There is. When we like, when we think about an object see, Tsongkhapa is saying that emptiness and dependent arising are the same entity, but this is not unusual in this way of thinking. For example, when we think of a house, the house that you grew up when you were five years old, could think of a house. Then you think of your house that you presently live in.
You think of a house I’m gonna go home, I’m gonna, you know, crawl in the bed and go to sleep tonight. You think of your house but at the time that you think of your house you don’t necessarily think of the materials from which that house is made, the wood or the stone, the cement, the glass, all of the materials from which it’s made. We can think of the house and we can think of the materials from which the house is made, conceptually, they appear as two distinct entities. There’s my house and there’s the materials from which my house is made. It’s all when we think of them conceptually, it’s as if they were two different entities, thinking about them.
But when we see the house directly, for example, with our eye consciousness, we realize that they’re in fact one entity. We can’t separate the house from the materials from which the house is made. There’s no other house there’s no house separate from the glass, the concrete, the stone, cement from which it’s made. There’s no house separate from that. They’re one entity.
The house and the materials from which the house are built are the same entity. But when we think of them, we think of them as two separate entities. So this is one of the difficulties with the whole process of conceptual thinking, but it’s not necessarily has to be a problem. When we think of dependent arising, we can think of it as one thing. When we think of emptiness, we can think of it another.
But once we if if we were to see it just as with direct perception, just as we see the house and we see the house and and the materials are are one entity, we would see that emptiness and dependent arising are in fact one entity. So this is what it means. You know, recite on Tuesday nights, for example, and it’s one of the most recited of all the teachings of the discourses of the Buddha, the Heart of Wisdom Sūtra, where the Buddha says it says in the discourse, form is empty, emptiness is form, emptiness is no other than form, form is no other than emptiness. We we think that the we have a sense that the emptiness of the table and the table are kind of two separate things, but in fact they’re the same entity. That’s what form is empty.
Emptiness is form. They’re one single entity. We can we can take a little grocery level, the impermanence of the table and the table. We we have a sense that the impermanence the table is one thing and the table is another. That’s the way we think about it.
But in fact it’s the same thing, the same entity, they’re identical entities. The the table, the impermanence of the table is inseparable from the table. It’s not something else, it’s not an entity other than the table. It’s in its nature it is the table, it is the entity of the table. Likewise with emptiness, the emptiness of the table and the table are the single entity, likewise with dependent arising.
The dependent arising of the table and the table are the same entity, And likewise, dependent arising and emptiness itself are one entity. When the point of dependent arising is understood to mean nothing intrinsically exists, nothing inherently exists, and we have to keep going over and over what these things mean to get to to get a grasp, to get a sense of these. I I realized that to some extent it may sound like just words, but they’re trying you know, it is a very special vocabulary, isn’t it? And just like any craft, it has to be learned. You have to explore it.
You have to go into this particular discipline, area of discipline. You know, it takes some effort on on our parts. It doesn’t come it’s not the the vocabulary of the world or, you know, what generally make make use of. If if you were studying astrology, you’d have to study that particular vocabulary and get a feeling for what they mean by a cusp and and all these, you know, you get a sense, you get a feeling. So likewise with these various words, we have to work at them to get us a feeling for them so they become meaningful to ourselves.
We’re able to use them appropriately. So when the point of dependent arising is understood to mean that nothing inherently exists. And when this point reinforces our understanding of dependent arising as infallible, then the analysis of the view is complete. When the point of dependent arising, we understand dependent arising, because things arise, because this table arises in dependence upon parts, causes and conditions, you know, a tree that grew in the woods, carpenters, you know, paint, parts, sides, table, top, language and conceptualities, the term table and my conceiving mind applying that term to this particular object, to that basis. in dependence upon that, then the table rises.
When I understand that, how it’s arising, it’s coming in all these it’s happening, occurring, in dependence upon all these variables, then I know then that that that said understanding of dependent arising, that understanding of dependent arising leads me to understand it cannot inherently exist. It doesn’t there’s no essence there. There’s no has no there’s no thingness about it. There’s just this process that’s and these these variables which are are constellating temporarily and and which I’m I cause an appearance to me and which I which I’m which functions at the table, then you don’t you can’t you you won’t think that there’s some kind of essence or something solid entity there existing from its own side, independent of all other things. That understanding of dependent arising means that nothing intrinsically exists when that is understood, then this point reinforces our understanding that dependent arising is infallible, that things arise, that there is an invariable relationship between these processes that are taking place.
It’s not chaotic world, it’s not a haphazard world, that there are certain laws and rules being followed and what can arise from what and what cannot. Then the analysis of the view is complete. Then the next verse. Further and I’m almost finished. Further, the extreme of inherent existence is excluded by knowledge of the nature of appearances.
The extreme of inherent existence is excluded by knowledge of the nature of appearances, existing only as nominal designations. This is in your books, I think. And the extreme of total nonexistence is excluded by the knowledge of the nature of emptiness as the absence of inherent existence and not the absence of non nominal existence. If within emptiness the appearances of cause and effect is known, you will not be captivated by extreme views. So, you know, we said that while dependent arising and emptiness of a phenomena are conceived of as distinct.
They are in fact one entity. So by positing the existence of phenomena in this twofold way, we avoid falling to the the two extreme positions. There is said to be you know, we we often talk about the middle way. And what does the middle way mean? It doesn’t there there are several interpretations, but what it means in its deepest sense is a way which avoids two extremes, and these two extremes are the extremes of permanence and annihilation, the two extremes of permanence and annihilation.
Through denying that all phenomena have any inherent existence, independent existence, we avoid the extreme of permanence. You know, if things had inherent existence, intrinsic existence, they would be as if frozen, static, fixed for eternity. They would have to be always what they are, unchangingly so. That’s what it means by permanence here. That’s and that it would that would be of its very nature, and it could never be anything other than that.
It could never come into existence or go out of existence or be or vary in it in a way that it exists. It would be its fixed, unchanging, static nature if things existed inherently or intrinsically in that way. Think you know, a beautiful woman would always be beautiful. That’s her very nature. I don’t mean to I hope I don’t being too chauvinistic about this.
This. Through denying that all phenomena have an inherent existence, independent existence, we avoid the extreme of permanence, which regards things as inherent existence. But in affirming that all phenomena do exist imputedly, imputedly, we escape the extreme view of annihilation, which denies the existence of phenomena at all. If if many people no. Not many people.
I remember once, you know, they talk about the extreme they’re falling into nihilism. Nihilism is the you know, almost the psychotic thought that nothing exists. And it’s oh, man, it’s just all a dream, and it really doesn’t exist at all. You know, it doesn’t it doesn’t it’s not even very it doesn’t make very much sense, but I mean, you could fall into that almost that kind of a Lama Yeshe once said that only a very intelligent person who who spent a great great deal of time analyzing the nature of reality could fall into nihilism. So you you probably don’t have much to worry about.
Actually, I actually, you know, you know, the story about realizing the story of Tsongkhapa’s disciple when he was realizing emptiness, he thought he was going out of existence and he grabbed himself, and he was grasping to some kind of conventional existence. That’s a very deep realization. That’s why this fear comes up that maybe, you know, if I don’t exist the way I’ve always habitually conceived myself to exist, maybe I don’t exist at all, you know? And there’s a sense that you could fall to the extreme of nihilism, that I don’t exist at all, that the world simply doesn’t exist. But so but in affirming that all phenomena do exist imputedly, phenomena do exist.
They exist but they don’t exist the way that we or ignorance or the way we, since we are almost almost synonymous with ignorance, almost, not quite. They don’t exist the way ignorance conceives of them to exist. They exist imputedly, dependently. Phenomena do exist. They exist imputedly.
Therefore, if you understand that imputedly exists, then you will not fall to the extreme of nihilism where the belief that things don’t exist at all. In their very nature, phenomena are free from the two extremes since they do not inherently exist yet do imputedly exist. Therefore, they are said to abide naturally in the middle way. This is the usual presentation of the implication: appearance, dependent arising or imputed existence, and emptiness, non intrinsic existence. So appearance, the appearance of things refutes nonexistence, the which is the extreme of annihilation.
So the the mere appearance of things refutes their nonexistence, while emptiness refutes intrinsic existence, the extreme of permanence. But here you know, I’m really almost finished. Here at Tsongkhapa, he says, he turns it around. He says the usual presentation of this implication here is he asserts that the knowledge of appearance is able to eliminate the extreme of intrinsic existence and that the knowledge of emptiness is able to eliminate the extreme of nonexistence. So if we understand the meaning of appearances, if we understand that the meaning of appearance is dependent arising, and that all phenomena depend for their existence are dependent on designating being designated by language and conceptuality in order to appear, then this will the mere fact of appearance is able to eliminate the extreme of intrinsic existence.
Just because phenomena appear and we understand appearance as dependent arising, we understand that they cannot intrinsically exist. Through understanding the meaning of the emptiness to be the absence of intrinsic existence and that the basis of such an absence is nominally existing. Emptiness is just not hanging out there in space. Something we’re talking it is there is something which is empty. What is it? In this case, the table is empty.
So the mere fact of emptiness asserts the existence, is able to eliminate the extreme of nonexistence. That is no conventional existence at all. And then finally one last quote. I want to read that. So all of this understanding is is synthesized into what is called the king of reasonings.
The king of reasonings, which is we we take use the traditional classical example, is a sprout. That’s the subject. Okay. Take what you want. What should we take?
A McDonald’s hamburger. Is this no? A veggie burger as the subject does not inherently exist. Why? What reason do we give?
Because it is dependent So it is dependent arising because it exists dependent upon what? Upon we’ll take the sprout. Okay? It depends upon seeds. It it depends upon that causes a seed.
It depends upon conditions, soil, water, light. It depends upon its parts. It depends upon roots, stems, leaves. It it depends upon the perceptual process, terms, conceptuality. When when in the context when within the process of dependent arising, that that that though phenomena do not intrinsically exist, they still appear.
Though they don’t transcend they don’t have an inherent nature, still they appear, and they are able to perform predictable functions. We have found the middle way and will not be captivated by these extreme views. When you’ve done all that, when you have realized thus, just as they are, the essentials of these three principal aspects of the path, the determination to be free, the awakened heart, the awakened mind, resort to solitude, and generate the power of effort, accomplish quickly your final aim, my child. That’s all we have to do. So that gives us a direction, doesn’t it?
Gives gives us something to do. So we’ll we’ll I’m sorry. I kept you so late. We’ll we’ll dedicate all of what we have created together in this way. In the land encircled by snow mountains, you are the source of all happiness and well-being.
Powerful Chenrezig Tenzin Gyatso, please remain until the end of cyclic existence. May I quickly become an awakened spiritual master and lead each and every living being to that awakened realm through these skillful actions. The supreme jewel of the awakened heart that has not arisen arise and grow, and may that which has arisen never diminish but increase more and more. Thank you. So I I I did hear it announced that there’s going to be what we call a puja on Sunday.
And I encourage you all to come. I think it’s it’s going to be something very, very special. By all means, it’s for the long life of our teacher, Kyabje Rinpoche, but also to invite him or request, plead with him to come back to Buddha House again. So I think if you can please all means attend, are more than welcome. We are going to have a three week break and then we will have a few more talks subsequent.