Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 45-minute commentary on verses 105–108 of the Wheel of Sharp Weapons, Ven Jampa Ignyen teaches on emptiness and dependent arising as ultimate medicine for cyclic existence. He begins with the foundational teaching that all objects lack independent existence—they are dependent arisings, established only in relation to their parts. Using concrete examples (a mala rosary, a cushion, clouds, mirror reflections), he explores how things appear to be truly existent but, under investigation, dissolve. He then shifts to the personal dimension: the self-cherishing “I” that we cling to so fiercely, though it has never been truly existent. This misapprehension of selfhood, he explains, is the root from which all anger, jealousy, attachment, and resentment arise. The teaching emphasizes patient analysis and the development of doubt about the way things appear. Pitched at practitioners with basic Buddhist background.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 01 Wheel of Sharp Weapons 2001 04 03.mp3
UUID: 2c77e2c8-7af4-426d-9c01-fa79a079b04e
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: y Wheel of Sharp Weapons 2011 Month 04 (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001-04-03
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.9 minutes
Words: ~5,055
Various negative attitudes that we have. When we get depressed for this reason, when we get upset by that, when we feel cheated by that situation and so on. When anything like that comes up, we can go to this particular text and look up that section. You know, whenever I’m feeling unhappy about this or I don’t want to listen to what other people are telling me, if I’m feeling sick, feeling depressed, then the cause inevitably is our own negative actions of the past. So this is a strong medicine.
And, of course, that’s what dharma is. Dharma is medicine. And we can apply or take this medicine in a variety of ways. And that’s what the Dharma is. Dharma is medicine.
In fact, as it said that the Three Jewels are like a doctor, the medicine, and the nurses.. The jewel of Buddha is like the doctor. The jewel of Dharma is like the medicine. The jewel of Sangha are like the nurses. And we like the sick person.
Because if we don’t realize that we like the sick person, we’ll never turn to a doctor and medicine and nurses to help us. It’s a little bit like if we don’t realize we’re in a prison, we’re never gonna think to escape from the prison. So this text, in a in a way, it reminds us that we need to take medicine. We need to find a way out of the prison of our current situation. But, of course, we need to realize that we’re like a sick person or it’s as if we’re in jail before these types of instruction really become pertinent to us.
So, anyway, prior to this verse, verse one zero five, then has given various examples of how we should act, how we can apply the opponent, how we can apply preventative measures to the problems that we experience. From this point on, and of course, in the previous verses from prior to one zero five, the main teaching is on relative bodhicitta, or we could also call that concealer bodhicitta or deceptive, or maybe concealer bodhicitta is better. Beyond that, then we’re dealing with ultimate bodhicitta. And so when we’re dealing with ultimate bodhicitta, we’re dealing with emptiness itself. And emptiness is the supreme method, supreme medicine.
The former types of medicine are applied, you know, in particular contexts. But really, the supreme medicine is the understanding of emptiness itself. If we’re able to understand the actual mode, the final mode of abidance of ourselves and all other beings, the entire universe, our mind and mental states, our feelings, our emotions, and so forth. If we’re able to understand how these actually exist, then this is the best medicine for overcoming our current situation, the problems and limitations that we currently experience. But, of course, understanding ultimate bodhicitta takes time.
We need a great deal of patience. We need a great deal of patience because our ignorance is very, very strong, very extensive. It’s always with us, either manifest or unmanifest. And and we have different types of ignorance. We have ignorance, in relation to the law of cause and effect.
We have ignorance in relation to selflessness, ignorance in relation to emptiness, duality, non duality, and so forth. So we got various instances of ignorance. In fact, we have innumerable, countless instances, and these need to be overcome. How do we overcome them? Really, in the beginning, we need to understand what ignorance is.
At present, it doesn’t seem as if we have much ignorance. We’re quite aware of what’s happening in the world, in this room, and so on. And it seems as if we’re quite aware of what needs to be known, that our understanding is so small, it’s like a matchstick in comparison to the sun, like a little candle, if that. The understanding is of the the understanding of the Buddha is like the sun. It’s pure, immaculate, not stained by anything whatsoever, and it illuminates the entire universe.
It’s even greater than the sun. Our sun only illuminates a certain amount, but the wisdom of the Buddha completely illuminates the entire universe. Our understanding and comparison is very weak, and it it’s a little bit like the of a candle or maybe a torch. We can understand a little bit here. If we direct the mind over there, we understand a little bit over there.
And we tend to think, oh, that’s all that we need to know. That’s sufficient. I can get by with that much understanding. But in a way, being satisfied with that level of understanding is the very sign itself of our current ignorance. And this is something we need to think about because the understanding of a Buddha is completely omniscient.
There’s nothing they don’t understand. Even the understanding of a liberated being is vast and immeasurable. And they pretty much comprehend their situation, how this current situation has arisen and all the situation has arisen and all the pretty much they understand everything. So in a sense, this is what we gradually need to accomplish ourselves. And this type of understanding is achieved through developing, ultimate bodhicitta.
Ultimate bodhicitta is attained at the beginning of the path of seeing. It doesn’t exist prior to the path of seeing. Everyone’s aware of the five paths. Is everyone aware of the five paths? Anyone not?
The path to enlightenment is made up of five paths, the path of accumulation, the path of preparation, the path of seeing, the path of meditation, the path of no more learning. Where are we at present? Absolutely. We’re as yet, we haven’t got to the path of accumulation. How do we know we haven’t got there yet?
In order to enter the first part, the path of accumulation, one needs bodhicitta. Generating bodhicitta is the measure, the gateway to the great vehicle, to the path of accumulation of the great vehicle. So unless we have bodhicitta, we haven’t entered the path of accumulation. How would we know if we had bodhicitta? Right.
We wouldn’t have self-cherishing if we had bodhicitta. Of course, we still have ignorance, but we would have overcome self-cherishing. This very this attitude that holds ourselves as most important to the exclusion of other beings. But one who attains the path of seeing in a great vehicle also achieves ultimate bodhicitta. So in the path of accumulation, one achieves relative bodhicitta or concealer bodhicitta, and one on the path of seeing attains the ultimate bodhicitta.
Ultimate bodhicitta is the non-conceptual comprehension of emptiness, the non conceptual realization of emptiness. That is ultimate bodhicitta. When it’s in the continuum of a bodhisattva, it’s not ultimate bodhicitta in a continuum of a non-bodhisattva. Right. So from verse number one zero five, then we’re dealing, really with the nature of emptiness itself.
So here, it’s a emptiness is described using various words. So in the beginning of one zero five, it said, oh, mind, understand the topics discussed here, Our interdependent phenomena or for things must rely on dependent arising. To have an existence, they cannot stand alone. The process of change is alluring like magic. For physical form is but mental appearance, as a torch whirling round seems a circle of flame.
Right. So here, he is beginning with the instruction on emptiness, and he says, all these objects are like dependent arisings. Alas or ah, these objects are like dependent arisings. They are dependent arisings. What is dependent arising?
Tendrel in Tibetan. A dependent relationship. Dependent arising. A dependent arising is anything that exists in dependence or is established in dependence on something other than itself. That’s what a dependent arising is.
So we’re a dependent arising. Everything that we look at is a dependent arising. Our minds are a dependent arising. The world itself, the earth is a dependent arising. The universe is a dependent arising.
All impermanent entities throughout the universe are dependent arisings. All permanent entities throughout the universe are dependent arisings. They are established in dependence on their parts. And being established in dependence on its parts means that it is empty of true existence. So here in the beginning, Dharmarakshita is saying, ah, all these objects that we’re aware of, everything that we’re aware of is dependent.
It’s not independent. They don’t just come about, from their own side. Independent of anything else. That seems okay. We can accept that.
However, we still strongly hold that things are truly established. We have strong habits to see things in that way, so it’s not not something we give up we can give up straight away because things appear to be established from their own side. We appear to be established from our own side. External objects appear to be established from their own side. Everything.
It’s true. Everything appears this appears to be established from its own side. It appears to be there. If we have to point to it, we say, there it is. And it’s there, isn’t it?
That rosary is there. I have say, where is it? It’s in my left hand. But where is the rosary exactly? Well, it’s sort of there.
We’d sort of point to the middle of it, wouldn’t we? However, if we were to take it all apart and spread it all around the room, where would it be? Where’s the mala? Where is it? Does it still exist?
It doesn’t exist anymore, does it? But what what’s the difference between the mala that exists there and, you know, simply, you know, you could cut the thread, you know, take all the beads off it and put them around the room, different parts. Still the substance of all the parts of the mala is there, but where’s the mala? True. We conceive it to be a mala as it is, but when it’s divided up into its parts, we no longer conceive it to be a mala.
Everything is similar to that. Everything is a dependent arising. It depends on its parts. Or in another way, we can say that it depends on its basis of imputation. The the basis of imputation of the mala or the rosary are the bits that make it up.
They’re just like us. We’re just composed of bits and pieces, an arm and a two arms, two legs, a head, a body, some emotions, some mind consciousness, a bit of life force, And then we can go inside. We got, you know, bones and tissues and heart, lungs, and so forth. But that’s what that’s our basis of imputation. On the mind body continuum, we impute I.
And in a sense, that’s what we are. We’re just something imputed upon our mind body. In reality, that’s what we are. But we overestimate what is there, and that’s the ignorance which is at the the very root of saṃsāra or cyclic existence. So here in this first line, Dharmarakshita is saying, ah, all these objects dependent arisings.
Here, everything. All these other beings, even my own problems, myself, everything is just a dependent arising. They’ve established in dependence on their parts. Everything that exists exists. Only exists in dependence on its parts.
This reasoning itself is said to be the king of all reasons. Everything in the universe is empty of inherent existence because it’s because those objects, they are dependent on their parts. They are dependent arisings. In fact, we need no other reason. And then as then goes on to say, all these things are dependent arisings, are dependent phenomena or since they rely on dependent arising, they are not self created.
So because they’re a dependent arising, arising, they don’t create themselves.. In a way, it appears to us as if things are self created, that we are established from our own side, independent of anything else. We appear that way to ourselves. Everything else appears that way to us as well. The cushion in the middle of the room appears to be existent there in and of itself.
It looks that way, and in fact, that appearance occurs even to our eye awareness. It occurs to the conceptual awareness holding that cushion. There is an appearance there of it existing from its own side. In fact, it doesn’t actually exist in that way. It’s true.
We can we can establish this even from science. From the point of view of science, it’s ninety nine point nine nine nine nine nine percent of space, isn’t it? This is atoms and molecules. Those atoms are made up of a nucleus and, electrons floating around the nucleus, aren’t they? And there’s ninety most of it is space.
So, really, even though we know by reasoning, by logic, that there’s most of what is there is space, it appears to be solid and an object. For that reason, even science is approaching middle way view. Even his holiness has mentioned this. That in fact, if we try to find the cushion, when we examine the cushion, the actual cushion, no matter how much we take it apart, we don’t find a cushion. The cushion itself is not findable in its parts.
Why isn’t it findable? Because it’s a dependent arising. If it were findable, it would be truly existent. If it were truly existent, it would be absolutely fixed. If we were truly existent, we’d be absolutely fixed, and there’d be no way of us changing or developing.
The very fact that we’re impermanent is an indication that we’re a dependent arising. So here, is saying, all objects are dependent arising. Since they rely on dependent arising, they are not self created. They’re not they can’t stand alone. Even though they appear that way, we look around, we things appear to be able to stand on stand on their own, pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
That’s how things appear to us, as if they’re there, self created, independent. Don’t rely on anything else. However, Dharmarakshita then goes on to say, but since they transform into this or that, since they change, here he’s talking specifically, he’s talking specifically about impermanent entities. Since they change into this or that, they are false appearance and illusion. So we take impermanent entities because they change, Then they are false appearance, only an illusion.
So all these objects that appear fixed and existing from their own side because they change. They’re like an illusion. They’re false appearance. Unlike a firebrand, they’re they’re a reflection of appearance. A firebrand here is this torch whirling.
All things are like this. If we get a torch, for instance, and we spin it quickly at night, it appears as if there’s a circle there. And, of course, but there’s no circle there. There’s only a point of light going around in the circle. But when we look at it, we think there’s a circle.
Objects are like that. They appear as if they’re truly existent. But really when we examine, we can see that they’re just dependent arisings, and they don’t exist in the way they appear to exist. We’re so attached to things existing in the way they appear to us that it feels as if if we talk about this, we’re actually giving up something that we had before. It’s like, wait a minute.
If they’re truly existent, at least, you know, I can engage in them, I can use them and taste them and experience them and so on. But if we talk about them not being truly existent, it appears as if almost we’re losing something when we start talking about dependent arising and emptiness. That’s because of our attachment, our attachment based upon the ignorance that we have of viewing objects as being truly existent. But in fact, all objects are a little bit like a firebrand, a little bit like the circle of a firebrand. If we investigate them, we can’t find them.
If we investigate the circle of the firebrand, there’s no circle there. Is there? There’s no circle at all. It’s just a point of light, isn’t it? It’s a bit like the object in the mirror.
When we look into a mirror, we think there’s someone there or we, generally, we don’t. But there’s an appearance of someone being there. Sometimes when we walk past a mirror, we think it’s another person. We look, oh, no. It’s me.
It’s just a reflection. Or there’s there’s other ones where they have these the face is like a reverse image of a face, you know, imprinted. It’s a little bit like a a mold of a face with eyes painted in it. And when you walk past it, it appears to be following you around. You’ve seen that?
You’ve seen that? Yeah. This is just appearance. But the appearance of things being truly existent is very strong, So it’s hard for us to oppose it. But here, the main thing is that we develop at least a doubt about whether the way things appear to us is exactly how they actually exist.
It said that if we develop a little bit of a bit of fear in this type of meditation, it’s a good sign. There’s a story about, Jetsün Milarepa when he was teaching on emptiness, once. And he’s teaching away, and then suddenly one of monks grabbed himself by the shirt. You know the monk shirts? They have this thing here, the gönkar.
And he grabbed himself and pulled him. And, apparently, at that point, laughed and he said, oh, yes. He’s found the object of negation. It suddenly dawned on him then what emptiness meant. And so he grabbed himself to see if he was still there or not.
So this type of analysis is very important, but very important that we take it very slowly because the benefit comes through a great deal of patience. It doesn’t come straight away. You know, we hear stories about certain practitioners. They go out and, you know, they may have some realization the first day of retreat or even Zen practitioners who just in a one conversation, they gain some insight. But really, any insight that we have comes through hard work.
It’s all hard work, and it takes a huge amount of patience on our side. And the hard work is really persevering with these topics and thinking through them and reflecting on them many, many times over. Because ultimately, we have to identify the object of negation. Identify the object of negation, and there’s no way of realizing emptiness unless we comprehend the object of negation. Right.
Then in verse number one zero six, there is nothing substantial to one’s life force. It crumbles apart like a water soaked log. There is nothing substantial to anyone’s lifespan. It bursts in an instant like bubbles of foam. All the things of this world have a fog like appearance.
When closely examined, they fade out of sight. Like mirages, these things at a distance seem lovely. But when we come closer, they are not to be found. So here, this water soaked log in Tibetan is a which really means water tree. Water tree is sometimes translated as a banana plant.
Sometimes it’s translated as anything else like a water soaked log. But here it means something that appears solid, a type of tree that appears solid. But you go up and you, you know, you grab it and it just there’s nothing there. Just a, you know, a bit of bark on the outside and there’s no pith to it. No nothing solid to it.
So then here it’s saying that like a a water soaked log or like a plantain tree, like a banana plant, life force has no pith, has no essence. So our life force, we have it present. As long as we continue to live, we have life force. When our life force is severed, of course, we pass away. What is our life force?
It’s that which supports consciousness may being maintained in our physical body. It also supports the body having heat. So, really, it has two functions. But even our life force at present, which is really at the basis of our current existence, that has no essence, no pith. Meaning that although we tend to rely on it, we think our life will continue and continue.
Really, our life force is just the dependent arising. It’s just held there by various conditions. It appears to be solid, but not necessarily solid. Unlike a bubble, our lifespan has no pith or essence. So even our lifespan, whether it’s five more years or one more year or ten years or twenty or fifty or whatever, even that is something that doesn’t have an essence.
It’s not something in a sense solid. Not something that we can rely on as being solid. And like and then all things in the world like a fog like appearance or like a haze, objects dissipate when approached. Actually, our objects are a little bit like a type of haze that when we see in a distance, we see a haze and it appears to be something quite solid. But when we get close to it, it just almost disappears as we as we enter it.
It’s no longer there. Objects are like that. From a distance, they appear to be solid. As we approach them, they dissipate. Yet those same objects from a distance appear very attractive.
So objects are like this. Everything that we deal with day to day, these objects are when we examine them closely, they we can’t find them. They dissipate. When we extend back and look at them, they look very attractive. So this is the nature of objects, and that’s an indication that they’re dependent.
If they were truly existent, it wouldn’t matter how close or how far we got from them. They’d always they’d be fixed in their nature. But because if we closely examine objects, we can’t find them. That’s an indication that they are empty of true existence. They’re dependent arisings.
Then in verse one zero seven, all things are images found in a mirror, and yet we imagine they are real, very real. So like a reflection in a mirror, they appear as if they’re true. So even when we look at ourselves in a mirror, we take that reflection to be true. All objects are similar to that. They appear as if they’re true, but they’re not actually true.
Our image in the mirror appears to be us. But, actually, even though we understand that the image in the mirror is just a reflection, it’s not really, you know, me in the mirror. All objects are actually like that. They appear to be truly existent, but they don’t actually exist in that way. And then all things are like mist or like clouds on a mountain, and yet we imagine they are stable and firm.
So like a cloud cloud or mist, objects like a cloud or mist appear as if they abide. It appears as if they actually exist somewhere. They abide like clouds on a mountain. Clouds on a mountain appear to be there, but they don’t actually exist there in a in an actual sense. Our foe, our insistence on ego identities truly are truly our own, which we wish were secure.
And I, butcher, the self-concern for ourselves. Like all things, these appear to be truly existent, though they never have been truly existent at all. So now the second part of that verse sorry. I’m also using another translation here as well, so I’m going between two. So all these objects appear as if they are truly existent.
Even this enemy self, this self-cherishing, enemy self, they appear as if they exist. Even the eye that’s so close to me that I’m always thinking about, this eye that is the object, the focal object of the thought, I’m gonna, you know, get up and get a cup of tea or I’m gonna lie down on my knees. This thought we have all the time that focuses on I and my. But even this I or my, as we can see it, doesn’t exist in that way. It appears to exist as if it truly exists.
It appears as if it exists in and of itself, but it doesn’t actually exist that way. If it does exist that way, then there’s nothing we can do about it. Whatever we experience now, that’s how it is. Religion’s not gonna help. The path is not gonna help.
So in one sense, we better hope that it’s not truly existent because otherwise, the I is totally fixed, whatever we experience, that’s how it is. So here, the author is saying that even the eye itself appears as if it’s truly existent. But such such a true type of existence has never been experienced by anyone anywhere. Even the Dalai Lama said that if scientists can prove the existence of the self, then Buddhists must accept it. If science somewhere in America or Europe can come up with ten milligrams of I, then absolutely we have to accept it.
Or if it’s in the gene somewhere, if the eye is there, if we can come up, we got the gene for this, we got the gene for that. And if we can locate one strand of a gene that every being has in the universe, and that’s the gene that turns on the eye thought, okay, then Buddhist will have to accept that. In general, we don’t think we don’t think that the eye is the problem. In general, we think everything other than the eye is the problem. It’s them that’s making me unhappy.
It’s the fact that this, my car got scratched. It’s making me unhappy. But here, it really is this enemy self, meaning this grasping at a self and the self-cherishing that arises along with that. That is the the basic problem. The the source of our our current problems.
It appears to be completely the reverse of that. It appears to us as if the eye is fine, no problem with the eye. The eye has been trying from the very beginning of this life to do their very best to be happy and not harm other people. At times, you gotta, you know, inflict a bit of pain on others because, you know, to preserve the self and protect the eye and and so on. We tend to think this eye is okay.
It’s got a few faults here and there, but it’s not too bad. If there’s any problem, it’s probably, you know, with everyone else that just doesn’t know how to deal with the eye. They don’t appreciate the eye. I’ll be patient with them.. They’ll come to learn that the eye is okay.
My eye or the way I hold my eye is okay. But it’s hard for us to really understand that the way we hold the eye is our worst possible enemy. But this we need a lot of time to develop an understanding of. But if in the beginning we can develop some doubt, just a little doubt that, oh, maybe the way I’m grasping the I is not valid. The thought of I is not a valid thought.
The way I hold the eye is not a valid thought, not a valid conception. Even if we can develop a little doubt, tiny doubt, then that can be very beneficial because it’s really based on this thought of I that our anger arises, our hatred arises, our deceit arises, our jealousy arises, envy, arrogance, pretension, pride, doubt, attachment, etcetera, etcetera. This whole, oh, this whole lot of baggage that we carry along with us all the time is really coming coming from this thought of I. But here, Dharmarakshita is saying, even this slaughtering-enemy self, which he’s referring to here as the I-grasping, That I-grasping holds an eye, and we think that eye actually exists in the way it appears to exist. But their existence has never been experienced.
They have never been truly existent at all. There isn’t a type of I that’s truly existent. That’s the mere I. That exists. We have a mere I.
It’s the focal object of the thought eye. We when we have a thought eye, that thought eye is a conception, which has two types of object. It has an appearing object and a held object, appearing object and a reference object. The reference object of that thought eye is the truly existent eye. The focal object, here, the appearing object, the focal object is the mere I.
The mirror eye does exist. The the eye which is truly existent or independent and so on doesn’t exist. The I that appears to exist from its own side doesn’t exist. Anyway, this point is very important, but, it will come up again. Then on the next verse, one zero eight, although they appear to be concrete and real, they have never been real anytime anywhere.
Or in other words, they appear to be true, but their truth has never been experienced. All these objects appear to be true, don’t they? They appear to be true. So that’s a true cushion there, and that’s a true door. This door is a real a real door, isn’t it?
Now if there was ever a real well, it’s a door frame. It’s not really a door. There’s ever a real door frame, it’s this one here. Look. It’s big, and it’s got some stained glass up the top there.
And if anyone said, is it a real door frame? Of course, it says, it’s a real door frame. It’s a true door frame, a truly real door frame because that’s the way it appears to us. It appears as if it exists from its own side, independent of causes and conditions, independent of its basis of designation, independent of its parts. In a way, it’s dependent in three ways.
It’s dependent on its causes and conditions, dependent on its base basis of imputation and