Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 60-minute session from a six-week course on the wisdom of emptiness, Ven Thubten Dondrub tackles the most subtle obstacle in Buddhist meditation: correctly identifying what the mind must refute. He explains that although we experience ourselves and objects as inherently, independently existing, they actually exist only in dependence on causes, conditions, parts, and mind. Using the analogy of the child mistaking a department-store Santa for the real Father Christmas, he shows how an appearance can seem true without being true. He then introduces the four-point analysis for meditating on the selflessness of the person—the key practice for destroying ignorance. He clarifies common misconceptions: that emptiness means nothing exists (wrong), that understanding emptiness requires stopping the mind’s natural labeling (wrong), and that realizing emptiness might make the world beautiful (perhaps, but irrelevant—the real result is freedom from suffering and bliss). He concludes by showing how dependent arising, understood deeply, liberates practitioners in daily life by revealing that our suffering and emotional reactions depend on causes we can influence, including our own mind.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 2015 02 17 DB Wisdom of Emptiness Week 6 17022015.mp3
UUID: b48d8a9d-e096-43c9-9a55-68505516bbfb
Teacher: Ven Thubten Dondrub
Collection: DB Wisdom of Emptiness (Ven Thubten Dondrub)
Date: 2015-02-17
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 60.7 minutes
Words: ~6,274
Okay. So before I continue with what I was talking about last week, which was the four point analysis, which is one of the most common ways to meditate on looking at the emptiness or selflessness of the person. But for that meditation to really work properly, completely, firstly one has to be able to do the first bit, which of course is one of the most difficult things in the entire Buddhadharma, which is to recognize the object to be refuted. But still we can try to do this. It’s very worthwhile.
But also if at some point we’re able to eventually recognize the object to be refuted, is the wrong view of self, then to destroy that, that is done through the power of logic and to have that we have to have studied the teachings which provide all that ammunition, all the different logic that refutes the the view of wrong view and all the subtle what do you call it, contradictory arguments, you know, because the mind can say or the dharma can say it’s wrong because of this. And then your mind, the negative confused mind can say, but what about this? And then there’s an argument to oppose that. But what about this? And there’s an argument.
So we need to really know all of those arguments and understand them completely. So through the power of logical analysis then is then able to gain a direct perception of emptiness. When all those false concepts are destroyed by right concepts, then that conceptual mind collapses and then there is a direct perception of emptiness. So this is just remember a very brief introduction to a very, very subtle complex subject and many people say in their homework, oh, don’t understand this or it’s going to take me forever to realize it. That’s true for everyone.
It’s just not us. But one shouldn’t be put off by the fact that this may take a long time to understand and realize because it’s the most worthwhile thing to do and we have the conditions to do it and we have to do it. That’s it. Anyway, before finishing that or trying to finish an introduction to it, just I’d like to go back a bit because having read the homework, I’m just horrified once again at all the wrong views that people have. It just really seems like anyway, I’ll try.
I will just repeat some things. Maybe it’ll sink in this time. If the Buddha is correct, which I hope he is, I believe he is, put it this way. Ourself and phenomena do exist. They do exist.
Right? Things, the world and the contents of the world and ourselves, we exist. That’s right. But the way things exist is what is in question because we experience things as existing in one way when in fact they don’t exist that way at all. This is the point.
This is what the Buddha discovered. So what the Buddha discovered is that although we have the appearance of inherent existence, nothing, nothing at all exists that way. Nothing. There is no phenomena, no person, no phenomena of any kind that exists inherently because nothing can exist that way. This is the point.
Nothing can exist free of either being depending on causes and conditions, depending on parts, and depending on the mind. Remember, all of existing phenomena are divided into permanent and impermanent phenomena. The vast majority are impermanent. Impermanent things arise depending on causes and conditions. So they, impermanent phenomena, depend on causes and conditions, parts and the mind.
The other category of phenomena that do exist are permanent phenomena. So they do not depend on causes and conditions because only impermanent phenomena depend on causes and conditions. Something cannot be permanent if it depends on causes and conditions. But permanent phenomena also do not inherently exist because they depend on parts and they depend on the labeling consciousness. So everything that does exist exists arising dependently which means that they exist as being empty of inherent existence.
They are empty of inherent existence. Two cups. We have two cups. This is a cup, this is not a glass, this is a glass, this is a glass. So this glass doesn’t have any water in it.
This glass has water in it. This glass is empty of water. Right? I knew I shouldn’t have started this. It’s empty of water.
So that empty of water is it was clear in my mind before I came here what I was trying to say. Sorry. Anyway, when we talk about something being empty of water, you know, this cup is empty of water, this is not the same as talking about the emptiness of the self and the emptiness of phenomena. Right? Why isn’t it the same?
I don’t think I can explain it now. Because when we talk about this cup being empty of water, it just means that there is something that was in it before or could be in it again is not there now. Right? Right? Right?
Now the cup isn’t empty of water. It’s got some water in it and now it’s empty of water again. But then you can always put the water back in. Right? But sometimes the cup is empty of water.
But when we talk about the emptiness of the self and the emptiness of phenomena, it’s talking about how the self and phenomena have never had inherent existence. Inherent existence has never been in the self or connected to the self or anything. You know? It’s not something you take out or possibly could put back. It was never ever there.
You know, this cup has had has has water in it. Right? That it it does have water in it now. Now it doesn’t have any water in it. So you say it’s empty of water.
But when we’re talking about the emptiness of the self and the phenomena being empty, it’s not saying that there was something that’s been now it’s not there. It was there, but it’s not there anymore. And it may, you know, or it could come back. It was never ever there because it never ever ever existed. Right?
It only existed as a mistaken perception. The the perception of the cup being truly existing, inherently existing was there. So that’s been removed, but it was never actually inherently existing. Just the appearance, what we’ve removed is the appearance of inherent existence and the grasping at it as as existing inherently. Okay?
So it’s not as though understanding emptiness, developing the wisdom of emptiness is about also coming to believe something that is nice to believe but is just made up. It is coming to understand the way things actually do exist, have always existed, will always exist, and can never exist in any other way. Alright? So emptiness also is empty. It doesn’t truly exist.
It doesn’t inherently exist because nothing because emptiness exists. It’s it validly exists, and the only way anything can validly exist is arising dependently, meaning it’s empty of inherent existence. So emptiness is empty. But it does exist. Right?
So we’re not trying to get rid of the belief in existence. We’re trying to get rid of the belief and grasping of a false type of existence that has never existed in actuality. Ignorance exists, but it doesn’t truly exist. It doesn’t inherently exist. If it did, we wouldn’t be able to get rid of it.
But because it doesn’t inherently exist, we can get rid of it. And enlightenment doesn’t inherently exist because if it did, we would never be able to become enlightened. But because it doesn’t inherently exist, we can become enlightened. Isn’t that good? Because if enlightenment inherently existed, would mean it wouldn’t depend on anything, which means it wouldn’t depend on causes and conditions, paths or the mind.
So we’re working. But in fact enlightenment does arise dependently. Ignorance itself also arises dependently. It depends on causes and conditions. So if one removes those it doesn’t exist.
It can’t exist. So we can get rid of it. So I mean I’ve made up this example, I don’t know if it helps, it may just confuse things. But if Father Christmas existed, and Father Christmas, the person as a little child we’re taught to believe does exist, that person appears as a very old man with a long white beard. He wears this strange red suit with black boots and he lives in the North Pole and he flies through the sky on a sledge drawn by reindeers.
That’s who Father Christmas is. And little kids are taken to department stores and introduced to this guy dressed up like that and said this is Father Christmas. And the little kid thinks it is because it looks like Father Christmas. He’s got a red suit, black boots, you know, big white beard, hair, funny hat, and so on. So he looks like Father Christmas and the child believes he is Father Christmas.
But that but now you’re interfering with my Father Christmas story. Don’t mind me. I’m not here. I don’t exist. Right.
But you do. What am I trying to say? So so this little kid no. So the little kid is introduced to a man. That man exists.
He does exist, but he isn’t Father Christmas. He doesn’t exist as Father Christmas. He looks like Father Christmas, but he isn’t Father Christmas because Father Christmas lives up in the Antarctic and flies through the sky. This is just an old bloke being hired. He can’t do those things.
But he looks like Father Christmas. So what that wonderful story is trying to illustrate is that right now everything looks like to us and looks doesn’t mean just actually appearance the appearance to the eyes, to the ears, to the nose, to the tongue, to the body’s consciousness, to the mental consciousness. Everything appears to be truly existing. But just because it appears that way doesn’t mean that is true. Because it’s not.
When you deny that things are truly existing or inherently existing, not denying so you’re denying that this man is Father Christmas but you’re not denying that that is a man. That is a person there. There is a person. The child has to see a person to think see a man to think that man is Father Christmas. So we see a truly existing glass but to see a truly existing glass it depends on an existing glass.
There is a glass. Something is existing. So when we’re denying an inherently existing glass we’re not denying glasses because the glass because also the only way inherent existence doesn’t exist. It arises dependently and so it depends on the existence of something. To have the appearance of an inherently existing glass, you have to have a glass.
You have to have a validly existing, dependently arising glass. Right? Yeah. So for a little kid to see Father Christmas, there has to be somebody there. Right?
But when you’re saying, oh, that man isn’t if some old some other person came up to the little kid and some killjoy came and said, well, that isn’t really Father Christmas. Well, isn’t, but it is a person. It is a man. Yeah. So we’re not denying the man, we’re just denying the false appearance.
And that man was never Father Christmas and will never become Father Christmas. Just another thing, I’m not quite sure what you said but that just another wrong view. Some people have said, when we talk about things being merely labeled that this is the way they actually exist, this does not mean this is very important to understand this does not mean that the teachings on emptiness are saying that everything that does exist is just a concept. This is not this is a complete wrong view. This room exists.
This room isn’t a concept. You can have a concept of this room but that’s different from the room. The room exists. You know, this clock exists. You can have a concept of a clock, but that’s different.
There’s a concept about this clock and there is the clock itself, which does exist. Almost didn’t for a while. Merely labeled doesn’t mean things are just concepts because if this is true, you know, I can say I’m Napoleon, but I’m not. He’s dead. Or I can say I’m a millionaire, but I’m not because I don’t have the valid basis of millions of those nice little green pieces of paper, which is so useful, which we’re all so attached to.
I don’t have a million of them. So one can say you have a concept, but just saying a concept doesn’t mean you can say ‘I’ve got a Rolls Royce’. Don’t. Just having a concept isn’t the thing. But merely labelled is saying that for something to exist it arises depending on being labelled.
If it’s not labelled it cannot exist. And how label things depends on our mind. And of course, should also be clear that there’s correct labeling and then there’s false labeling. So being merely labeled is not talking about that that’s somehow completely false. The only way things can exist is by being conceived by the mind depending on a concept and the word.
You know, like you have to have the concept of a clock. You have to have the word clock and the word — that is how we will eliminate the delusions. When we eliminate the delusions we will be free of suffering. I think it also makes more sense that it’s not we could think what’s the difference between does it matter whether if this glass exists does it really matter whether it’s an inherently existing glass or a dependently existing glass. It doesn’t seem to matter, just seems to be words.
But it’s because of experiencing this as an inherently existing glass and it’s because we don’t just experience this as inherently existing, we experience everything as inherently existing including ourselves. It’s because of that we have the delusions. And because we’ve got delusions we are suffering. And also on top of that because this Because also oh, no. No.
Yeah. Anyway, that’s enough. So so When we see it, we lose the attachment because we start to see how things should be perceived. Yes. If we really have some understanding, if we really start to understand this and we won’t have so much attachment or aversion to things because we will start to understand and have some experience that this is all coming from my mind, depending on my mind.
Yes, this is nice, that’s not so nice, but there’s a whole lot of labeling going on. But also a lot of false labeling. That’s where the problem really starts when we falsely label. Because for something, for this flower to exist, hold it, for a person to exist for us we have to label them that. Our mind has to conceive this is a human being, this is a man, this is a woman, blah blah blah.
And so it’s only when we do that will that appearance come back to us. But the trouble is because of our ignorance, the labeling is not a problem. It’s that we then, our ignorance, grasp that that label is the reality. That it’s true that this is a truly existing thing. But it’s particularly when we give wrong labels, we label someone an enemy and we so then if as soon as the mind labels someone an enemy, they appear that way and they appear as a truly existing one, not depending on the mind.
Because for someone who has realized or has at least some realization of emptiness, they can see, oh this person hates me. They want to harm me. They are my enemy. But they won’t appear back as an inherently existing enemy so hatred wouldn’t arise. You would recognise, oh this person likes me, wants to benefit me, this person hates me and wants to harm me, this person is indifferent to me because that’s how they exist.
There are people who are friendly, harmful, indifferent. Yeah? But when they appear inherently that way it’s another kettle of fish because it doesn’t appear to depend on causes and conditions, it doesn’t depend on all sorts of other parts or factors, and it doesn’t appear to depend on my mind. A Buddha can see, oh this person hates me, but the Buddha doesn’t label that person enemy. This is just someone who hates me.
Oh, poor person. I love them. They must be really they are not must be the Buddha would know this person is really suffering because they hate me so that the Buddha would feel great compassion. Buddha doesn’t see an enemy, just a human being, mother sentient being, who’s full of hate towards me and would see why that person hated all the confusion in their mind. But when we see someone who hates us, we see someone who has no reason to hate me because I’m perfectly wonderful and they’re just perfectly awful and terrible.
They just hate me because they’re stupid and ugly and horrible. And they’re really like that truly because that’s the way they appear to my mind, to my ignorance, to my ignorant mind. So some people think to realize emptiness you have to stop labeling. If you stop labeling, well we can’t for a start, but nothing would exist at all. We do have to stop labelling wrongly, that’s for sure.
But you can’t stop labelling. We have to stop grasping that the labels are true from their own side. Right. Any questions on that? Yes.
Well, in the four point analysis which I was going to get onto, the first point remember is trying to identify the object to be refuted. The way we actually are believing, grasping ourselves to exist, not how we are supposed to think or whatever, but how we actually are experiencing ourself. Then second point is trying to understand, getting to an understanding that if an inherently existing self did exist, it could only exist in one of two ways. There’s no other possibility. An inherently existing self has to be the same as, inseparably, inherently the same as the five aggregates, or one or two or all of the five aggregates.
One or some, one, two, some of the five aggregates, or it has to be something completely different from the five aggregates. There’s no other possibility. So then with that understanding one then checks if one is grasping believing that the I is the five aggregates or something, then you use these various arguments. There’s many, many, but I’ll just mention a couple. The Buddha is telling us this is what we have to find out for ourselves but the Buddha is saying the wrong view we have of ourselves is that the self one aspect of the wrong view of self is that it appears to be one thing.
One. Permanent thing. It doesn’t appear to be many, many things. We don’t believe that I am many, many I’s. There’s just the one real me. So then if such an I existed, how can it be even one of the aggregates?
It couldn’t be all five aggregates. If it was all five aggregates, there’d have to be five Is. So that doesn’t make sense. But it couldn’t even be any one of the five aggregates because each one of the five aggregates itself is an aggregation. Body is many things, many different things.
And the mind is made up, you know, there’s the four aggregates of the mind and each aggregate of the mind has many, many aspects. And if you say the I, I am one aspect of the body or one aspect of the mind, then you then this becomes also illogical that all the rest of you isn’t you. But also at our level I think it’s very simple but very effective to do is just to get a sense of when we say my body, my mind. There is a strong experience that there is a me that has a body, that has a mind. And that shows us that although we may have thought we found the object to be refuted, is the body or mind, actually there is a deeper wrong view that we have that there somehow is this me that has a body and mind.
So then the third point of the analysis is to consider that the I is something that has nothing to do with the five aggregates. And actually the subtle wrong view which is the actual cause of saṃsāra is that, That we believe that there is an I, deep down we are grasping that there is an I that is not the body or mind. It truly exists independently of the body and mind. And the very, very subtle object to be refuted, very root ignorance which is the actual cause of saṃsāra is the belief in an I, not an I, the I, me, the person, which is not only independent of the body and mind, it doesn’t even need a label to exist because it’s truly existing. So it doesn’t even need to be labeled I to exist because it’s really there.
That I doesn’t exist at all. But a simple way to think about this to start to break down that grasping is, you know, if this is the body and we say I’m definitely not my body, I’m not the form aggregate, and this is my mind, and I’m definitely not any of the four aggregates of the mind, I’m not my feelings, not my discriminations, not the compositional factors, not any of the six consciousnesses. If I’m not so what is this here’s the truly existing I. What is it? In the teachings it gives the analogy that if you’ve got a herd of sheep, it’s a Tibetan analogy, herd of sheep and there’s a goat in the herd, has got mixed up in the herd.
If you separate the black sheep over here, you herd all the black sheep in the herd over here and you herd all the white sheep in the herd over there, what should be left is the goat. Right? If there’s a goat in the flock, right? If there’s a goat in a flock of sheep and you get rid of some sheep over here, the white ones, the black ones over there, the one remaining would be the goat. So in the same way, if a truly existing I existed, if you separate the body, that’s not I, and you separate the mind, there should the naked I be found.
But what can you find? That is I which has got nothing to do, nothing at all to do with the body and nothing at all to do with the mind. What I is that? What is it made of? Where is it?
How can it possibly exist? Because it’s not made up of physical matter, and it’s not made up of consciousness. So what is it? And it’s got nothing to do with the body and nothing to do with the mind. And the point is you we can’t find such an I because there isn’t one.
There just isn’t one. There is an I, but not an inherently existing I that is has nothing to do with the body and nothing to do with the our consciousness. Because try to think about know, this is some there’s no homework. You you can relax. You can you can do homework for the rest of your life on emptiness, by the way, but and we should.
But one thing to reflect is, you know, to try and think does exist is neither physical nor mental. The I that does exist is not physical matter or consciousness, but it does exist. So remember, the second point of the four point analysis is coming to the conclusion that the only way an inherently existing I could exist is it’s either has to be connected to the body and mind or completely separate. There’s no third alternative. So to understand this properly, maybe we have to go back a bit, which is of things that one way of dividing things that exist up is, as I mentioned, there are permanent and impermanent phenomena.
But there’s another way of dividing things into three categories, which is that there is physical matter, there is consciousness, and then there is another category of things that do exist. And this category in Tibetan is called, which translates in English as very wonderfully that which is neither form nor consciousness. So examples of things which do exist which are not physical matter nor consciousness, but they do exist, some examples are space. Space exists, but it’s not physical matter, it is not consciousness. Another example is time.
Another example is emptiness. Emptiness exists but emptiness is neither something physical nor is it consciousness. And the other thing, another example, is the person, me. Me, the person, is not a physical phenomena nor is it consciousness. It is that which is neither form nor consciousness.
But the me that does exist, although it’s not the body and not the mind, it is something that is connected to them. Whereas an inherently existing ‘I’ saying that inherently existing I is not only not the body and not the mind, but has nothing to do with either the body or mind. So that’s a difference. Slowly, slowly it comes. You have to hear it many times.
Because the inherently existing ‘I’ we’re believing exists is something that is just there from its own side completely independently. Which means it couldn’t be body, it’s not consciousness, it’s just something, but that something has nothing to do with the body or mind. Whereas the ‘I’ that validly does exist is also not physical, it’s not consciousness, but it’s something arising depending, always depending on the body and mind. For example, the only way we can say ‘I am sitting here’, that depends on the body sitting here. The only way we can say ‘I am thinking’ is when the mind is thinking.
Right? That’s the only I that exists. One that arises dependently. And that I that arises depending on the mind, also that terminology which is with language gets a little tricky because you can say this cup, this glass is on the table. But the way this glass is on the table is different in meaning than when you say the ‘I’ arises depending on the body and mind.
It’s not like there isn’t here’s your body and here’s the mind. Oh, very good. And then on top, on that, is the I. It’s not like that. You know, on, on.
It’s not like that. It means that depending, because there is a body and mind, depending on that, the mind can conceive the thought I. Just like a rainbow isn’t on the sky or on the water drops or on the sunshine. It’s arising depending on those things. But the rainbow isn’t on something, on top of those things.
It’s depending on them. It’s all very clear now. Yes. So is time dependent on the mind and the perception of that or space dependent on the fact that there are things in space? I mean space, There are different kinds of space but particularly when we talk about space usually in Buddhism we’re talking about the space which is defined as the mere lack of obstruction.
The mere lack of obstruction. So that depends on temporal parts and spatial parts. And it also depends on the mind labeling it. When do we finish? Because I think I’ve run out of steam.
Some more questions, please ask some questions, don’t be polite. Yes. Sorry? Yes, some things are permanent, yes. No, no, sorry.
Yes, it’s a bit confusing. Because most of the things we are dealing with, you know, as ordinary beings, ninety nine point nine percent of the time, are impermanent phenomena. Right? Like our self, our body, our mind, all the physical matter, the physical world. But we see them as inherently existing, that would also imply that they were permanent by seeing them as inherently existing.
Not depending on causes and conditions. Right? That’s the point. Yeah. Does that make sense?
Yeah. And also when we try to understand that things are empty of inherent existence, That doesn’t necessarily mean that when experience things as empty, when we have the wisdom that experiences things as being empty, it doesn’t mean that they appear as something else. This glass still appears as a glass. Just it doesn’t appear as an inherently existing one. I don’t think it means that it necessarily appears more beautiful.
Everything becomes more shiny and beautiful. Everything just basically still appears the same way but it’s not inherently existing. Surely these things would become less ugly because you wouldn’t have the wrong label. I’m not so sure since I don’t have this experience. But I think maybe you could still see things as ugly but it wouldn’t bother you because the point is when the mind is actually free of ignorance, you experience bliss because your mind is no longer obscured and the natural bliss of the mind is operative.
So this is one of the major reasons for getting rid of ignorance and developing this right view is that it not only removes all suffering, it enables one to experience perfect bliss. So in that way everything would be much jollier because one would be experiencing things with a blissful mind. But you would still see garbage. You’d see the mind seeing garbage today. Yeah, but your mind would be completely blissful seeing the garbage and the vomit and the puke and everything.
But you would still see it, oh that’s puke, that’s garbage, that’s dog poo, this is diamonds. But there’d be no aversion, no grasping, because the mind would be continuously in a state of bliss. Yes it does, it sounds terrific. Please, more questions? Then we can have a tea break.
Anything I can try and clarify? You give us a few catchphrases to put out there during the day? Well the main catchphrase is Buddha’s slogan this is a dependent arising. Everything is arising because this actually I’m glad you mentioned Yes, conclusion to this course is that understanding dependent arising, being mindful of dependent arising, this subject can appear well it is when one gets into it, very, very complex and very subtle and confusing. But also to try and understand dependent arising is very helpful in our daily life in dealing with our crazy mind, with all our attachments and our aversion.
When we’re experiencing these strong emotions and we’re aware of them and if we have some dharma understanding that these are actually harmful to me and not beneficial to others, we can, by remembering dependent arising we can start to protect ourselves from them by remembering, especially for example in negative suffering situations, that why is this occurring? It’s not inherently existing, it’s arising depending on causes and conditions. Which means if I change the causes and conditions it will change. But it’s not always possible to change the causes and conditions. We can try, but many people just think this is like this, it’s never going to change, there’s nothing I can do about it, but if we remember that things happen depending on causes and conditions, then we can try and change those causes and conditions.
And maybe we can in some cases, but maybe we can’t. But maybe we can change if we remember it depends on parts, then maybe we can rearrange the parts somehow of the situation. Some things can be rearranged, changed, relocated, including ourselves, just relocate somewhere else that will change the situation. Yeah? But maybe we can’t do that.
But we can try. But last one is the best one, most difficult in some ways, but what is happening is depending on my mind. It is depending on how I’m experience what I’m experiencing depends on my mind, and how I’m experiencing it depends on my mind. So we and only we can change our mind. And we can change our mind.
Sometimes it’s very, very difficult to change the mind and takes a long time. But sometimes we can change it quite drastically, quite quickly, and surprisingly easily. It’s just we don’t bother. We don’t know much of the time. Or we don’t do it because we’re too lazy or too attached to our own view of things.
But if start to know about our minds and how everything is depending on my mind, my labelling and grasping that this is really like this, we can create some space where we don’t automatically believe that what is appearing to my mind is true or exactly like that. Maybe it’s not exactly that way. Maybe this person isn’t a hundred percent, you know, a creep. Maybe they have reasons for being a creep and maybe they have reasons that maybe I’m part of the reason why they’re creepy towards me. But normally we don’t think like this.
We don’t want to think like this because we want to put all the blame on the other. But understanding dependent arising, really understanding it, really using it can be incredibly liberating for us now, not as highly realized beings right now. In the very moment of a situation there’s always some possibility to change our mind. I mean, sorry, this sounds a bit when I first met the Dharma in a positive way, not the first time I came in contact with the Dharma I ran away and didn’t like. I didn’t actually meet the Dharma, it was just some Buddhists which I developed some aversion to.
But when I really connected with the Dharma, I can’t really explain this properly and I wasn’t sort of super conscious of it at the time, but at the time I was in a pretty unhappy state of mind in general, not perhaps at that very moment but generally my life was a bit of a disaster. And by being in this centre and hearing something about the mind I became aware that this suffering I was experiencing, which up until then without really being conscious because that’s how most of us live, I’d assumed that was it. That was the totality and I became aware that that was just one aspect of my mind. It wasn’t the total reality of my mind. That was unbelievably liberating.
It completely changed my life. That I realized that that was just one bubble that my mind produces and my mind was much, much vaster than that. Sorry if that sounds like I had some major realization which for my little mind it was in one way. So we can do these things. We can become aware that the way I’m what we do is we hold onto something so strongly.
We were not even aware of it. We’re miserable and we hold onto that. And sometimes it is easier to remember, know this is the way the self-cherishing thought works. If it’s easier to be miserable than to be happy, our self-cherishing will choose to be miserable because it’s easier and quicker. That’s how weird our self-cherishing mind is.
But we can but and that operates in a fog of unawareness. When we become a little aware of that, we can decide, excuse me, bugger it. I’m not going to stay like this anymore. And actually sometimes we can cut that stop, turn that off in an instant. And, yeah, because that’s not the you know, we don’t have to be like that.
I mean there’s many I mean I’m not saying you can just suddenly but there’s many possibilities that we don’t allow ourselves, you know, and we make them worse. You know, maybe we have some problems that make the mind really heavy and difficult, but maybe they’re never as bad as we really hold onto, that we grasp, because we grasp it’s all inherently existing. And it’s not. There’s so many factors going on and we can tweak them. Remember like those coloured sands, if you tilt it a little bit the whole pattern rearranges.
It no choice. So dependent arising, remember dependent arising all the time. Everything is dependent arising. It’s all so many possibilities. Every time you open your eyes the world is different.
You’ve really got to open their eyes. Tea time. You now understand emptiness. You’ve now developed the wisdom of emptiness. Well, least I hope you see that there is some need to develop this wisdom.
It’s very important to try to get to the heart of the matter of how things are existing and how they’re appearing to the mind. It’s not appearing on the recorder at all. I hope it’s appearing on this. Okay. Thank you very much.
Tea break. Can we have a discussion? Oh, yeah. There’ll be discussion after tea. If you didn’t get the questions last week, we didn’t have the discussion group last week, but if you didn’t take the question sheet, there are still some left over there.