Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 142-minute session, Ven Jampa Ignyen deeply explores the Heart Sūtra’s opening exchange: when Śāriputra asks how to practice the perfection of wisdom, Avalokiteśvara responds with a brief instruction—contemplate the five aggregates as empty of inherent nature. Ignyen unpacks what this means: why the aggregates matter (they form the basis of the sense of self) and walks through successively subtler levels of understanding emptiness, from impermanence to absence of true existence, grounding each in concrete examples—tables, bowls, dreams. He compares Cittamātra (mind-only school) with Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka, offering multiple emptiness analogies: the dream house, rope mistaken for snake, moon reflected in water. Considerable participant dialogue throughout. For practitioners ready for philosophical depth.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 2011 04 23 Heart Sūtra Easter Retreat (2).mp3
UUID: 5272ba1f-c6b5-4ccc-9683-1576393b8cd0
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: Heart Sūtra Retreat (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2011-04-23
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 142.5 minutes
Words: ~14,600
So continuing with the Heart Sūtra. So where are we up to? We’re Right. We’ve been looking at Śāriputra raises the question. Right.
Okay. Now, Śāriputra, we’ve gone through some of the issues with Śāriputra with the how should any any there refers to the fact that indicates that those that are there need to fulfill certain qualifications, namely being of a good lineage, meaning that they’re capable of acting basis for training in the perfection of wisdom. Son or daughter, both are included, who desires to engage in the profound practice of the perfection of wisdom. How should they do that? What is the method of doing that?
Right, so here practice is referring to actually establishing that state within their mental continuum, to engage in the profound practice or to practice the activity of the profound perfection of wisdom means to basically to generate that in one’s mental continuum that sort of wisdom. How does one go about it? So then we have the next section. So this is the Śāriputra raising the question. And the next part of the sūtra deals with the response by Avalokiteśvara.
So then as it said: He said that and the bodhisattva Mahāsattva Ārya Avalokiteśvara said this to the Venerable Śāriputra: Śāriputra, any son of the lineage or daughter of the lineage who wishes to practice the activities of profound perfection of wisdom should look at it like this correctly and repeatedly holding those five aggregates also as empty of inherent nature. Right. So we’ve had we’ve actually covered this before. We’ve gone up to this point. Yep.
So if we first have the short answer so in that that section there we’ve we have the abbreviated answer of Avalokiteśvara. Now, Śāriputra has raised the question. The Buddha is there sitting silently engaged in the concentration on the profound illumination, and Avalokiteśvara has responded in brief. So that’s the basically what we pick up from this is that if we want to practice the profound perfection of wisdom we contemplate the five aggregates, the nature of the five aggregates, and come to an understanding that they are empty of inherent nature. Why the five aggregates?
We’re dealing with the five aggregates because the five aggregates are the basis of designation of the I. So that’s why they’re important. Now, they’re what we label I, my body, my feelings, my discrimination, my intention and so forth, my consciousness. These are five bases that we label as I. When we say that the five aggregates are by nature empty, or empty of any inherent nature, we say that this means that the object is not established in in and of itself from its own side.
It is not established by its own characteristics. It’s not established inherently. It’s not truly established. So this An example is given here by Tendar Rampa and it says for example: If a house appears in a dream it does not appear towards oneself from the basis of that house, but it is made by the awareness of one to whom it appears. Therefore one must understand this to be the relative mode of abidance of all phenomena.
So an example is given here by the commentator and now we’re back to the dream example. What is a dream? A dream is a type of mental consciousness. True? When we’re dreaming this first, we go to sleep.
Now, sleep itself is a type of consciousness and the way we enter that state is by bringing a dark image to the mind and the mind becoming involved in that dark image and then gradually the mind shutting down at least the sense awareness is shutting down and just the sleep consciousness and this mental consciousness of sleep that’s engaging a dark image survives. Sense awareness is shut down. Now within that state then another mental awareness arises: dream consciousness. Now, consciousness itself is said to be non conceptual. Right?
Just useful to think on this for a little while. Is the dream consciousness vivid? It can be vivid. Is it what do you think? Is it conceptual or perceptual?
Is it conception or perception? Perception. Why? Okay. Is it like our eye sense awareness at present?
See things being present that are potentially present. True, true. But just when the dream we’re in a dream and we’re looking in the dream, is the quality of the experience of the object like our current sense perception? It’s clear. Yes.
Alright. Who thinks that they’re as clear as our waking state? Yep. Oh, yeah. Okay.
We’re not we’re just looking at the appearance of the dream itself. The objects in the dream, are they like our current sense awareness? Oh, yeah. They’re like our current sense awareness, aren’t they? For that reason, dream consciousness is regarded as perception.
It’s not conception. It’s clear what conception is, right? Okay. Conception is our thinking. Right?
We have them going on together. We have perception and while we’re perceiving something, we’re thinking about it. Like we can look at this bottle here, right? And while we’re looking at it with eye perception, we’re thinking about it. Oh, it’s half half empty.
No, it’s half full or whatever. Now that thinking it is half empty is conception. It’s also taking that as its object. Right? True?
Now, if we look at that bottle and then we close our eyes, we all close our eyes and I talk about the bottle, you get an image of the bottle. That’s conception. Right? Or a memory. All our memories are conceptual.
We remember the face of our mother and we can bring that face to mind. It’s not very clear, is it? Yeah. So that’s the nature of conception. It’s absolutely important to us to have conception, but it doesn’t have the quality of perception.
Even in a dream, we can have conception. We do have conception. We have the dream and then we think about the dream, or we have to do things in the dream. Oh, that’s a nice looking ice cream. Oh, such and such.
We carry on a conversation. We think about what we’re gonna say and so on. So we have conception and perception even in a dream. Right. So the dream consciousness is regarded as a type of mental wrong perception.
Right. It’s wrong. You got it as wrong. Maybe wrong is not the right word. Because the dream objects don’t exist.
But this conception is something you can’t actually judge or come without a rock or a body. Oh, no. Conception is in a way, conception is the most important state of awareness for us, and it can be correct or incorrect. Right. Right.
Conception is just our thinking. And most of our emotions are conceptual. Love, compassion, hate, ignorance, spite, resentment, arrogance, pride. All of these are conceptual. Right?
They’re all conceptual states. Some of them are correct and some of them are incorrect. Probably for us most of them are not so correct. Okay. We’ll we can take an example like hatred.
Hatred is a conceptual mental state that has an object, say a person. And, you know, when the when hate the mind of hate is active, is manifest, it takes an object of that particular person and the person becomes the focal object. Right? The person is a focal object. And then the way that that person is apprehended is that that person is apprehended as having no good qualities, only having negative qualities.
So that’s the function of hatred. Right? When we hate when there’s a mind of hate there, it’s taking an object and only seeing the negative qualities of it of that person. Now hatred is regarded as being incorrect, invalid, unreliable form of conception because it incorrectly engages its object. Right?
For instance, a person, it’s underestimating the person because it’s looking at that person and only seeing their bad quality. It’s like interpreting that person for us. Looking at that person and just taking note of the negative. You know? And by doing that, then it’s misconceiving that person.
Is that okay? Is that is that what what is actually happening? It appear it’s very convincing. The mind of hate is very convincing. It appears to, you know, have to hit the nail on the head, you know, that’s what that person is really like.
That’s what they are. But actually, the hatred is a complete misconception. On the other hand, the attachment is when we look at that same person and we just see the positive qualities, that’s attachment. And they’re both this is why emotionally we’re off on this roller coaster. We go from the attachment, we’re attached to another person where we just engage the positive qualities of that person.
And then when a negative quality comes up, a little flag comes up, and then we start to look for negative qualities, it’ll go to the opposite and we see just the negative and we hate. It can happen very quickly. Neither are correct because that person has both positive and negative quality at any one time. So these are conceptual minds. These are just forms of conception.
It’s hard for us to judge which are correct and which are incorrect. But when we analyze, we think about it, we can begin to see that the hatred is an invalid assessment of that person. It’s an underestimation and the attachment is an overestimation. Neither are reliable, neither are accurate, neither are correct. The process of how we stop that is very interesting, but we have strong habits to do it, so it’s not easy to pull back from it.
Okay. Now the dream awareness itself is perceptual. It’s not conceptual, And it’s arising well, sometimes we might have a daydream, but it’s arising generally when sleep is manifested. That’s why we have a dream. Now in a dream, a house may appear.
The example here is a dream house. Now the dream house appears seems to appear towards our eye consciousness in the dream. Right? Now in the dream, our eye consciousness is not functioning of course because otherwise we would wake up. So, in a dream, we’re walking around as a person, maybe like who we actually are or similar to that or something else.
So, actually even the eye awareness of the dream being is really, it’s a type of mental awareness. But the house that appears in a dream appears as if it’s appearing to the eye consciousness of the person engaged in the dream. But it doesn’t actually appear to anything, does it? Doesn’t appear to her. As it says, for example, if a house appears in a dream, it does not appear towards oneself from the basis of that house, but it is made by the awareness of the one to whom it appears.
It in a sense, what’s the house made of? Is it? Now memory is a conceptual. Now it’s a it’s a clear appearance of the house. Right.
Well, it’s simply an appearance in a dream. You’ve got the appearance of a house, but the house is not, it’s not as if it’s there and we’re here and it’s appearing towards our eye awareness. Right? The issue here is the status of that house in the dream. So what what the author here, what this Mongolian lama is saying is that the house doesn’t appear towards oneself from the basis of that house, but it is made by the awareness of the one to whom it appears.
So in fact, it’s a fabrication. In a sense, it’s like a projection. Well, it appears to the dream awareness. It’s the dream awareness to whom the objects of the dream appear. Sorry?
Yeah. By the mind? Yeah. By the mind. Now there are two there are different things occurring here as well.
We also have imprints that may manifest in a dream as, you know, objects in a dream. And also this consciousness, the dream consciousness itself is manifested. Really, we have our mental continuum, right, that continues moment to moment and is really the central our central what? Way we function. We just have this ongoing stream consciousness.
When we go to sleep, sense awareness is shut down. We just have the dream awareness, we have the sleep awareness and the dream awareness. And within the continuum of that being who is dreaming, they also have karmic imprints in their mental continuum. Actually, they’re said to be embedded in the mental consciousness or supported by the mental consciousness, and they awaken, giving rise to appearances in a dream. Okay.
But that house that appears in the dream, does it really exist? No. So the short of this is that the five aggregates, you know, have an appearance like a house in a dream. Their act their status is like a house in a dream. Like a and what are the five aggregates?
They’re like our physical body. Right? Feelings. Even our feelings are well, they’re type of awareness anyway, I think. Our feelings.
Our discrimination, intention, and our consciousness itself. So what the brief answer is, is simply that those five aggregates too are empty of any inherent nature. So what we’re looking at with an inherent nature is something that’s coming from the side of the object. Right? When we say something lacks an inherent nature, we’re really saying that there’s nothing from the side of the object that exists.
It’s like a dream house. You know, it’s like a but, of course, to us, they all look as if they’re existing from their side towards us. Us. Right? They very much appear that way.
They appear to be truly existing out there, and we engage with them. That’s just the way it appears. Things and that’s also said to be what true true existence means. That something appears to exist in the way that it or exists in the way that it appears to exist. If something exists in the way it appears to exist, it’s truly existent.
Okay? If something exists from its own side, it’s said to be inherently existing. Or if it exists from its own characteristics, it is inherently existent and so Yeah. Purposes, it does because I can rest for the chair here. Oh, wait.
Wait. For practical purposes, it does exist. At this moment. No. No.
No. It actually does exist. Yes. What what this line of reasoning is designed for is not to prove that it doesn’t exist. It’s to work out how it does exist.
Right? And so, I mean, if if Buddhism was there in order to completely deny the existence of anything, it would fall into the extreme of nihilism and which is denying the existence of anything. But Buddhism is not saying that nothing exists. What it’s saying is that things do exist, but they’re illusory at the same time. The way that we perceive them isn’t actually the way they really Exactly.
Yep. Yep. That I guess. Yep. Yep.
So that that’s why the dream example is given here. So but there’s different levels of this as well and it might be useful to just look at some of the other levels of, you know, the the way objects do exist. Because for instance, this table here, it does exist, doesn’t it? I mean there’s no question, we bump into it, we hurt out shins, we, you know, it gets eaten by boars or it exists. We function it functions.
And in fact the fact that it functions is a measure of it existing. It has a definition, doesn’t it? What’s the definition of table? Something you books on that might be a little narrow for a table, but Something with four legs might be a little narrow for a table. Some tables have two legs, some have one leg, some have three legs.
What’s the definition of a table? Yeah. Well a table just a name? Is a table just a name? But if it’s a name, it means it’s a word or it’s a and if it’s a word generally, it means that it’s sound or something written down to represent sound.
If it’s a name. Right? So it’s not just just a name, is it? It’s not just sound. I mean, we’re just I’m playing.
Yeah. But there is a table, isn’t there? Yeah. But there is a table here, isn’t there? That’s what we’ve been told.
Yeah. But we did well, you don’t have to agree with that. Don’t agree with it. There is a table here. I mean, if someone came in and said, bring the table.
Where’s the table? We’d all say, what What table? We’d point it at this one. That’s a box. That’s a box, alright.
Well, maybe I’m pointing at the wrong maybe I don’t know what a table is. Okay, then we’ll point at this one. This is the four legged version. Okay. Okay, so this is the table.
Now in this process, what we’re trying to do is work out how things exist. Now in working out how things exist, we have to find out on the grossest, coarsest, simplest, most practical level. What is this? How does it exist? Right?
So for something to exist, it’s said that they require a definition. Is that you accept that? Right? It requires a definition because you know, if we’re gonna recognize a table like when we’re young, what happens? Our mother comes along and says this is a table.
That’s wrong. And so I don’t understand it, describe it. What exists, so we should know about it, so we wouldn’t have a word for it. Oh, okay. Okay.
That’s yes. Yeah. That’s downstream. Oh, Right. Well, we’re just trying to get to the what the meaning of table is.
So this table was pointed out when we were young and mom said, that’s a table. And then we probably started looking at, is that a table? No. No. That’s a chair, you know, and yeah.
And then we come up with other things that, you know, maybe look like a table, but they aren’t a table and so on. So eventually we develop a fine sense of what a table is, right? Which means that we have a probably if we’re asked about it, would say, oh, a table is something with a horizontal surface, it’s got can have legs or the equivalent of legs and it supports things, something like that. In Tibetan, the definition is, which just means a functioning entity which supports things, which is a bit, you know, like a bit broad, it’s probably not refined enough. Yes.
But there is in fact, you know, a description, a definition that, you know, which describes what a table is. And when we understand that, then we can identify identify a table is the third aggregate, this discrimination, recognition. You know, being able to look around and, oh, that’s a table, that’s a chair, that’s a person, and so on. This is the third aggregate that we have. It’s so important for our functioning.
Okay, now we have a table here. Now, on a very basic level it carries out a function and that exists. The function exists, the table exists. Now when we look more at maybe a subtler level, we can look at the impermanence of the table. Right?
And the fact that the table changes moment by moment. Right? Now, if we understand the table on that level, it’s a deeper appreciation of the nature of the table. On a grosser level, the nature of the table is just something that supports things, made of wood, made of iron, whatever. But that’s true.
That’s the nature of the table. You know, it supports it, has a function. On a deeper level, the table is impermanent. Right? So what it means the table is impermanent is that it’s changing moment to moment.
And we can understand this from physics that it’s made up of atoms and molecules and that they’re actually in continuous motion. And so each moment of that table is completely different. Right? The table of the first moment is not table of the second moment. It’s not the table of the third moment.
Is that true? It is, isn’t it? But we okay, now we tend to think the table is fixed, and this is the table from yesterday, or it was the same table that was there five minutes ago. Right? But it’s not.
There’s nothing in this table that’s the same. True. That’s true, isn’t it? Similarly, our physical body. Nothing in our physical body one moment ago is the same in the next moment.
Nothing in our mind one moment ago is the same in this moment. Right? Everything we look at, the things on the wall, the floor, it’s all different moment to moment. True? Actually, we have an idea that things are the same, they’re fixed.
This is a misconception. This is why the contemplation of impermanence also is so important. Because we’re contemplating the actual nature of these objects. I remember reading this book by Arthur Eddington. It was like he was commenting on these lectures by Einstein on the nature of relativity theory.
And this book I bought it in the markets in Calcutta and it was like an original edition. I wish I still had it. It might be worth something. But in the beginning of the book, and it was written in like nineteen twenty two, and he’s talking about sitting at his desk writing writing this book on relativity, and he’s saying, well, actually the table that I’m sitting at is changes moment to moment. It appears to be fixed, but it in fact all the molecules, the atoms, the particles making up the atoms are all changing moment to moment.
There’s nothing there the same in each moment. Not only that, it’s mainly space. The table itself is ninety nine point nine nine percent because the actual particles themselves are so widely spaced within the table it’s really just nothing. More nothing than something. Right?
So when we look at the reality of the table, even on a coarser level, we see that it doesn’t actually exist in the way it appears to exist. The fact that it actually appears to be solid is quite remarkable. Because actually it’s mainly space, isn’t it? And not only that, it’s all changing. So even on a coarse level, the table doesn’t exist in the way it appears to exist.
Our physical body doesn’t exist in the way it appears to exist. Whatever we look at with our senses is in a state of flux and it’s in a sense it’s illusory because it all looks as if it’s unchanging. Which is quite remarkable because the fact that it is changing does appear to the eye. Doesn’t it? I mean, we look at the world around us, the little atoms and subatomic particles that are there are in constant flux.
We don’t it’s too subtle for the eye. No, it appears to us that that change does appear because it’s part of the reality of the table. Right? But our eye awareness is too coarse to pick it up. Not picking it up, we tend to think that it is unchanging.
But intellectually we understand that it is changing. Even this contemplation, if we just maintain that, it is a great benefit to us because we’re not, at least on a coarse level, we’re not being deceived by objects. We’ve got the number of the object. We’ve got its number. We know you’re changing.
You’re changing moment to moment. This is so important because our attachment, our attachment also is assisted by this mental conception that objects are fixed. Because we don’t get attached to something that, you know, is gonna change in the next moment or something else. And we get attached to something that’s going to remain with those good qualities. So, that reason contemplating impermanence is good for our attachment.
And in fact, when we do become, you know, our mind becomes so unworkable because of attachment, thinking of impermanence is a medicine. It’s all impermanent. My mind is impermanent. The objects are impermanent. All the people around me are impermanent.
Changing moment to moment. It’s just really a reality check, but we know it’s true. I don’t think anyone doubts that these things are impermanent. And so to just that extent, in a sense, understanding the impermanence of physical objects around us is a little bit like understanding the very, very coarsest level of selflessness. In a way, the very coarsest level of emptiness.
And just understanding that is a type of wisdom, the wisdom of impermanence that has it’s like a medicine. It’s a great and beneficial strategy for understanding things. But here the author is going on a deeper level than that. He’s talking about emptiness itself and he’s bringing up the image of a house in a dream. And that’s a bit subtler.
We know that we do have dreams of houses. But he’s saying that not only are these houses that exist in the real world, not only are they impermanent, but they actually don’t even exist from their own side. In fact, if we just think of the impermanence of things, we can still have the impression that they exist from their own side. But when we go into it in more detail, we can come to an understanding, begin to see the possibility that they don’t even exist from their own side. That doesn’t mean to say they don’t exist, but it just means that how they exist is subtle.
Very, very subtle. We should also look actually there. Now impermanence is a subtler level of the nature of things. Now an even subtler level there is the selflessness of things. And if we look at a coarse level of selflessness, it’s that objects are not do not possess a single, a permanent single, autonomous self.
In Tibetan, is permanent, chik is single or monolithic. Rangchen means self powered or autonomous nature. Now an element there is permanent and we’ve already discussed impermanence. So understanding impermanence eliminates the conception that something is permanent. So we can eliminate that from the three aspects discussed But chik here one, or monolithic, means that even though an object may appear to us and it may appear to be a single fixed entity, actually it’s made up of various things that come together, a compound of things.
And that’s how it actually exists. It’s not just it has the appearance of being a seamless single entity as if it it always existed in that way. But it’s not. You know, something like a bottle is came together over, you know, a period of time through adding the right ingredients and the molds and so forth. But it’s not as if it had that single monolithic status in the past and it doesn’t have that in the present.
Also it’s not autonomous. It comes together through the intervention of causes and conditions. So it’s completely reliant on causes and conditions. It doesn’t self generate. And so therefore it’s selfless.
Selfless on a coarse level. Oh, the sun’s coming out. The sun has come out. It’s warmed up. Excellent.
Oh, please. If any any issues come up, at any time raise them. Yes. This it is indescribable and that’s how often how it’s described as being indescribable. Yeah.
And there’s different levels of the experience. Prior to attaining the actual, you could say, perception of emptiness, we have the conception of emptiness. So the conceptual experience is not as what can one say? Clear as the perceptual experience. And so for us, we aim at in the beginning is just getting a conceptual understanding of the meaning of emptiness.
But that, as Candrakīrti I think said, you know, that just developing a correct belief or a correct assumption about emptiness on a conceptual level is enough to tear saṃsāra to shreds. So at present what we’re doing is looking at the words of the Heart Sūtra and getting an idea of what the meaning of those words is. And then gradually we contemplate those words until the meaning we get some taste of the meaning of them on a conceptual level. And then gradually we develop that until and on a conceptual level there are many different stages in the process of understanding. Now at present for us we’re probably like initially what we have is a wrong conception of emptiness.
And we tend to think the wrong conception of emptiness is that we hold things to truly exist. Right? Which at present we tend to affirm that things exist from their own side as they appear. We just have this now, that type of conception is on two levels. It can be innate or intellectually acquired.
Now for us, we’ve probably started thinking of intellectually acquired ignorance of true existence. We come to the point where, you know, we read Buddhist philosophy and we come to think, oh, well, maybe, you know, emptiness does exist. So think about it, you know, we would say, oh, no, things are empty of true existence. So at least on a superficial level, you know, we’re describing, we’re affirming emptiness, but still on an innate level, we’re holding that things exist truly. And so we but we still have a probably a residue of doubt about whether things are truly exist or not.
So after moving from holding things to be truly existent, from there one moves to doubt. And there’s three levels, say, of doubt. There’s doubt tending to the fact, doubt tending away from that fact, and even handed doubt. So we’re probably at present on a level of doubt that we have a little bit of doubt that things are truly existent. Like, we think, oh, they appear truly existent, and they function as if they’re truly existent, and I enjoy them as if they’re truly existent.
Or you know? But wait a minute. I have a bit of doubt here. Maybe they aren’t truly existent. So we probably have doubt tending away from the fact that we we’re the situation.
Then as we examine more and more, we may develop even handed doubt that, oh, you where that they probably aren’t truly existing. Or I’m sorry that they’re, you know, somewhere in the middle. They’re fifty fifty on it. And then gradually, develop doubt that tends to the fact that they are lacking true existence. Now this process of being in that in that area may exist for lifetimes.
You know, we just we have doubt about the issue. But that’s okay. Having doubt about the issue is better than having a misconception about everything being truly existent. Right? Now then from from the doubt, finally, one moves to a correct conception, a correct assumption about things lacking true existence.
Now when we get to that stage, it’s still unproven. The penny hasn’t dropped. Right? The penny hasn’t dropped, but we’re oh, we’re convinced. So what the process is at that stage is that we start to reflect on correct reasons that will establish a correct conception of emptiness.
Because it’s a in order to generate the correct conception, need something, a statement of truth that will break through for us. Now statement of truth in this regard that’s often used is the king of reasons. Called the king. Could be called the queen of reasons. Probably should be called the queen of reasons because it’s talking about perfect wisdom.
So that is, you know, take anything, take our table. It’s empty of true existence because it’s a dependent arising or dependent origination. Now that is a correct reason. And if we contemplate that reason long enough, the penny will drop. When the penny drops, we have the correct conception.
It’s the you know, we see into it that everything is a dependent arising, dependent origination. Well, the chair is there, but the chair itself is empty of true existence because it’s it arises dependent on other states. Yep. What it’s saying is that there is no own nature of the table or the chair, whatever. That it’s a dependent origination.
The definition of being a dependent origination is something which arises in dependence on its parts. Right? The definition of a dependent origination there’s two level sorry about all these different levels. It sounds a bit like this film inception. The two levels two levels of dependent arising, dependent origination.
The first is the causal level, which is a coarser level and that is the things are a dependent origination because they depend on causes and conditions for their existence. And on a subtler level, something is a dependent origination because it depends on its parts. Right? So its internal parts. So this table is a dependent arising, a dependent origination because it depends on its parts.
Okay. It sounds quite straightforward and we may have a doubt there. Well, wait a minute. You know, I know that. What difference does that make?
How could why then don’t I understand its emptiness? We still don’t understand emptiness because we haven’t fully understood what depending on its parts means. What are the implications of that? So this requires contemplation over some period of time. There are other reasonings we can also apply.
This table is empty of true existence because it is not truly existently one, and it’s not truly existently many. Okay. That’s a more complicated set of reasoning perhaps. But okay. What are we looking at here?
We’re looking at the ways of generating the understanding of something being empty of true existence. So this is done generally with a correct reason or a statement of fact about the object. But because we’ve got such strong habits for seeing things as truly existent, understanding the reasoning proving they’re not truly existent ent is going to take time. We’re gonna undo in a way that the habit that we’ve acquired for many many lifetimes. Right.
So here we’re looking at the status of objects such as tables. It’s impermanence. They’re selfless. They are non dual. We can say that table is non dual.
Does everyone accept it’s non dual, the table? Yeah. What about selfless? It doesn’t have a consciousness. No.
And actually from the the small vehicle point of view, they don’t wouldn’t even bother with the table and saying whether it’s selfless or not because they only apply selfless to persons, and they don’t apply selfless to phenomena. But the great vehicle also applies selfless to phenomena, so that there’s no self of the a square box like table like thing. And that’s okay. Or otherwise, we can if that’s uncomfortable. Is it is it okay to call this selfless?
It just has no own nature. That’s really no sort of inherent identity. From a small vehicle point of view, that’s it’s it that didn’t even raise the issue about it being selfless because it it’s not a a being. Right? Yeah.
No. They wouldn’t they wouldn’t, yeah, bother at all with that sort of an issue. For instance, in the small vehicle, everything is regarded as truly existent. It exists in the way it appears to exist. But beings are selfless even though the body is truly existent, feelings truly existent, discrimination and so on, all of these are truly existent.
But within these truly five aggregates, there is no self. For that is selflessness in a small vehicle. But in the great vehicle, all the the bases, the body, feelings, and so on, all of those are empty. And being empty, they’re selfless. And the person imputed upon the mind body also is selfless because the basis is empty.
Anyway, there’s a number of issues here. Main thing at this point is that we’re just looking at some of the issues around emptiness, and and we’re taking note that Avalokiteśvara says correctly seeing these five aggregates too as empty of any inherent nature. Contemplating that is the way we engage in a practice of the perfection of wisdom. Okay? So in a sense, this is why the Buddha in the beginning when he’s engaged in the contemplation of divine illumination, profound illumination, he is reflecting on the categories of objects.
Right? We had that at the beginning. And the categories of objects include the five the five aggregates, which are the basis of the I. And then duality the duality of subject object. So really investigating those to establish Right, so understanding selflessness implies a broad investigation of objects around us.
Because if there’s anything truly existent anywhere, then in a sense everything would become truly existent. And if, on the other hand, if we can establish the non true existence of one thing, then it will also pervade everything else as well. How are we going anyway? Well, it is the Heart Sūtra, you realize. It does exist.
Even though it actually might be space. Yeah. Oh, it has a function. It exists. It’s a table.
No, exists. It exists. It exists, but it’s impermanent. Yep. It just that it exists, but it doesn’t exist from its own side.
Can we put those two together? This is more that’s in Yeah. The table does exist, doesn’t it? Oh, sorry? It is.
Good. Good. Good. Good. Good.
But if you were to ask where is the table? Where would you say it was? Okay. It’s over there. Is it here?
You mean the location of Of the table. Yeah. I’m looking for the table itself. Right? No.
No. No. I want the table. Right? No.
There’s just one table there. Right? Now where is the table? Is it here? No.
No. No. Is it is it here? But where is the table itself? Now that’s the leg of the table there, right?
Is the table the actual table in the in the leg of the table? Is it in the other leg? It’s not in any of the legs. Is it in the top of the table? No, no, wait, wait, but where is the table itself?
Okay. But if we if we put it all those things and we separate the parts out and stack them on the ground, where’s the table? Where did where did the table go? Well, it’s still there. With teeth?
With but is but is it a table? Potentially. But there was a table to begin with. Where did it go? Was only a table in that moment.
Well, it’s surprising. It’s like a motorcycle. Really? You pull it apart, it doesn’t function. It doesn’t it doesn’t even exist any longer does it?
No. So if it doesn’t exist at that point, could it have existed before? Well, I guess I could get them and drive it to wherever. Okay. But where did it go when you disassembled it?
So it doesn’t exist. It’s no longer a table. It’s no longer a car. Exactly. It’s a dependent arising, isn’t it?
Yeah. Yeah. This is Okay. No, this is part of it, but it’s not this is the unfindability of an object in its parts. But it’s not the subtlest level.
But it’s true, you know, we assume that there’s a table there, but then if we pull it apart, the table doesn’t exist any longer. And so it raises the question, well, was it there to begin with? I mean, it can’t, you know, exist and then not exist. They’re selling it as a table, but it’s not a table. Yes.
It should be should sue them. Where’s the table? And the fact that it exists when it’s put together. But it shows that the table is dependent. The table is a dependent origination.
Oh, the yeah? Do they say we? I wonder. Or maybe it’s hiding away in the we or some other thing like that. It true, though.
The language itself does make a difference, but it would make a difference, and it may be it shows that they have a certain communal collective approach to the way they live, which could be very useful for harmony in their society. But if, as an ordinary being, they would have a sense of I. Like, animals have a sense of eye. Insects have a sense of eye, and so on. It’s there, but a cow, for instance, doesn’t probably doesn’t ponder the nature of the I itself or other philosophic issues.
They might have an innate sense of eye without an intellectually acquired sense of eye. But they have an I. I mean, if you, you know, you chase a cow with a stick, it will run, you know, and it will complain about it at the same time. Has fear. It has feelings.
It has a sense of I and so on. Does everyone accept that? I’m oh, sentient beings. Yeah. Yeah.
Sentient beings. Something which has a mind. Okay. So anyway, we won’t start the next section. So we’re just looking at the abbreviated answer of Avalokiteśvara.
So even if we just contemplate the abbreviated answer, which is like the bodhisattva, the great being noble Avalokiteśvara said to the venerable Any son or daughter of good lineage, good family, meaning those practicing virtue and capable of taking up the path, who desires to engage in the profound practice of the perfection of wisdom, should contemplate it in this way, correctly seeing these five aggregates as empty of any inherent nature. So that is the practice there. We have the abbreviated pith instruction from Avalokiteśvara. Of course, as has come up before, we still have lingering doubts at this point about the meaning. Or we look at the words and we think, oh, we get a sense of some meaning, and then we look at the individual words, and most of the words are okay, but inherent nature, still, what does that refer to?
Aggregates also, we still maybe, you know, we have some the mind body continuum. What are the aggregates? Okay. Still need some further clarification on that. Profound practice of the perfection of wisdom, still that’s a little remote and so on.
So what we’re looking at here is getting the words sort of sorted out, Understanding what’s going on in the conversation. If we remember the setup of the conversation, then it’s useful. You know, who’s there? Where it is? The Buddha’s in meditation on profound illumination.
Avalokiteśvara is contemplating what? The perfection of wisdom and also looking at the five aggregates. Śāriputra is inspired by the Buddha to raise a question. How do you practice the perfection of wisdom? And he’s addressing Avalokiteśvara.
Now they’re probably sitting quite close together. They’re probably seated. So we can we can conceive of what the scene is, and that’s useful. You know? Because there might be a few vultures in the distance because they are sitting near vulture’s peak.
And okay. And then Avalokiteśvara gives this answer in brief. If you want to practice the perfection of wisdom, you should contemplate it in this way, correctly seeing those five aggregates too as empty of any inherent nature. So in a sense, what we’re doing here is we’re thinking through the words and letting the words just sink in a little bit. Just allowing him to do their work in a sense.
And getting the words straight, as they say, the the old man of meaning is supported by the walking stick of words. So we have to get the words straight. The walking stick has to be straight in order to support the meaning. If the words aren’t straight, if the words aren’t clear, they don’t suit us, then the meaning that they’re trying to convey is has more difficulty getting through to us. So what we’re after is the meaning.
Okay. We should have a break, I think, at this stage. So we’ll just start with a short mandala offering on page five. How is the walking meditation? Is it good?
Yeah. It’s it’s such a good practice. We can do it anywhere. It all it is doing is just taking our attention away from our thinking process and putting it at our feet. Just helps us to and, of course, doing that, focusing on something in the present just helps us to be in the present.
In fact, there’s so many ways we can do that. Whatever we’re doing, doing, we can just take note of what’s happening in the present. Very beneficial. Right. So now the short answer with now it’s also said that this instruction Okay, now we’ve done the short answer.
Now we do the more extensive answer. So initially Avalokiteśvara has responded to Śāriputra with a sort of a gist statement And then he gives the extensive more detailed answer. So so far he said that all the aggregates, the five aggregates too, are empty of any inherent nature. Now it’s also said in the commentary that these answers are really given for those of dull faculty. So they’re for us, so they’re our answers here.
But dull faculty, the really sharp faculty ones, they’re the ones that understand emptiness with the short syllable ah. They’re the extremely sharp faculty ones. But we need lots of words, and so we’re down there probably requiring a hundred thousand verse, but we’re just too busy to even begin to look at the hundred thousand verse Prajñāpāramitā or the twenty or the eighteen and so on. Thousand verse. Well, this is very simple.
This is Oh, no. No. This thing’s like a diamond sūtra. It’s a bit more extensive. Yeah.
Yeah. It’s a lot of words. Yeah. Even the eight thousand is quite extensive. And, also, it’s what can one say?
Not that easy to understand. You know, you think, alright. It should all be clear in using a few more words. But the more you get into it, there’s actually there’s different chapters, the Maitreya chapter and so forth, where the Buddha is giving more and more detail and bringing in incidents and various other issues. Yes.
So it still, if we’re able, if we have the leisure a lot of these aren’t translated into English as well. The eight thousand verses translated into English. There’s a one by Edward Conze’s. It’s quite good, but it yeah. Not so easy.
The Heart Sūtra is really good because it’s very brief and it was not that complicated. Yeah. That is a stickler, that one there, and why they just didn’t leave it at first statement. Form is empty. Still that does come up so we’re just into that now.
The extensive answer and this is also the short answer word for those of relatively speaking dull faculty. So then we start with the next section. Form is empty. Emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form.
Also form is not other than emptiness. In the same way, similarly, feeling discrimination formation or compositional factors and consciousness are empty. Now we’ve had these five before. These are the five what are these five? They’re the aggregates.
And what is their purpose? Why are we bothering with them? Yes. Exactly. And why?
Because the central question is who who am I? If we resolve that issue, we resolve all issues. So for that reason, Avalokiteśvara is talking about the five aggregates. Now previously we had in the previous verse we have should look upon it like this correctly and repeatedly be holding those five aggregates as empty of inherent nature. Brief answer.
Now more extensive, we’re going into each of the five aggregates. So form, the form aggregate, the body, in other words. The form aggregate is the body, our physical basis, our old friend. We’ve been together for many years. So we have an interest in this particular form.
Form is empty. Entiness is form. So initially this particular statement here now according to the commentary what we’re looking at here is the practice of someone when they enter the path and then as they progress on the path and eventually attain the state of perfect wisdom as a Buddha. So this first section is dealing with the path of accumulation and preparation. Is that accumulation and preparation are two of the five paths that we need to develop in order to become a Buddha.
First, we have the path of accumulation. Really, the accumulation means accumulating merit. Preparation is preparing really for the third path, the path of seeing. And then once one attains the path of seeing, one continuously meditates on the meaning one has understood in the path of seeing, in the path of meditation. And then that’s four paths.
And then the fifth is the path of the adept or a Buddha where one doesn’t need to do any more learning. So this first instruction here is indicating how we practice at the level of the path of accumulation and preparation. Anyway, these are don’t have to remember that point. But it will come up again, so Form is empty, empty. Emptiness is form.
So really form is empty of being truly existent and that emptiness is the very nature of form itself. Emptiness is not other than form. Form is not other than emptiness. So we could say the same about the table. The table is empty.
Emptiness is the table. Emptiness is not other than the table. Also the table is not other than emptiness. I and my physical body is empty. Emptiness is my physical body.
Emptiness is not other than this and this is not other than emptiness. Okay. So it’s so what this means is that sorry? Oh. No.
In ultimately speaking, there is no duality. Oh, you can doubt. The doubt is a good thing here. And in a sense we need to cultivate our doubts because how we get to the meaning is through doubt. And we’re have every, what, right and freedom to generate doubts and so forth about this.
We have to because the way we approach an understanding of these topics is through doubt, through raising our doubts, formulating our doubts, expressing them. Right. Everything is empty of true existence. Yeah. What it means here is the emptiness of the form is form.
Form is empty means really we have form itself. Now an example is better. This little brass belt bowl. It is empty of true existence. Its emptiness itself is the the bowl.
Its emptiness is the bowl. The bowl is empty of true existence. Its emptiness is the bowl. In other words, the bowl and the emptiness of the bowl cannot be separated. The same thing.
Yep. We can’t have the bowl here and the emptiness of the bowl over there. In other words, they are imputed on the same object. The bowl itself is imputed on that particular thing. The term bowl.
It is a bowl. The the word bowl. Are designated, applied, attached to that. It’s called a bowl, in other words. When we call it a bowl, the word bowl therefore applies to it, refers to it, indicates it.
What can one say? Reveals its identity. Identifies it. Now that that bowl is empty of true existence. Right?
In other words, the bowl has an attribute of emptiness. Now that attribute of emptiness is the very bowl itself. For instance, the impermanence. If we look at the impermanence, the bowl is impermanent, isn’t it? It is impermanent.
We know it’s impermanent because it’s made up of atoms and molecules and subatomic particles, and they’re all in motion. And therefore, they change. Everything in that bowl is changing moment to moment. No matter how finely we define what a moment is, it’s still changing. We there’s no limit to the moment’s length.
Right? It said in some scriptures that the limit of a moment is one sixty fifth of the sound of a finger snap. But from the great vehicle point of view, there’s no lower limit to the length of a moment. So no matter how far you go, this is changing moment to moment. So it has the bowl itself has an attribute, a feature, a quality of empty of impermanence.
Now that impermanence is imputed to the very bowl itself, isn’t it? That impermanence is the bowl. The impermanence of the bowl is the bowl. The bowl is impermanent. That makes sense?
Not quite the same. They’re absolutely inseparable. They’re not quite the same because understanding the bowl doesn’t mean we to say we understand the impermanence of the bowl, but we can’t separate the impermanence of the bowl from the bowl. Right? And we can’t have the bowl there and its impermanence over here.
The impermanence of a bowl pervades the bowl. It’s the attribute of the bowl. The impermanence of the bowl and the bowl are of the same nature, i.e.. The same substance. The substance of the bowl and the impermanence of the bowl are inseparable.
We could even say the the impermanence of the bowl is the substance of the bowl. If we use this terminology, we say the bowl is impermanent. Impermanence is the bowl. But when we talk about impermanence there, of course, we’re talking about just the impermanence of the bowl itself, not all impermanence. And that’s what’s meant here with form is empty, emptiness is form.
So too, the bowl is empty of true existence. The emptiness of the bowl is the bowl. They cannot be separated out. The emptiness of the bowl is the bowl on its subtlest level. The coarse functional bowl is the brass bowl that rings.
But the subtle identity of the bowl is its emptiness. The subtlest identity. Well, a grosser level of identity of the bowl is the impermanence of the bowl. Yeah. Of the bone.
Yeah. The the muscle. Yep. Yep. It’s similar.
I mean, the the the means of describing it is the same. The words we’re using, you know, are similar. And because we use of there, and of may imply to some degree that they’re separate. You have the bowl and the impermanence. The impermanence of the bowl.
But here, that of, indicates that the impermanence is an attribute of the bowl itself, meaning that’s a fundamental that’s the nature of the bowl. In fact, the bowl has different We can look at it like that. It has a very coarse nature, which is its functioning nature. You know, it has weight and function and so on. And then the subtle the subtler nature of the bowl is its impermanence.
And then the subtler level is its selflessness. And then a subtler level is its nonduality. And then perhaps even a subtle level is its non inherent existence. But they all are the bowl. Right?
They’re not separate from the bowl. So to that extent, the bowl is empty and the emptiness of the bowl is the bowl. Sometimes it appears as if it’s you know, that sounds all well and good, but it’s a solution to what? It just here to confuse us to make us do mental gymnastics and for what purpose? And that’s good.
We need to, you know, keep our eye on the ball, so to speak. Why are we bothering with working out trying to work out what what the nature of the bowl is? Yep. That’s a good enough reason. We that’s right.
It’s Right. Exactly. The reason why we’re worried or concerned about this at all is to deal with our afflictive emotions. It’s not a problem with the bowl. It’s the way we look at the bowl and become attached to the bowl and so on.
But we’re using that as an external example. The real issue that we’re viewing here is the mind body. We’re really looking at the five aggregates and the form aggregate. Our physical body our physical body is empty, and its emptiness is the physical body. And emptiness is not other than the physical body.
Our physical body is not other than emptiness. Okay. So here, Avalokiteśvara is just making a few suggestions about how we contemplate the issue in more detail than before. Before, he just gave a very brief suggestion. Now he’s going into more detail about then how okay.
If we look at the five aggregates, fine. But what does that mean? Okay. If we take out the five aggregates individually, we have the physical body, our physical body, and which is an object of a great attachment to us. And just how attached, you know, is often not clear to us about it’s incredible.
We’re incredibly attached to our own physical body. Like the suggestion yesterday that we should do away with mirrors is an indication of just how attached we are. Sorry? Oh, wasn’t? Okay.
Seems so long ago. Yeah. So attachment is there. Now this sort of the contemplating the contemplation that we’re looking at here such as looking at the essence or the nature of our body on a course level subtler subtler subtler is really designed directed to dealing with this attachment for a start. But not only attachment, also the ignorance about how the body exists.
Attachment is a coarser level problem that we need to deal with. Ignorance is a subtler level. But if we can at least deal with attachment then that will be of great benefit. Now initially here the author Tendar Lhrampa starts talking about the the Cittamātra way of understanding these words. And according to the Cittamatrans, the appearance as form or something appearing as form is understood to be the self perception or perception of that empty of substantial distinction between the subject and the object.
Actually the Chitamatrans are looking at these words, at what empty means from the point of view of non duality. So it might be useful just to talk about this a little bit. From a okay. Now before we’re talking about dreams and the lack of reality of the dream. Now the Chitamatrans were quintessential what can one say?
Proponents of using the dream example. And for them, they really very much hold that everything is like a dream. And just as when we’re dreaming, you know, we think that the dream constitutes an external reality and it doesn’t, they assert that our entire existence is like like a dream. That in fact there is no external universe. There is just awareness.
So what that means is that, you know, we think that things are distant and so on, but there is no extension. There is no coarse material objects made of atoms and molecules. There is just mind. And within my within our individual minds, we have foundation consciousness. Within our mental continuum, have a foundation consciousness.
Within that foundation consciousness, we’ve got unlimited numbers of karmic seeds or imprints. And these karmic seeds give rise to the subject and the object simultaneously. So for one karmic seed, it matures and it in the one instant it produces the object and the subject. Right? Okay.
So what that means is that we have this stream continuous stream of seeds awakening within our the foundation consciousness that produces the appearance of external world and a subject that’s accessing that external world. And it appears as if, you know, there is an external reality. But this subject, the consciousness, mental consciousness and the sensory consciousnesses and the external world which is being viewed by the those consciousnesses are not substantially distinct. They’re of the same substance. They’re substantially one.
They’re not cause and effect. In other words How are we doing with this this topic? Actually, we can understand the Chitamatran view, it is very useful for us. It’s useful in helping us to understand emptiness. This was taught in the descent into Lanka Sūtra, the Lankavatara Sūtra.
Has anyone heard of the Lankavattara Sūtra? After the Buddha attained enlightenment, I think, you know, some months after, he decided to visit visit his mom. And his mom had died a week after he was born. And his mom had been reborn again in the the heaven of the thirty three. And so in one rains retreat, it could have been the first or the second, maybe the first rains retreat, the Buddha went to the heaven of the thirty three deities and visited his mom.
And for a couple of months taught Abhidhamma on metaphysics to his mother who was born there as a deity. And then after that, he returned, but he returned into Sri Lanka. So it’s called the descent into Lanka. The description of this is called the descent into Lanka Sūtra. Anyway, that’s anyway.
Sorry? I’m struggling again now. What? Just No. It’s saying that there is form.
Okay. Now in that particular sūtra, he did teach this view of the mind only. But what what the mind only means is it’s not just that there’s only mind in the universe. There is form, but that form is of the same essence or the same substance as the mind that’s viewing it. Right?
So it means that, like, we look at this table, this box here, and that table is of the same substance as the eye consciousness viewing it. Right? Now, the other Buddhist schools don’t accept that. They say this table is the cause of the eye consciousness or a cause of it. Right?
Right. Because the light coming from that table strikes the eye and therefore we see the table so that what we’re seeing is actually existing prior to the eye consciousness. Right? Now that’s the normal way of, you know, looking at the interaction between the subject and the object. They’re cause and result.
But from the Chitamatran point of view, they’re saying, no, that’s not actually how it is. They’re arising at the same time. Right? And they’re generated from a karmic imprint, a karmic seed. And that karmic seed, when it awakens, is producing the subject and the object at the same time.
Right? But the subject and object are not substantially separated. Okay. Anyway, it is I bring this up because it’s easier to understand emptiness from this point of view than emptiness from the other point of view. The emptiness from the prasangika is considerably easier.
Understanding non duality as is taught in the mind only school is easier to understand than non duality taught from the point of view of the higher schools. So anyway, we don’t have to go into much detail on this. Oh, you’d be closer to understanding the emptiness. Yep. Yep.
Yeah. Oh, no. No. It’s not any form. No.
No. It’s not any form. That form there is the physical body. Yeah. No, it’s not general form or just any old form.
Here with the five aggregates, it’s our physical body, this form. This body. Yeah, talking really about this body itself. But by extension we can also apply it to external form. Oh, no.
That that formula still applies. We can use it for, you know, this. We can use it for anything. Yes. Yes.
Yes. They’re all impermanent. They lack inherent existence, lack true existence, and so on. All of those apply. Yep.
Just like that. But this is a prasangika view. Yeah. Prāsaṇgika assert prasangika the Nāgārjuna well, yes, Mādhyamika. Yeah.
Nāgārjuna taught the prasangika view, one could say. Yeah. And Nāgārjuna was saying, which is what is taught here in the Heart Sūtra is that things aren’t truly existent. So these five categories are the five aggregates and not truly existent. Yes.
Now we’re just talking a little bit from the Chitamatran. And the Chitamatran accept emptiness. Right? They assert that there is emptiness. And they accept these words in the sūtra.
They recite them and they accept. But when they interpret what emptiness means, right, they have a different explanation of emptiness. And for them, emptiness is the fact that the subject and object are substantially non different. They’re not the fact that the subject and object are not distinct substances means that they’re empty. Sounds like a bit of a mouth ful.
Subject. No. No. They don’t even no. They don’t they they assert actually that they do exist from well, they do inherently exist objects.
They do truly exist, but they also assert nonduality. And for them, yeah, it’s The Cittamatrans, well, for them, they base their presentation on non duality. And without going into too much detail, their form of non duality is a coarse form, not a it’s a what can one say? A rough presentation of non duality. Right?
It’s not the highest description of what non duality means. But it’s very useful to understand it because it’s a bit like a foothold. If we can get a rough idea using the mind only school, then it’s easy to understand non duality from a higher, say, a more refined perspective. That’s all. It’s so it comes up in the commentary here about what the Chitamatrans think or present as emptiness.
So that’s all. For them, emptiness is non duality, and their form of non duality is really quite profound. But right? It’s really quite profound. But it’s almost very difficult, you know, to really non just meaning non duality not to meaning there’s not to.
Right? Subject object, those two. Subject object. Right? Subject, object, not to.
Right. That’s what it means. No. No. No.
Subject subject is consciousness. Yeah. Subject consciousness viewing object. We have the impression generally that the consciousness and the object that the consciousness engages are two different things. Right?
So they’re two. They’re dual dualistic. Right? Non duality refers to the fact that the subject and the object are not really two different things. Or that they are not actually in reality separate.
Nominally they’re two, but in In a way that’s how the Cittamatrans do it. They say that the subject and the object are of the same substance. They’re the same substance. You can’t separate them. Yeah.
It’s a bit like, you know, water mixed into water. It’s the same substance. Right? So and this we have this appearance that there’s an object over there and my eye awareness over here. Right?
And we tend to accept that extension. Right? Eye awareness here, Object way over there. For the Chitamatrans, the the object over there is just an appearance. The object doesn’t exist over there.
There is no extension in the universe. No extension whatsoever. There’s just consciousness. Without extension, and there are seeds in consciousness that give rise in each moment to subject an object that appear to be separate, separated by a distance, but that’s not true. When you understand that, you understand emptiness.
Anyway anyway If you really believe that, you’re happy. Well, for the Cittamatrans It’s not over there, but it’s not really over there. Over there. So Yeah. Like, it’s just the same thing in my mind, so I couldn’t drop the road anyway.
Flat. Oh, no. Well, you could get splattered by the Yeah. Truck. But well, in a way it’s more a functional issue that the Chitamatrans are trying to describe that but how consciousness functions.
Right? Yeah. In a conventional way. And they’re asserting that that there is just consciousness, and there is form, but that form is like of the substance of consciousness itself. Right?
It’s it’s not a separate substance. And as such, there is no extension. In a way, all beings occupy the same point in space, you could say. So within in the sphere of foundation consciousness, there is just karmic imprints. And one of the great benefits of understanding the Chittamatran view is that it really emphasizes karma and karmic seeds.
But there are just individual beings that are not spatially separated. And those individual beings each have their own mental continuum. And in that mental continuum, there are countless karmic seeds, both common and uncommon. And those karmic seeds awaken in accordance with the progression of time. And then due to that, due to the both common and uncommon karmic seeds, beings experience things together or separately, have a shared experience.
But there is no extension. That would be implied that everything that I see is an illusion. It’s an illusion. Appears to be out there. It appears to be, you know well, in fact, yes.
From the Chitamatran point of view, it’s all a projection. There but there is no doesn’t exist separate from the mind. Yeah. Yes. That’s right.
And how is it doing that? Because karmic seeds are ripening moment to moment. Countless karmic seeds are ripening. And We don’t see it exactly the same way because you have your own perspective on on this and I have my perspective. Everyone has their own slightly different perspective.
But we see everything because we’ve in the past we’ve generated common karma to see the same form, same objects. It’s everything is karma then. The karma is the support in each moment of what we do. And our experience is really just the product of karma seeds. It it is.
But dispense with the whole idea that there’s no extension, you know, from the karma seed bit is the same. Yep. Anyway, sorry about this. No. We’re just looking at the Chitamatran view, mainly because it comes up in the commentary there.
And it has a little bit of use if we get a little bit of an idea of what the mind only school is. And again, you know, now these days we talk about computers, we talk about, you know, avatars and so forth, people engaging in, you know, what, fictitious worlds where they create characters and trade and buy and sell land and whatever. Right? Actually, this view is taught by the Buddha as you know, this is a way we can understand our karmic situation. So it has application, I think, today.
Because when you look at a computer and what is happening, you know, like you have a virtual world, where is that virtual world? It’s just, you know, it’s just virtual. That’s it. And for a Chitamatran, it’s all virtual. Well, there are other karmic restraints there.
Our we’re dealing with the limitations of karma. Once one does achieve a certain level of realization, you don’t need to eat any longer. But prior to that, the illusory the illusory me and I would die of starvation if I didn’t eat. Yeah. Even in the Chitamatran world or Chitamatran view, you know, things function as they do, you know, as we’re familiar with.
You know, people can’t just what can one say, not eat or, you know, not carry on a normal function. Even in an external sense, you know, in a an external world that has extension. Right? In this virtual world of the Chitamatran or the mind only school, everything functions as if it was an external world. But in a way what the Cittamatrans are doing is they’re looking at karma and they’re saying, this karma just as karma works in a dream.
Right? In a dream, there’s karmic seeds manifesting that give rise to the dream. Right? And when we’re in the dream, we think, gosh, you know, it’s out there. The house is out there.
This is out there. And I’m there. And we’re interacting. Cittamātrins are saying, that’s how it actually is in the in the waking Right? Now in the dream, really non duality is established there.
The house in the dream and the dream awareness are not substantially different, are they? Same substance. Yes. So this is what the Cittamātrins do. Well, that’s right.
Well, even well, it’s like when we do sleep in a Cittamātra sense, we’re to dream within a dream. But there’s not many that hold that view. I might but, you know, some I’ve talked to Tibetan lamas in the past, and they say that, well, actually, these days that that sort of view may be really useful for Westerners. And maybe it’s something that will be taken up, you know, you know, become popular as a way of understanding, know, the world in general. I don’t know.
We’ve got computers in virtual worlds. So and there’s a lot of Right. Okay. They’re moving it along from there. We’ll go back to the prasangikas.
Now when the prasangikas look at that verse form is empty, emptiness is form and so on. They say that since it appears as form, since it appears as form it does not exist since it does not exist it appears as form. The disappearance of form does not exist and its non existence does not exist Actually, they’re saying here is they’re just saying that when they say it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t truly exist, doesn’t inherently exist and so on. The Prasangikas are saying that we don’t have to use an explanation like the the virtual explanation of the Chitamatran system, the dream explanation. We can understand the illusion on even a deeper level just by understanding things don’t inherently exist.
That’s sufficient. And that’s what there is an external reality, but that external reality doesn’t exist. When I say it doesn’t exist, I mean it doesn’t exist inherently or in the way it appears to exist. Okay. Now after that, it gives some examples of how things are empty from the from the the Prāsaṇgika point of view.
Alright. We’ll do the first one. For instance, yogurt that doesn’t exist at the time of the milk is an instance of being empty by not existing at a prior time. Now what the Prasangikas here are doing is they’re just looking at this verse itself. Form is empty.
Emptiness is form. So that’s negating. We’re negating form in that way. Form is empty. Emptiness is form.
We’re saying how form could be empty. And the prasangika is saying, well, what does it mean to be empty? In different ways, things are empty. Okay. So curd not existing at the time of the milk is curd is being empty by not existing at the time of its cause.
That makes sense? Alright. Okay. Another example. Milk not existing at the time it occurred is being empty by not existing through having disintegrated.
Alright. These are just examples of being empty. Does that make sense? Milk not existing at the time of the yogurt or the curd is being empty by not existing through having disintegrated. In other words, the milk has disintegrated by the time it becomes curd.
Right? Similarly, when something is curd it is the milk is empty at that stage because it’s empty of milk at that stage because the milk was its cause and it doesn’t exist at the time of the result. Maybe something like that. Is this useful? Okay.
Good. Here we’re just looking at what empty means. A vase not existing in the place where some something pot bellied does not exist is being empty but not existing at all. So for instance, there’s not a vase on the table because something that has the features of a vase doesn’t exist there at all. So it’s empty.
That space is empty of a vase because there is nothing there that’s of the shape or has the qualities of a vase. A human not existing when a stone pile is mistaken for a human is being empty by nature. Oh. Yeah. Mister McGoo.
Yep. Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yeah. Well, that’s a good example. Mister McGoo. Mister Magoo has taught us something. Oh, thinking it was.
Is. Oh, that’s right. We get we get afraid of things thinking that they’re like that, but actually, they’re they’re empty. So, like this instance here, a pile of rocks in the distance may look like a human, but actually it’s empty of a human. But we may think it’s a human.
Okay, this point I think is relatively okay. So what we’re talking about empty of form is empty. Emptiness is form. Form is empty of there being any truly existent form there. Anything truly existing there.
So here when we’re talking about empty, it’s empty by nature. So empty by nature the example of empty by nature is the emptiness of seeing a pile of stones in the distance and thinking it’s a human and then discovering it’s empty of a human. So the form is empty. That’s the type of empty that’s meant. So it’s not It’s empty of a vase.
Oh. Okay. This is a very it does exist. It does exist. But really, it’s empty of there being it.
Sorry? Oh, that’s one type that’s one type of being empty, but not the type of empty that’s meant here. Sorry. Oh, because Yep. What the example of being empty here was the example of a pile of stones appearing to be a human when there is no human there.
And it is this pile of atoms looks like a bowl, but there’s no truly existent bowl there. There’s a merely imputed bowl there. So it’s empty of a truly existent bowl. But we do label it a bowl, and that process process of labeling it as a bowl is accurate and true. But all that’s there, you know, is the basis of all that’s there is a basis of designation, one can say.
And that no one has to be very careful. There’s just an imputation from our side of the basis of designation being a Mere bowl exists, but there is no truly existent bowl or inherently existent bowl there. So does that make sense? Oh, yes. Oh, that was my fault.
Sorry about that. It probably was. I should have made it clear that that was not the example for it was it came up in here, you see. This is an example from here. Oh, well, that’s what I’m It it’s giving here, like, this list of what being empty means.
And so it started off with curd not existing at the time of the milk, is that being empty of whatever? And then milk not existing at the time of the curd is being empty by not existing through having the milk not existing through the milk having disintegrated, So we say it’s empty. Then a bar is not existing in a place where something Potbelly does not exist is being empty by not existing at all. Okay. That was the example.
Yeah. But there’s no absolutely no basis of of imputation of vase anywhere at all. So, you know, it’s empty of table is empty of any vase. Sorry? There’s not even anything we can tack vase to, the term vase to.
There was another one I left out as well. A horse not existing as an ox, is it being empty of one thing not existing as another? Alright. Yeah. That’s that’s I didn’t bring it up because I didn’t think it was gonna be that helpful, and it hasn’t improved.
It hasn’t. Oh, okay. We’ll just do a little bit more. Right. Not quite.
Their form is empty is going one way and emptiness is form is like going back the other way. Emptiness is not other than form is again restating that. It’s it’s really what can one say? First you’re looking at what something is and then what something is not. You have the division of those four four statements.
The first two are the affirmative and the second two are the negative two and the first two go one way and then the other and then the second two go one way then the other. So it’s really just clarifying the identity of of, emptiness. Yeah. Yes. It is not form.
There’s no emptiness of form. Yeah. Emptiness although the emptiness of emptiness exists, but in general the base a base of emptiness is something other than empty. It doesn’t. It doesn’t.
Even emptiness itself is empty of true existence. There’s no but if the emptiness of emptiness would truly exist, we’d be in trouble. That would be a you know? It’s said that things are empty of true existence, meaning that they are dependent origination, is indicates or what can one say? It’s an expression that everything is able to function.
In other words, if things were truly existent, nothing could function. Everything would be absolutely fixed in its own nature. It couldn’t change even on a coarse level. It couldn’t become anything else. Everything would be utterly immovable and unchanging and absolutely fixed.
But the fact that things, you know, everything functions and changes, interacts is an indication that they don’t truly exist. They don’t they’re not fixed in that sense. Yes, yes. The way we think things exist can’t exist in that way. Otherwise, they wouldn’t function.
Otherwise, things, you know, table couldn’t become something else and this couldn’t become that. You know? And when we try and find things, the more we look, the harder it is to, you know, to find them. Not because they don’t exist. It’s just the way we think they exist doesn’t exist.
I think like that anyway. So therefore it is said, in order to understand the mode of being empty, many examples have been formulated such as the illusion, an illusion, like a magician’s illusion or a dream or a mirage or the reflection of the moon in water or a snake. You know the one in the snake? The rope? Have a coiled rope in the dark.
We walk by and we catch this coiled object in the corner of our eye and we almost have a heart attack. But there’s no snake there, so there’s just an illusion of the snake and so on. But oh sorry okay. Sorry thought you said something? Oh, okay.
Good. But for the sake of explanation not all these examples are used in in this presentation. But amongst the ways for making the meaning empty clear, the example of the moon is often used as the an example for being empty. The example of the moon. And there’s a verse also by Smritijnanakīrti.
Smritijnanakīrti was an Indian Sanskrit scholar who wandered into Tibet. He went to Tibet maybe in the eleventh century. And it said that he went because he was looking for his mother who he thought had been reborn in Tibet as an insect. Now I’m not sure. That’s a popular story at the time regarding Smritijnanakirti, but he’s a great scholar.
And he lived in Tibet for many years, and he translated texts and so forth. And one day his student he had a student who studied with him for some years in Nepal. And one day his student was wandering along, and he came to this village and there was a hut of the shepherds there. And outside the hut of the shepherds there was a Sanskrit verse written. And he read it, and he recognized it.
Oh, this is Smritijnanakirti. He wrote this. And he asked, where’s the shepherd? And he said, oh, she’s, you know, down over there, but he’d be back. And so he anyway, he waited for him to come back, and then he invited him to go to the eastern part of Tibet.
But the verse that he wrote down is this. This was above his shepherd’s. That’s above the door in the shepherd’s hut. That which holds the rabbit that which holds the rabbit is the moon. The rabbit possessor.
Okay? When you look at the moon, especially when it’s full, can you see the rabbit? Anyone noticed a rabbit in the moon? In Tibetan, the moon is called the rabbit possessor. Yeah.
You can see it. Once you see it, do you see it? The rabbit. It’s got two big ears. There’s two big ears.
Sorry? I don’t think it’s the Easter rabbit. No. Yes, you do. Yeah.
But once you look at it and you see it, you see it. Yeah. There’s many stories. Well, legends written about the the rabbit in the moon. That which holds the rabbit possesses a garland of stars, meaning the moon possesses a garland of stars surrounding it.
But it is not seen to move in the sky at night. So the moon appears to just stay in the one That which appears in the clear lake is called the moon, but it is completely mistaken to hold this reflection to be the moon. So this indicates the example of the moon. In other words, when we see the moon reflected in a lake, we call it the moon or the moon is reflected in the lake. But it’s not the moon that’s reflected in the lake or the what we see reflected in the lake is not the moon.
Right? Oh, it it may be. Well, here I think the what’s saying is that especially we have a clear lake, you know, there’s not no ripples in it. And we see the that reflection of the moon, and we say that that is the moon. Yeah.
No, we don’t. But we tend to think that that is the moon appearing in the lake. Not in a coarse sense. Here we’re talking more on a subtle level. So, but that’s right.
We don’t think the moon is coming out of the lake. But No. It doesn’t. No. Yeah.
So here’s just an example of the lake is actually empty of a a moon. There is no moon appearing out of the lake or it’s just the reflection of the moon. It’s not the moon. So it’s used as an example. And here, the author author of this commentary says that it’s an excellent example to use.
But there’s a sub the subtle level of that analogy is what’s important for us. So okay. We might just leave it there. And we’ve done covered some difficult examples today. Ah, so, yeah, just if you have the time, good to reflect a little bit on those examples.
But if not, no problem. So we just do a quick dedication on page number six from the prayers of dedication right at the on the last verse on page six. Due to the merits of these virtuous actions, may I quickly attain the state of a Guru Buddha and lead all living beings without exception into that enlightened state. May the supreme jewel that has not arisen arise and grow, And may that which has arisen not diminish, but increase more and more. In the land encircled by snow mountains, you are the source of all happiness and good.
All powerful Chenrezig Tenzin Gyatso, please remain until Samsāra ends. You who behold the subdued moral way and serve as the bountiful bearer of all, sustaining, preserving and spreading Mañjuśrī’s victorious doctrine, who masterfully accomplished magnificent prayers honoring the Three Jewels. Protector of myself and others, your disciples, please, please live long. Oh, thank you for coming, and thank you for contribution and insights.