Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 93-minute talk, Ven Thubten Dondrub guides students through the core teachings of Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika philosophy, the highest Buddhist view according to the Tibetan tradition. He begins by establishing the Mahāyāna motivation—why we practise emptiness not for ourselves alone but to free all sentient beings from suffering. Using the classical rope-and-snake analogy, he shows how the mind creates false appearances of inherent existence in all phenomena, then explores how this false view compares to the illusion of a mirage or a dream. He outlines the four schools of Buddhist philosophy, explaining that while the first two schools teach selflessness of the person, only the Mādhyamika schools teach emptiness of all phenomena. The Prāsaṇgika school uniquely asserts that nothing exists from its own side at all—neither under its own power nor with any intrinsic nature—though things are not nonexistent; they arise only dependently on causes, conditions, parts, and the mind’s labeling. Throughout, he emphasises that intellectual understanding is not enough: practitioners must learn to identify their own actual experience of inherent existence, then use that recognition to destabilise the false grasping. The talk includes extensive student questions and practical guidance on meditation focusing on dependent arising.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 2015 01 27 DB Wisdom Of Emptiness Week 3 27012015.mp3
UUID: ff27fd46-86ba-455e-8cc0-b7e7c51b9b99
Teacher: Ven Thubten Dondrub
Collection: DB Wisdom of Emptiness (Ven Thubten Dondrub)
Date: 2015-01-27
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 93.4 minutes
Words: ~9,837
Oh. So welcome everyone to our third class on discovering Buddhism, the course on the wisdom of emptiness. So the discovering Buddhism program is about discovering Buddhism from a Mahāyāna perspective. And so the special feature of the Mahāyāna is it emphasizes that all sentient beings have Buddha nature, that we all have the potential to achieve enlightenment, and the and the Mahāyāna teachings encourage us to do that rather than just achieve a good rebirth or liberation from cyclic existence. And the reason is that if we just achieve liberation, that benefits ourselves, but no one else really.
Whereas by achieving enlightenment, we were in a potentially in a situation to be of perfect lasting benefit to all sentient beings. And why should we be of per try to be of perfect and lasting benefit to all sentient beings? Because they have all been immensely kind to us life after life in beginningless Samsāra. We we have always we we right now, in the past, while we continue to remain in cyclic existence, we totally depend on them. To get out of cyclic existence, we depend on them to achieve enlightenment, which brings about our own perfect benefit.
The only way that will happen is depending on sentient beings. So they’re immensely kind, especially we’ve all received the kindness of a mother from every sentient being an inconceivable number of times. So that’s one reason to become enlightened. The other main reason is because these beings are suffering in cyclic existence, and we can’t just work for our own happiness depending on them to help us achieve happiness and leave them to suffer. The best way that we can repay their kindness is to help them become totally free of suffering, and more than that, help them to achieve realize their Buddha potential and achieve pure everlasting happiness.
So to do that, we have to achieve enlightenment. And to achieve enlightenment, there are many, many things that we have to do, unfortunately. But but, fortunately, they’re all good things and enjoy ultimately, good things and beneficial, enjoyable things to do. But the most important thing that we have to do is to free our mind of all obscurations, the obscurations to liberation and the obscurations to omniscience, because there is no other way to achieve enlightenment than that through removing those obscurations. But by removing those, enlightenment manifests.
The enlightened state manifests. If we don’t remove them, enlightenment doesn’t occur. It cannot occur. The potential is there every moment to be a Buddha. Right?
In this in the Nyingmapa tradition, they say we already are Buddhas. We just don’t know it. But it all comes down to the same thing. We’re either Buddhas and don’t know it, or we’re obscured Buddhas, potential Buddhas. But the only way to know we are Buddhas is to get rid of the obscurations preventing us knowing that we’re Buddhas so we can behave like Buddhas.
And the only way to get rid of those obscurations is developing the wisdom that that directly perceives experiences the true nature of our self and all phenomena so we can develop that wish to develop that wish to to study the teachings on emptiness, to practice them, realize them, not only for our own sake, but especially for the sake of all kind mother sentient beings. So please, as much as you can, try and generate that bodhicitta motivation for studying this subject. And as we try and develop that motivation, we can strengthen that by reciting the traditional prayer, which is on page eleven. And as we do that, it’s helpful to visualize the Śākyamūni Buddha in front of us as the very embodiment of the Three Jewels of refuge and the embodiment of all perfect teachers of the past, present, and future, and at the same time, of all sentient beings surrounding us, starting with our parents on either side, trying to think of how they are not only kind but also suffering. I go for refuge until I’m enlightened to the Buddha, Dharma, and the Supreme Assembly by the merits I create by teaching the Dharma.
May I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings? So then we can imagine imagine the Buddha coming to the to the crown of our head. And then when directly above our crown, we imagine the Buddha dissolving into blissful golden light, which pours down into us, blessing our mind to be able to understand these teachings, blessing our mind to be able to practice them correctly so that eventually at some point, we’ll be able to gain a direct authentic realization of the wisdom, realizing the true nature of all things. And then just briefly, we can do the nine round breathing exercise to allow our mind to become just a little bit more calmer, clearer, and concentrated so that we can use that level of mind to listen to and think about the Buddha’s teachings tonight. Okay.
Thank you. So tonight, I I want to talk briefly about just just very, very, very briefly about what are the four philosophical schools of Buddhism and then sort of to talk a little bit more detail about the the main or what’s considered the most important according to the Tibetan tradition, the the highest school of Buddhist philosophy, which is called the Prāsaṇgika School. Probably would have been good if I had the white board, but it doesn’t matter. Do you wanna why not? Yes.
With pen. So right. So before we get into those, I just wanna talk about a traditional analogy analogy that is a story that is given that I’ve mentioned many times before here. So some of you have heard it already about fifteen times and will be bored silly, but I’m sorry. I have to and and probably most of you have heard this example, but it’s very it’s very simple, very basic, but it’s extremely helpful to understand this point.
So to illustrate how our mind is obscured and is creating false appearances all the time. Because until we we meet the teachings, as I’ve said before, we never question what appears to our mind. We just assume that that whatever we are experiencing and we’re not even conscious that we’re assuming this, that whatever we experience is correct. And, of course, every now and again, we have little confrontations with people who say that you’re wrong, that what your experience is wrong, and sometimes we admit that, but that never convinces us. That never leads us to really doubt that maybe our whole way of experiencing is wrong, that those are just little glimpses, minor mistakes we are making, and that underlying that is a consistent mistake we’re making about everything, absolutely everything.
But since everyone else is making the same mistake, it’s very difficult to realize that. That is why the Buddha came to to show us this, to to point this out. So the there’s this little analogy that is given that of of the snake, the rope and the snake. So that if one was in a room at night time and you walked out of that room through a door very quickly into the dark night, and on outside next to the door, there was a coiled rope, a striped, a multicolored coiled rope. So it would be possible because of moving quickly and not really paying attention because it was very dark and you’re moving from a lighted room into the darkness, you could look down at at what is actually a coiled rope, and you would mistake that for a snake.
And you would mistake that for a snake. And you would think and believe that you had seen a snake. Yeah. So this kind of thing happens quite regularly. It is quite possible to, like, in Australia to see a stick and think it’s a snake, or you can see someone in the distance and think it’s a friend and it turns out to be a stranger.
You can you can actually be looking at a post in the distance and think it’s a human being. But as you get closer, you realize, oh, it’s not what you thought it was. So there are a number of interesting things about that example that the mind creates an illusion that is very, very convincing. So that appearance of a snake is something that is very real to our mind. We don’t doubt that when it’s appearing that we are actually seeing a snake.
But in reality, there isn’t a snake there at all. There, you know, there’s no snake there whatsoever, but our mind creates creates an extremely convincing illusion to the the of a snake. Yeah. So what is not there at all, our mind is seeing, or even our eyes are seeing. Even our eyes are seeing.
Our eye consciousness is creating the illusion of a snake, and our mental consciousness grasps that what the eye consciousness is seeing is true. And, therefore, we believe there is a snake there, and we get frightened and run away. So what is not there at all so that itself is quite amazing, that what is not there at all, we see. Yeah. And what is probably equally amazing, if not more amazing, that what is there, there is a rope there.
There’s actually conventionally a rope there. We don’t see it. What is there, we don’t see. What is not there, we see and believe. Alright?
And that’s what and the Buddha is saying this is what we are doing right now, all of us, all the time, that everything we’re experiencing, what we are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking is not there at all. Not at at all. Which doesn’t mean and this is where people make the mistake with one of the extremes that the Buddhist the Buddhist teachings are saying nothing exists. It’s just saying that what we are experiencing is it doesn’t exist even though it appears to. Because if you go back to the analogy of the snake and the rope, while the mind is seeing the snake or and believing it’s put it this way.
While the mind firstly, in a moment, it sees the the illusion is created due to many factors of the snake, and then the mind grasps that that is true and holds on to that. It believes I have seen a snake. While that is belief is operating and the mind is grasping that, you the mind does not see the rope. Yeah. You can’t see the rope while you’re experiencing the illusion of the snake.
Snake. But once you see this the rope, you won’t see the snake. Once you start seeing the rope, you won’t won’t grasp at the illusion of the snake. Once you’ve come to the realization, oh, there is a rope there, then you won’t see the snake. You won’t believe you’ve seen a snake.
You you’ll know you’ve experienced an illusion. Right. So right now so there is a snake there. Oh, sorry. There is a rope there.
There is something existing. Yeah. So what we’re experiencing is an illusion like the snake, but there is that illusion is based on something that is existing. But what is existing, this is the tricky bit, is not inherently existing. It’s just it’s existing.
Get this. Wait for this. The snake is an illusion. It’s a complete illusion. What is existing, the Buddha says, is like an illusion because it’s there, but it’s not inherently existing.
It’s not truly existing. It’s not substantially existing. It’s not existing from its own side. It’s not existing under its own power. It is what is merely arising dependent on many, many factors, on causes and conditions, conditions, on parts, and especially our own mind.
Everything is arising like a rainbow, just momentarily and dependently. But it doesn’t appear the way we experience that is we don’t there’s a snake oh, there is a rope, but we don’t experience the rope as a rope due to delusion you know, darkness and everything. We experience it in a completely different way. So that’s what we’re right now, we’re experiencing an illusion. The illusion is there.
This is the point also. The illusion is there, but there’s no reality to that illusion. The illusion the the illusion that we’re experiencing is that ourself, all phenomena are inherently existing. There’s an inherently existing pair of glasses, an inherently existing water, glass, clock, whatever that is, thing, container, container, table. What we see is an inherent what we experience are inherently existing sites, inherently existing sounds, sounds, inherently existing smells, inherently existing tastes, inherently existing tactile sensations, and in inherently existing mental experiences, and there is no such thing as something inherently existing.
Just like, to to use an another analogy, due again, due to causes and conditions in the desert, a mirage creates the illusion of water. So the appearance of water is there, but there is no water. The appearance exists, but it has no the the the appearance appearance of water exists, but there is no water. So right now, there is the appearance of an inherently existing stuff. It appears definitely to our mind as inherently existing or truly existing or substantially existing or existing from its own side under its own power.
These are all ways of describing the the one thing, the one false appearance. That appearance is there, but there is no such thing as an inherently existing phenomena, a truly existing phenomena, a substantially existing phenomena, a phenomena that exists from its own side even though it everything is appearing that way. And the way things do exist is best described, most easily described as arising independently. The great Tsongkhapa, the founder of our tradition, the the Gelugpa tradition, says the easiest way to understand the way things do exist and therefore to destroy the wrong wrong view is to understand how they arise. The only way they exist is arising dependently.
Because as I tried to say last week, if things existed the way they appear to our mind, it would mean that they were completely independent. They existed independently. They don’t actually appear to us to be independent completely. But if they did exist the way we think they do, the way we grasp that they do, logically, it would follow that they were independent. I don’t know if this is probably you know, in other words, if you see someone if you see Superman flying in a movie, this guy flying in the air in the movie, if things really did exist that way, it would mean all humans could fly, humans could fly, but they can’t.
Logically, it would follow that human beings can fly in the air without any just by themselves, but human beings can’t do that. So maybe that’s not a very good example anyway. So the implication of something appearing inherently, truly, substantially from its own side under its own power is that it would have to be an independent phenomenon, meaning not depending on anything on anything. But as soon as you start to investigate, one starts to discover that things do depend on stuff, all sorts of stuff. They depend on causes and conditions.
They depend on parts, and they depend on the mind, which is the most amazing subtle aspect of dependent arising. This is the most important profound part to to come to a real understanding, a deep understanding that the only way things can exist is depending on the mind. So I’ve now jumped ahead of myself. Anyway, any comments so far? Comments so far?
Was that clear? Sort of clear. Yes. Yes. No.
Well, I mean, that’s a to be honest, that’s a bit of a vague question. You’d have to clarify it a bit more. Yeah. And the mind. Mhmm.
Yeah. This is a very good question. Yeah. Does it depend just on my mind or or everybody’s mind? Well, for me to experience this table, it definitely depends on my mind.
Yeah. Yes. It does. Yes. Well, of course, for things to for oneself to experience anything, it definitely depends on one’s own mind.
But just because one’s own mind isn’t experiencing something at the moment, that doesn’t mean that that thing is not existing. It just just means it’s not existing for oneself at the moment. You know? I can’t see president Obama at the moment or hear him or smell him or taste him or touch him or whatever, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Exist.
Right? Right. But that also, that still doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Right. We’re getting into heavy territory before I I was gonna gently lead up to all of this, but finished the course already.
That that is true. Yeah. Yeah. But that but that’s because he did exist. We we can’t we don’t know if he’s still existing.
Yeah. This is the point. But even though we can’t hear, smell, taste, and all those things, actually, we can logically assume through our mind that he still does exist because if he didn’t, there’d be a huge hoo Although the hoo could be going on right now, but you know? Yes. Simple questions.
Not questions. Not yes. Why? But it is a table, isn’t it? Mhmm.
Mhmm. Mhmm. But it is a table. Table. It really is a table.
Yeah. It’s not anything else. When you see it as it is, you don’t see it as an elephant. It’s a table. You will see an you’ll see a table.
Table. An empty table. Yes. A rose is a rose. Because you can see it.
Wait. Wait. Yes. Yes. That’s it.
Yeah. Let me say all those things. Yeah. Stop. Stop.
Oh, you started again. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
And you’re moving quickly and things. Yeah. Yeah. No. Well, that that was just an analogy.
Right? So right now, our eye consciousness is seeing everything full. Like I said, all our consciousness are experiencing things as inherently existing. Yes. Yes.
All our consciousnesses are mistaken. But that analogy of the snake and rope was just to a rough idea that, you know, the consciousness, in this case, it’s the mainly the eye consciousness, creates a false appearance that isn’t that is very real, but is actually not true at all. So this is one of the points to understand that just because something is appearing to our mind, any, you know, our eye consciousness, any consciousness, just because it is appearing and convincingly, that doesn’t mean it’s true, that it’s real. But that’s that’s what we assume, you know, and that’s why we suffer, you know, because we because things appear to us to be beautiful, ugly, good, bad. Yeah.
And it’s and it feels it appears extremely concretely that way, that there’s it is unquestionably like that. Of course, our mind can change in the next moment and think what was beautiful one moment is ugly the next. But in the very moment in the very moment of experience, in the what I call for one of the better you know, this is my own invention, the emotional moment, things appear very, very fixed and concretely something. Yeah. And, you know, if you think back on times when the mind is very unhappy and has a problem, a difficulty, and and and you compare that state of your mind and how it experiences things with how when when you’re in a good state of mind, you can I think it’s relatively easy to see how in that state of mind, that the negative heavy state of mind, everything becomes so much more concrete?
It’s so much more really like that. So and I don’t mean concrete in, like, block, you know, cement. Although concrete’s called concrete because it’s very fixed and solid, and it does you know, it gives the illusion it’s not gonna change. But when we say you know? So con don’t make concrete too concrete in the meaning, but things become extremely like, when you get in when we get into an argument with someone, that that that person person and their position appears so concrete, and one’s own mind becomes very rigid about the whole thing.
Everything becomes very stiff and you know? Am am I capturing something? Yeah. And that is so much more painful than when everything is a little bit more light and and flowing. Yeah.
This is why it’s also very helpful in understanding emptiness to which, of course, I, by the way, I don’t have any understanding of. That’s why I’m teaching it because I haven’t haven’t got a clue about it. But, anyway, I’ve heard great teachers explain it. So some imprints. But one thing that is is helpful understanding starting to understand emptiness is understanding impermanence, that things are changing literally moment by moment.
Every single moment, everything is changing. Changing. And it’s it’s very helpful just to reflect on how long a moment lasts, which is really not very long at all. And in in each moment, things are changing. As my teacher, Lama Yeshe, once said, every time you open your eyes, the world is different.
Pretty amazing statement there. So that shows that, you know, we grasp at things as being like this. They’re really like that. But, actually, in the the next moment, they’re just a little bit different. And then in the next moment, they’re a little bit different.
So that kind of shows that things don’t inherently truly exist like that because in the next moment, they’re not like that. They may look like they’re still like that, but, actually, they’ve changed a bit. That that know, understanding impermanence is not the understanding of emptiness, but it is quite helpful in the process. So the very the actual view of emptiness, the actual view of the way things exist is something very, very profound and very subtle and easily misunderstood and can be very frightening. Actually, in the teachings, it says when when one first directly realizes emptiness, that experience in the first few moments, depending on your character, your personality, and whatever, can either be very frightening or very wonderful.
It it turns into very wonderful after a while anyway, but in the first few moments, it can be quite frightening because it looks like everything’s disappeared. You disappeared. Everything has become nonexistent, and that’s very frightening. But then then then there is the understanding that things are still existing, but not in that concrete way that one first thought or previously thought. So because the actual highest view, the actual most profound view of emptiness is something very subtle, very easily misunderstood, and and and not easily understood.
The Buddha taught different thing how do oh, dear. He he taught this subject at different levels so that people could progressively understand the highest view, the most profound view. So slowly, there emerged Buddha’s teachings about selflessness. Selflessness. Maybe I should go back.
So in in the non-Buddhist view in the in in India at the time, there there was the view that And so the view of the Ātman was that the Ātman is something which is permanent, partless, and one. It is whole, complete. The Ātman is permanent, permanent, partless, and permanent meaning not changing at all moment by moment. It is partless and whole. And and all the four schools of philosophical schools of Buddhism refute that view of the Ātman.
So they came into the existence the idea of non self, which is referring to not Ātman, referring to not Ātman, not or selflessness. Okay. Yes. Possibly. I don’t really when you study from the lamas, they they because they have no, you know, background in Christian views, so it’s always taught from the point of view of the Hindu schools, the different Hindu schools.
So but in some ways, it would it would fit, I would think. But I’ve never really ever heard oh, you know, I I was never really a Christian, and I’ve never really studied it. So I really have no idea what the Christian view of a soul actually is, what it yeah. Don’t know. So maybe I should jump down and write some things on the board at this point.
So all the four schools of Buddhism I think it’s time we got a new whiteboard. Our whiteboard is getting turning into a darkboard. So the four philosophical schools shouldn’t be confused with the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism. Right? That’s something quite different.
The four philosophical schools developed in India. So as you hope hope everyone knows, there are two main trends of Buddhism. There is something that originally used to be called the Hīnayāna, which is very uncool to say use this term these days. So His Holiness, the Dalai Lama likes to call this these days the Pali tradition, school of the individual vehicle? So this is the the teachings that talk about this is very unconcrete, very pale.
The the teach gives the teachings of how to achieve liberation for oneself, to achieve nirvana. Okay? Right? And then there is the Mahāyāna. Oh, sorry.
We don’t have any more of these. Yeah. Maybe maybe a different color. Try oh, so the these these this is the system of teachings that enable us to achieve enlightenment. So the four philosophical schools are divided up into two, which are related to the Pali tradition, the the individual vehicle.
Vehicle. Sorry. So there’s what the the the school is called the Vaibhāṣika school, and this other one is called the Sautrāntika School. Oops. School.
Sautrāntika. Sautrāntika school. And the other two schools, which are associated with the Mahāyāna, are called the Cittamātra or the mind only school. Don’t we have anything that works at this place? And then there is called the Mādhyamika School.
Oh, look. Very auspicious. The Mādhyamika School. So so in a nutshell, because we’re not going to go into any detail about this, but the one of the big differences between these two schools or these two groups is that I I’m not gonna go into the differences between the Vaibhāṣika and the Sautrantrikas. It’s just good to to know these.
If you because you if you go into more details about this in the future, it’s good to start knowing these names and know what they’re referring to. The the the these two schools of the Hīnayāna don’t talk about emptiness so much as as rather they use the term selflessness. This is also used in the Mahāyāna schools, but the Mahāyāna schools talk a lot about emptiness. So one of the big differences between these schools and these two schools is that the Vaibhāṣikas and the Sautrantrikas say that the person is selfless, doesn’t truly exist, but phenomena, external phenomena, are really there outside as they appear. Right?
So this is a big difference. So they argue that all you have to do to achieve nirvana is to realize the selflessness of the person, that the person doesn’t exist the way it appears. And yeah. So they refute the idea, the the the non-Buddhist idea of an ātman, a person that is permanent, partless, and whole. So they reject that.
So they say the yeah. By by realizing that the self, realizing that the self, the person is free of being permanent, partless, and whole, one will realize selflessness, become free of saṃsāra. Remember last week, I was saying in order to get out of suffering, to destroy Samsāra, to destroy ignorance, it’s like you have to get rid of the cancer completely. You have to identify the actual cause completely because if you don’t, you’re not actually getting rid of the problem. You’re removing some of it, but not all of it.
So it’ll so according to these schools, this is not enough to realize the true nature of everything and become free of suffering. It helps, but it’s not enough. So they say that even even these Buddhist views are wrong views, incomplete views. Yes. Yeah.
You would say yes. You could say that. Okay. So what what connects these two schools, the Chitamantra or mind only and Mādhyamika School, is that they say that not only is this is the person selfless, but all phenomena are are selfless or empty of inherent existence or true existence. That nothing appear is existing the way it’s appearing.
Right? And so now the main difference between these two schools is that the Cittamātra, which is in English is translated as mind only, they argue that actually everything there is there isn’t any external reality. That actually everything is just coming from one’s mind. It’s just a projection of one’s mind. There isn’t anything out there at all.
There’s just an illusion that there are things out there. Alright. So that’s why external phenomena are empty of being external phenomena because, in fact, they are just projections of the mind. But the Mādhyamika school says, no. That’s not correct.
It’s sort of correct, but not completely correct. So the Mādhyamika all of these schools have just to make things more complicated, have subschools, but we’re not gonna go into any of those. But this this school has two subschools, which are very important. So one is called the So the the term Mādhyamika, the Sanskrit term means middle way. So all of the four schools actually claim to be a middle way, free of all extremes, but the Madhyamikas claim to be the real middle way because they claim to have got the, you know, the true perspective, the highest perfect complete perspective.
The middle way free of the the two extremes of saying nothing exists at all or things truly are inherently exist. So there’s there’s what is called the Svatāntrika Madhyamikas, and then the other school is called the Prāsaṇgika. Prāsaṇgika. Prāsaṇgika. So that word in Sanskrit means consequence.
Because one of the ways the Prāsaṇgika established their view, it’s not the only one, is that they refute the the views of all the other schools by pointing out the logical consequences of their view, saying, oh, you say this, but, actually, you don’t realize that if if what you’re saying, if you follow the logic of your of what you’re arguing, it actually mean comes down to this point, which is rubbish, is wrong, is false. Alright. I wish I could think of an example right now, just a simple example, but, you know, there are many things in life which we think, you know, it’s like that. But if you follow the logic, it it comes to some ridiculous conclusion, which is not what you want to believe at all. Maybe arguments.
Maybe. Yeah. So, you know, I’ve mentioned these terms existing from their own side under their own power, substantially existing, inherent truly existing and inherently existing. So without getting into lots of details, because this is just a simple introduction to this course, to this topic, these different schools interpret all these things in different ways, but the Prāsaṇgika schools say that all of those terms and what they imply are all the same. They all come come down to the same meaning.
Because what all of these schools, except this one, the Prāsaṇgika, because it’s the completely unique, special, far out one, which is actually the correct view, the view of the Buddha, is that all of these schools say that something they they they all reject true existence. So these schools except this one reject the true existence of the of a permanent, partless, whole person. They say that that doesn’t exist. Although they do say that external phenomena truly exist, but at least they reject the true existence of the Ātman, the permanent partless self. Right?
These this school, the Chittamatrans and the Svatantrikas. The Svatantrikas, they say that nothing truly exists. Nothing truly exists. But what they do say what they do say is things inherently exist.
Yes. I’m getting to that. I’m just trying to make it now I’ll just make it try and make it clear. Yeah. I just have to say it first, you know, step by step, and then I’ll try and make some sense.
So because the the unique view of the Prāsaṇgika is that things not only do not exist from their own side under their own power substantially, and they don’t truly exist. They don’t inherently exist at all at all, which doesn’t mean they don’t exist. They just don’t exist that false way. So this the difference here is that because the Svatantrikas agree that for something to exist, it has to arise dependently. They do agree with that, and it depends on the mind labeling things something for it to exist.
Therefore, it doesn’t truly exist from its own side under its own power because it depends on the mind labeling it. Labeling it. Yeah? For this to appear as a flower, it has to be labeled a flower. This has no power.
This object if which is not a flower. It’s a fake flower. But imagine it was a flower for it to exist as a it has no power from its own side to make us experience it as a flower. It it it it it it it appears, exists as a flower depending on our mind labeling this object as a flower. So the Svatantrikas agree with that.
And because it depends on being labeled, they say it doesn’t truly exist. But what they say is that to label this a flower, there has to be something there from its side that is a flower. Yeah. That there’s something special about this that is really there from its side for us to label the flower. Otherwise, we wouldn’t label it the flower.
Whereas the Prāsaṇgika schools say, no. There isn’t anything here, anything here at all from its side for us to call it a flower. So that is a very profound unique view, which is easy to say, but what it really means will probably take us many lifetimes of purifying our mind, accumulating merit, relying on a qualified guru who really understands, not only understands but experiences emptiness. But don’t get depressed because doing all that is the best thing to do. Because, for example for example, you know, I can say, isn’t this beautiful?
And someone else can say, oh, that’s ugly. Yeah? And the another person looking at us, arguing at that can think, well, it you know, that’s just that person’s opinion, and that’s just that person’s opinion. You know? Every beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
We’ve all heard that. We all understand that. But underlying that, so we can accept that people can have different views about the same thing. Right? But when we accept that, underlying that is a thought that although this person this person person here thinks this is beautiful and this person here thinks it’s ugly, we can accept, oh, yes.
That depends on their mind, but this thing here really has a particular quality. It’s really there in in a particular way from its own side. But this person is seeing that that in one way. This person is seeing it in another way, but it really is there in a particular way. And what the prasangikas are saying, this is not true at all.
That’s pretty amazing. It is existing, but there’s nothing in anything that is really there from its own side with its own qualities and characteristics. That is very, very profound and subtle. Yes. Sorry?
No. It’s not really saying that. It does have a form. It’s what. Because no.
Yes. It okay. I’ve done this before, but it’s it’s always good to do it again. This is even going back even before teachings on emptiness. The the little monks in monasteries learn what was the topic called?
I’ve forgotten what the topic is. Anyway oh, Lorig, ways of knowing. So, you know, your eye all all your eye consciousness knows or experiences is shapes and colors. All your ears know are sounds, and all your nose experiences is smells, etcetera, etcetera. So, you know, when I hold this up, some of you know this, so don’t be clever.
I’m I’m trying to be clever here. Is can you see this clock? Can you all see this clock I’m holding? Yes. Jesse, can you see this clock?
Yes. Well, actually, you can’t. You can’t see this clock. Why? Because the only thing you can see is the shape and color.
You can’t see a clock. Yeah. And you could say, but I’m you know, if you were holding, you could say, well, of course, it exists because I’m touching this clock, but you can’t touch a clock. I am not touching a clock. All I am touching, all I’m experiencing is hardness, smooth and hard.
But I’m a bit Not very, but not hot. Yeah. So that doesn’t prove a clock. Just by touching it doesn’t prove there’s a clock because you can’t touch a clock. That’s very interesting to think about.
No. You can’t see one. You can’t see a clock. You can’t even hear it. It’s very disturbing in meditation, but I wish we could get a new one, by the way.
Replace a silent one. Thank you very much. Would be wonderful. But even though I can hear this clock, in fact, I can’t hear this clock. All you can hear is a noise.
You can’t hear a clock. Even a clock that’s making a noise, you can’t hear. We have some data here. Right? Can I suggest that rather than trying to work out what it is, is to use what I’m saying to try and how do you say?
Just start to realize that things maybe aren’t the way I think they are. Do you know what? Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Sure. Yeah. Yes. That’s true.
Completely true. Yes. Sorry. What? Well, if people’s can’t you know, at the moment, there is a certain karma that sentient beings have to think to a person, a man who looks like a certain you know, that’s attractive and same for women, etcetera, etcetera.
That karma might change, and one day, you you you’re you’re made in the shade. We haven’t got very far. I never get very far. I I just wanna close. I’ll try and make this point.
In order to really understand the wrong view that we have, we need to understand the correct view, you know, the correct view of dependent arising. By understanding that and also coming to dependent arising by studying those teachings and thinking about them and coming to understand some understanding that, yes, that is true, that things do exist dependently. And what is also more important is to come to some understanding, realization that not only everything, if I check it, does arise dependently on causes, conditions, parts in the mind, but that’s in fact the only way they could exist. There’s no other way that things could exist. So as we start to get that understanding, that helps us to identify the wrong view that we actually have because or to identify the object to be refuted.
Because, for example what? Okay. In this room, I am a monk. Right? I’m the only monk in this room.
So someone could come here from another country or something or, you know, like and be told there’s a Buddhist monk in this room, but they’ve never seen a Buddhist monk. They have no idea what a Buddhist monk looks like, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. So they walk into this room of human beings, and they see me, and they’re wondering and they see all everyone else, and they’re sort of wondering, oh, where’s the Buddhist monk? I can’t see the Buddhist monk. Right?
Someone told me there’s a Buddhist monk in this room. And but they’re looking at me. You know? Right? And then then they get a description of a Buddhist monk.
Yeah? And they start to understand that description. And although, you know, Buddhist monks can look very differently because of a general idea of what Buddhist monks look like, he can then think, oh, that’s a you know, I’ve you know, he’s been looking all the time seeing a Buddhist monk, but not seeing a Buddhist monk. Yeah. But by understanding the description, then he oh, that that’s the Buddhist monk.
That one is the Buddhist monk. Right? So we can intellectually understand the wrong view of inherent existence, true existence mainly, I think, through understanding the correct view. But then the most important thing is to to apply that to what we’re actually experiencing so that we can recognize that, oh, yes. That is actually the way I’m experiencing things.
We are experiencing it in this false way, but we haven’t recognized that. We don’t know it. We don’t we may know it in the sense that out of faith, we accept that the Buddha is saying you’re wrong. I’m wrong. I didn’t know I’m wrong.
Everyone’s telling me I’m wrong. So, okay, I’m wrong. But I don’t know how you know, why I’m I’m I’m seeing inherent existence, but I I don’t know what inherent looks like. You know? Where is it?
I can’t see it. It’s right in front of us all the time, but we can’t see it. We don’t identify it. So what we have to do to get rid of it is to identify it. Yeah?
The analogy they give in the teachings is that, like it’s bit like a what is it? Who’s that lady? The crime writing lady. Agatha Christie novel. You know, that there’s a murderer in the in the house with all these people, but no one knows.
So you have to identify in order to stop the murderer doing more murders, you have to identify them. So ignorance is the worst murderer. It destroys all our happiness, makes us miserable all the time. But to get rid of it, one has to identify it. It’s not it’s not enough just to have a long list of all its characteristics because many people think you realize emptiness by just intellectually understanding emptiness.
The wrong you intellectually understand the wrong view. You intellectually understand the right view. You meditate on it, and bingo. You become enlightened or liberated. That that doesn’t work.
Work. That that’s not what happened. You have to identify the wrong view that one is having right now. You have to identify the wrong view as the wrong view. You know, Buddhist monks wear yellow yellow robes over their shoulders.
Oh, so look. There’s a person oh, no. It’s a skirt. But, anyway or or, you know, I think so there’s a person wearing a thing over their shoulders. Oh, so that’s a Buddhist monk.
Yeah? So you can know roughly that, you know, what something here is the description, but, you you know, you can make mistakes about it. You have to be able to identify it exactly. Am I making some sense? Good.
Yeah? For for what? The construction of ignorance. I’m just that’s what I’m trying to talk about all the time. Yeah.
Understand dependent arising. Use that to understand that what that’s not how you’re experiencing things, and then use that to identify your your actual experience. That’s what I’m saying. Well, it in one way, it is. It requires a lot of intelligence and but it’s it’s yeah.
It’s not something just an academic exercise. So so one has to identify identify the object to be because it’s very easy to say, oh, this this arises dependently. Anyone can say that. Any oh, yes. This depends on causes and conditions, parts of the mind, but we don’t see it.
But what we have to you know, the Buddha is saying this is how this exists, and then you have to investigate and realize, oh, I’m not experiencing it like that at all. I can understand that’s how it exists, but I’m not I don’t experience it that way at all. And the big problem is that a lot of people, Buddhists, I shouldn’t say a lot, their ego and intellect gets in the way, and they don’t admit that they think that once they’ve understood, oh, this depends on causes and conditions, parts, and blah blah blah, or because I intellectually know that, intellectually know that, I’m experiencing it that way, but we’re not. We’re not. And we have to admit that and realize we have to use that up to it.
How am I experiencing that? And how we’re experiencing it is though it’s really there from its own side under its own power. We don’t we know this depends on causes and conditions, but we use that. Lama Tsongkhapa makes the if we under you you know, we know that, and that actually means this thing doesn’t truly exist, that it’s not an independent phenomena, it can’t exist the way we’re it that we’re experiencing it. But we Lama Tsongkhapa makes the point that we ignorant people use the fact that we know that something exists depending on depending on causes and conditions to prove that it really exists.
Why did as I’ve given you analogy, you know, tomorrow morning when you’re making your sandwiches, I don’t know if you make sandwiches or make something to eat. Just let’s make the example of a sandwich. We have one piece of bread, and then you put some butter or something on it. And then you put something a tomato or cheese or something on top, and then you take another piece of bread and put it on top. And voila, you have a sandwich.
And you know you’ve got a sandwich, a real sandwich. How come I’ve got a real sandwich? Because I made it. I made it. So for sure, there’s a sandwich.
A real solid sandwich. Proof. Due to causes and conditions, I made it. But Lama Tsongkhapa says, because it was made by causes and conditions, you don’t have a real sandwich at all. You’ve got a sandwich, but not a real one.
Not a truly existing one. A solid concrete, truly existing sandwich. And some people could think, who cares if my sandwich is truly existing or not? It’s delicious. But it does matter a lot whether you’ve got a you experience inherently existing sandwich or an empty sandwich.
Believe it or not, if you could experience eating an empty sandwich, it tastes much better. No attachment. No suffering. Pure bliss. No grasping.
So the key thing, the most important thing thing is to try to use our intelligence to allow that to shine through purifying our mind, clearing our mind, allowing our mind to be more focused, more concentrated so we can use that to really think about how am is this how am I experiencing that? How does that appear to me? To identify the wrong view, not to say, oh, I’m so clever. I understand the right view. I know how that actually exists.
That’s not gonna liberate us at all. It’s finding the wrong view, identifying our own personal way I’m experiencing that and how we experience our ourselves. That once we were able to do that, which unfortunately is one of the most difficult things to do, once we can do that, getting rid of the wrong view is easy. That’s ninety percent of the work oh, I don’t know about ninety percent, but I’m not what sure what percentage it is, but a lot of the work is done once one is able to identify the object to be refuted. And the object to be refuted is the the subtle wrong view of inherent existence.
That this exists inherently, not even needing a name. The most subtle wrong view is where we which we are grasping is that that things exist, and they don’t even need a name to exist. They’re just there inherently. So true yeah. So one can do that with everything.
Like, we’re gonna have a cup of tea now or a cup of coffee or a biscuit, and then you have to taste. And as soon as we taste it, we grasp that this is you know, the taste is real. It’s really good, really bad. It’s really hot. It’s really sweet.
It’s really sour. It’s really like that from its side. But is it? A tree. Yes.
Yes. When it when a a branch falls in a forest where no one is there, does it make a sound? I don’t know. You’re able to check up. But that’s you know, that that is a valid question at one level, but in other way, it it misses the point because it takes it in you go into something you it becomes very abstract.
Understanding that is not really going to help us. It’s understanding understanding right now the way I see this flower myself myself, other people, everything now, the things, you know, how am I experiencing them? That that’s the that’s the real question. And and it’s so important to try and get some understanding how everything depends on my mind. Yeah.
This whole world depends on my mind in some way. For me, the simplest way to understand that, which I’ll just throw in now and then we’ll stop, is is how to explain? Something simple. But example, I think I think most of everyone here, most people here were probably alive when when John Lennon was killed. Right?
So then he died. And for him, this world, you probably weren’t. No. Right. I knew it.
Yeah. Right. Right. Okay. For most of us.
Yeah. So or who who’s someone famous who’s died recently? Robin Williams. Yes. So when he died, this world has completely ceased for him.
There’s no way it exists for him. He didn’t stop existing, but his consciousness goes on, but he has no awareness of this world. So for him, the world ceased. Yeah? But it didn’t cease for us.
The world still exists for us. And this show I think is just a simple way of showing that so but when we die, when our consciousness leaves this body, all of this, which seems so concretely out there depending, you know, from its own existing from its own side, not depending on me. None of it can exist. It’s it all ceases in a moment. So that shows how it and it it goes back to your first question how, Kathy, that all of this depends on my mind.
But it doesn’t appear to. This room doesn’t depend on my mind. Hey. Didn’t know about it. I didn’t make up this room.
But in fact, it can only exist because of my mind. For me so that that’s all we have to worry. Lama Yeshe used to say, don’t worry about all these other things where they you know, what it’s about, you know, working out your own reality. For me, the only way this this room, this city, this world exists is because of my mind. Yeah.
And the way the world appears depends on my mind. So, actually, quite literally, when our mind changes, the world changes because it’s not out there separate the way it appears. It does appear that way, but it’s that just because it appears that way doesn’t mean it’s like that. I I sorry. I think we have to not go on too much more.
I I we have to stop. But this is the point. If something really exists, the way it appears and the way it exists has to be the same. So this appears like a flower, but it if you investigate, it’s not existing as a flower. So it’s false.
So things appear inherently existing, but do they exist inherently existing? And the Buddha says, no, because he looked. He checked. So it’s false. It’s an illusion, and we’ve all got it.
But we can get rid of it because we’re smart, potentially smart, wise. Thank you very much. So just before we conclude, dedicate the merit, just just one point. I’ve mentioned it, but just in case you’re finding the reading material difficult to understand or these talks difficult to understand, don’t get upset, especially if this is you’ve never really studied this topic before. It is difficult.
But understanding, like everything else, doesn’t truly exist. And because it don’t doesn’t truly exist, it arises in reality, it arises dependently. So by hearing these things over and over again, depending on that, then understanding starts to develop. So don’t don’t grasp that because one doesn’t understand right now that that lack of understanding inherently exists. It doesn’t.
It changes. Nothing inherently exists. So it’s just good to put the imprints even if one doesn’t understand them. Something is going on in the mind, and and one builds on that step by step, and that’s the only way to go. So just very briefly in the homework, I hope everyone has taken the sheet, but doesn’t look like everyone has.
But if you have, just to quickly explain the meditation, because I can’t explain it all in, you know, the in the space there. If if if people could just think about the four schools a little bit, try and get some idea of how they have different views and why there are different views. And then on Thursday, the idea is to reflect on dependent arising and and to think and just to under trying to understand what that means that the things arise to try to think about how they arise as the Buddha said, according to causes and conditions, parts in the mind, and and to try and see, to think about how this is the only way things could exist or try and think how could things exist not depending on causes, conditions, parts, and the mind. What what can I think of that doesn’t exist in in depending on parts, causes, conditions in the mind? Can you think of anything?
Maybe you think you can. And then to try and check how do I experience things as rising dependently or and experience things as arising dependently or not? And then and then just to go into that in more detail in the next meditations. So to think try and reflect on how things depend on causes and conditions for their existence, how everything myself, my body, my state of mind, all the objects around me, try and see how they, in in reality, do depend on causes and conditions and how those causes themselves depend on causes and conditions going back and back. It’s not like there’s just this one initial cause for something.
Yeah. And, also, again, to always check, do I experience things that way? Even though I know even though I may know this, do I actually experience things myself and phenomena this way? Right? And we have to be honest about that.
Right? Because in fact, we don’t. We may know it, but we don’t in the emotional moment, we tend not to, you know, experience ourself in situations that way. And similarly, to think about parts, how do things depend on parts? What parts?
So some parts you can think about are well, obviously, there are physical parts, but they’re also temporal parts, even permanent things. There are such things as permanent things. So they don’t depend on causes and conditions, but they depend on parts, like the past, present, future. For something to exist now, it depends on the past temporal directional parts to things, but things are also made up many parts, bits. We’ll look at that in more detail next week.
But then to think on the next one is to think in more detail to try and check how things depend on the mind. Yeah? Do they exist out there separate from my mind? Is that the way they really exist? Is that how I experience them?
Try and see how one does tend to experience things as quite separate from one’s mind, that they’re just really there like that. Maybe we forget the me merely labeled. We didn’t get into that yet. If you know about that, you can think about that. Otherwise, just think go back and think about one of the other topics.
If they were too too confusing, just meditate on the breath. That’s always good. And then finally, the object to be refuted. Try to see that we have to try and identify our wrong view as we’ve got the wrong view, but we have to try and identify how we are actually experiencing things falsely. Just try, you know, a little bit.
You know? It’s not as though one has to succeed. It’s just a matter of trying to move the mind in that direction of thinking about something that we we even maybe we may be very intelligent, educated, whatever, or maybe we’re not. Doesn’t matter. But we’ve never thought about this before in our whole lives.
In many lives, we’ve never thought about this. Never ever. So just to even think about this, to start thinking about this is is quite revolutionary in the most important way of being revolutionary, very radical, mind blowing, mind blowing, designed to blow your mind. Okay. Thank you very much.
So we can dedicate the merit. So we have created some merit, not inherently existing merit, but dependently arising merit we have created. And we dedicate that that it becomes a condition for ourselves to realize the true nature of our self and all phenomena, to free our mind from all obscurations so that we can quickly quickly achieve enlightenment, so that we can free the minds of all kind suffering Mother Sentient beings of everything that obscures them and limits them and brings them suffering. So this page eleven. 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 precious bodhicitta mind, not yet born, arise and grow. May that born have no decline but increase forevermore. K. Thank you.