Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Venerable Thubten Dondrub presents a 108-minute exploration of Mind Training—a foundational Buddhist philosophical text—focusing on the subtle nature of ignorance and how it differs across Tibetan Buddhist schools. After establishing proper motivation and conducting preliminary practices, he reviews the four philosophical schools (Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Cittamātra, and Mādhyamika), contrasting how each defines the root cause of suffering. The core teaching centers on innate versus intellectually acquired ignorance: while lower schools identify wrong views as the cause of saṃsāra, the Prāsaṇgika Mādhyamika school uniquely asserts that innate, inborn ignorance is the root, and that liberation comes through understanding phenomena as mere imputations of mind rather than inherently existing. Through examples like investigating a flower, Dondrub demonstrates how careful analysis reveals nothing inherently existing, yet paradoxically, causality and morality remain valid. The teaching emphasizes that understanding emptiness does not negate cause and effect but deepens appreciation for it—a view attributed to Nāgārjuna as “a wonder amongst wonders.” Suited for serious practitioners familiar with Buddhist philosophical frameworks.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 2014 03 06 Mind Training.mp3
UUID: ce816cbc-ccf2-4270-9ed7-920551b6296c
Teacher: Ven Thubten Dondrub
Collection: Mind Training (Ven Thubten Dondrub)
Date: 2014-03-06
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 108.7 minutes
Words: ~10,489
Students. So we start with the prayer to the lion-faced dakini. If you’d like to join in on page five. I prostrate to the gathering of dakinis and the three places who abide in the holy yoga of unbiased space by your powers of clairvoyance and magical emanation. Look after practitioners like a mother her child.
By the teachings of the three supreme jewels possessing the power of truth, may inner and outer hindrances be transformed. May they be dispelled. May they be pacified. May they be completely pacified. May all negative forces opposed to dharma be completely pacified, may the host of eighty thousand obstacles be pacified, may we be separated from problems and harmful conditions to dharma, May all enjoyments be in accord with the dharma, and may there be auspiciousness and perfect happiness here right now.
Obeisance to my guru and protector Mañjuśrī who holds to his heart a scriptural text symbolic of his seeing all things as they are, whose understanding shines forth as the sun unclouded by defilements or traces of ignorance, who teaches in sixty ways with the patient love of a father for his only child, all creatures caught in the prison of Samsāra, confused in the darkness of their ignorance, overwhelmed by their suffering. You whose dragon thunder proclamation of the dharma arouses us from the stupa of our delusions and frees us from the iron chains of our karma, whose powerful sword of wisdom hews down suffering wherever its sprouts appear, clearing away the darkness of all ignorance. I entreat you, o Mañjuśrī, whose prince body is adorned with the one hundred and twelve marks of the Buddha, who has completed the ten stages achieving the highest perfection of the bodhisattva, who has been pure from the beginning. O Mañjuśrī, all loving one with the brilliance of your wisdom, The darkness enclosing my mind enlighten my intelligence and wisdom so that I may gain insight into Buddha’s words and the texts that explain them. Then visualizing Śākyamūni Buddha in front of us as the embodiment of the Three Jewels of refuge and the embodiment of all our perfect teachers of the past, present and future, We make the mandala offering as a way to request the teachings, overcome hindrances to understanding and practicing and accumulating the merit that helps us correctly understand and put into practice the teachings.
So then particularly thinking of all sentient beings surrounding us, starting with our parents on either side, trying to generate the bodhicitta motivation for listening to the teachings, really wanting to recognizing the kindness of all sentient beings, how they have all been our parents, life after life and how they are all trapped in Samsāra helplessly at the moment then we can generate that wish to repay their kindness by freeing them, helping to free them from all causes of suffering helping to lead them to experience peerless everlasting happiness. And recognizing that the only way I am going to accomplish those two goals is for myself to become a Buddha then make that determination that no matter what I am going to use this in all future lives to follow the path to enlightenment giving up the self-cherishing thought, cherishing others more than self, doing everything necessary to free the mind of all confusion and awaken fully all my positive potentials. So to achieve enlightenment that depends on being able to follow the path successfully and the path involves generating bodhicitta and then developing the profound understanding and realization of the true nature of phenomena. And so this text, the Mind Training Like the Rays of the Sun’ is about these topics.
So for this reason, I will study this text for the benefit of all beings. I go for refuge until I’m enlightened to the Buddha, Dharma, and the supreme assembly. By the merits I create through listening to the Dharma, may I become a Buddha in order to benefit all sentient beings. Thinking the Buddha is pleased with our motivation, we can imagine the Buddha now coming to the crown of our head. And then when directly above our crown, we imagine the Buddha dissolving into light and that blissful light pouring into us, blessing our mind.
So then we reinforce that positive state of mind by doing the nine round breathing exercise for a short time to help develop a calmer, clearer, more concentrated mind so that we can use that mind to listen to and think about the Buddha’s teachings tonight. K. Thank you. So I have mentioned a couple of times that received the commentary on this text when I was at Nālānda monastery from Geshe Jampa Tekchok, who was our our abbot there and one of the great scholars of the the Gelugpa tradition. So he gave a a really wonderful commentary on this text.
And so what I would like to do before we go into and continue with the text, the difficult topic we are into, would just like to read a section of the commentary he gave which is on this text where Geshe Tekchok is talking about the benefits of meditating on emptiness which also includes the benefits of listening to and just thinking about this topic. Geshe Tekchok says: Emptiness is difficult to realize, therefore many examples are explained in connection with many points to be illustrated in order to explain the reasons proving emptiness. The explanations are vast. In fact, all the Middle Way texts are for explaining just what emptiness is. Emptiness means emptiness of existence from its own side.
There is no existence from its own side. Then many reasons and examples are explained to establish that there is no existence from its own side and to prove emptiness of existence from its own side. Emptiness is so important. When we have a good understanding of the purpose of meditating on emptiness, it helps us feel happy, joyful, confident, courageous, free of regret, free of any sense of discouragement and firm in our meditation on emptiness. We meditate on emptiness, the ten negative actions will be purified quickly.
Buddha said that even if a person has done all ten of the negative actions of killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and so on, he or she would not be able to say that something bad would happen to that person or that they would have to go to the lower realms as a ripening result if they meditate on emptiness. So the Buddha meant by this that those negative actions would be purified. A similar point is made in the sūtra called Dispelling the Grief of Ajatashatru. King Ajatashatru had committed the boundless negative action of killing his father, and he felt very guilty about it. As a method to eliminate his great sense of guilt, the Buddha told him that even if a person had committed all five of the boundless negative actions, which is of course a very powerful evil, if he were to meditate on emptiness, all that would be purified.
If even actions as negative as that would be purified, No need to mention that lesser negative actions would be purified. Similarly, if we familiarize ourselves with emptiness, reflecting on its meaning, negativities and obscurations build up over eons and eons will become less and less powerful. When we realize emptiness directly, even negativities accumulated over tens and hundreds of thousands of eons will all be eliminated. First of all, as an initial stage in familiarizing ourselves with the meaning of emptiness, we should receive teachings on emptiness and we should think it looks like emptiness means this. Later on, our mind would become firm with respect to emptiness.
We would realize emptiness. That would cause the strength negativities accumulated over hundreds of thousands of eons to wane and then when we realize emptiness directly, all of them would be purified. For example, even if a cave had remained in darkness for billions of years, if we were to introduce into it the light of a lamp, the sun or the moon, the darkness would be dispelled in an instant. Therefore meditating on emptiness really is worthwhile. Just like it says in the Heart Sūtra, all the Buddhas abiding in the three times awaken to peerless, perfect and complete awakening depending on the perfection of wisdom.
That means all all the Buddhas, all the beings who became Buddhas, first listened to explanations of emptiness, then reflected upon it. Once it became clear to their minds, they placed their minds on it and became familiar with emptiness and through this process became Buddhas. In the Vajracchedika Sūtra, the question is asked: If any man or woman were to completely fill with precious gems as many sets of the three thousand worlds as there are molecules of water in as many river Ganges as there are molecules of water in the river Ganges offer them each day to the Buddha, what virtue would there be? The reply: The virtue would be limitless. This is because the number of molecules of water would be limitless.
It then says: There is hundreds and thousands of times more benefit in a person explaining the meaning of emptiness with a good motivation, even if it is only with one line that indicates the meaning of emptiness or in listening to an explanation of the meaning emptiness without fault and motivation. Thus, thinking over the meaning of emptiness is clearly of great benefit. If we understand the benefit, the happiness and so on, which I mention above, will automatically arise. With that in mind, we will now continue with this difficult topic. But before we do that, maybe we can hand out.
This is a summary of the views of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism. Not the four schools, not the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism, the four philosophical schools. Okay. Alright. Good.
So just briefly so it starts at the bottom with the two lower schools that belong to the Hīnayāna or the vehicle of individual liberation. So the Vaibhāṣikas, which means the particularists, and then the Sautrantikas who are the followers of Sūtra. So remember, their view is that in order to eliminate ignorance, all one has to do is realize the selflessness of persons. They don’t believe in the selflessness of phenomena. They accept that phenomena truly exist, inherently exist.
Remember that there are the four seals of Buddhism, one of which is that all phenomena are selfless. So the two lower schools, the Vaibhāṣikas, Sautrantikas, interpret that when it says all phenomena, they interpret that as meaning just all persons. And their understanding of the selflessness of the person is, firstly, there’s a coarse understanding which is refuting the non-Buddhist view. So the non Buddhists have this view of the Ātman, of a person that is permanent, partless and independent. And actually, I’m not sure if this is a hundred percent true, the Christian view of a soul is very similar.
When people think of having a soul, they think of something which is permanent. It is partless, it is not made of many things, it is permanent, it never ever changes, it is unchanging and it is something independent, it does not depend on this body or mind. So the Christian view of a soul is similar. So the coarse selflessness of a person, of the two lower schools, is something the being that is empty or lacks such a self. The person that does exist lacks being permanent, partless, and independent.
And then the subtle selflessness of the person, which is what is necessary, they believe, to destroy ignorance and therefore become free of saṃsāra is to realize that the person lacks being self sufficient. Then you have the two Mahāyāna philosophical schools, the Chittamatrans and the Madhyamikas. So the Chittamatrans and the Mādhyamika Svatantrikas, they have the same view of the selflessness of the person. They have the same coarse view of the selflessness of the person as the Hinayanists, the lack of being permanent, partless, independent. Have this subtle selflessness of a person which is a lack of being a self sufficient entity.
But they, the upper schools, believe that there is a selflessness of phenomena. So the Chittamatrans, as I’ve tried to explain, believe that the selflessness of the person is the lack of a difference in entity between subject and object. That there’s no inherent difference. These two things are both arising from the mind. And the so the Svatantrikas don’t accept that.
The Svatāntrika Madhyamikas, their view of the selflessness of phenomena is well, they’re very subtle one, is the lack of being an entity not posited through appearing to a non defective consciousness. The Prasangikas, their view of selflessness of the person is quite different than all the others. Their subtle view of the selflessness of the person is that the person lacks inherent existence. Similarly, the selflessness of the phenomena is the lack of the inherent existence of all phenomena other than persons. So the Prasangikas are the only school that really assert nothing inherently exists.
Everything, person, phenomena, lack are empty of inherent existence. That is a quick summary of what we done so far. Now we will continue into ever more difficult someone’s not quite so difficult but anyway, so where are we? Right. So, we got up to where does it say?
Some earlier. Yeah, we, right. We we we got up to this section. So I would like to skip these two paragraphs where it says the one one starting some earlier and the one called a number of Tibetan masters. Basically, what these two paragraphs are talking about are wrong views according to Lama Tsongkhapa, wrong views of different different Tibetan masters that evolved in Tibet.
And he is basically saying these are all completely wrong. But he doesn’t identify what schools they follow or anything. Let’s just leave that and get to the next chapter, the next paragraph where it says the Inherent Validators. Who are the Inherence Validators? The inherent validators are the Mādhyamika Svartantrikas because they still believe in inherent existence.
They don’t accept true existence but they do accept inherent existence. Remember I tried to explain that they accept that things arise depending on causes and conditions, parts and the labelling mind but they argue that the reason you can call this object a clock is because the base somehow there is something really existing in the bass that makes it suitable to be called a clock. There’s something from the from the side of the base that is really there that enables it to be labeled a clock. Because they argue if there wasn’t something there from the side of this object for it to be labeled a clock, how why would we label it a clock? Why would we see it as understand it as a clock if there wasn’t something there from its own side?
So they validate the inherent existence that there is something there from its side. Even though it is labeled, for it to exist in a particular way it has to be labeled, But the only way it could be validly labelled in a particular way is there must be something there from its side, which is saying it inherently exists. Whereas the Mādhyamika prasangikas, who are talking they are the ones who are talking in this book they are saying there is nothing there from its side. There is nothing that exists inherently. Nothing that validly exists inherently exists.
So that’s why we have the Mādhyamika Svatantrikas. Yeah. Yeah. Well, there’s no one who goes around oh, as far as I know. As far as I know, even like the Theravadins, no Theravāda would say I am a Vaibhāṣika or a Sautrāntika.
They’re probably not even familiar with these terms. This is something that developed among Mahāyāna Buddhists as a way of identifying that they were in India when Buddhism was flourishing. Sorry to make a long answer to this question. Now well, I what I’m trying to say is actually, in a nutshell, probably no. Except, as I said, from the from the from anyway, a lot of Zen Buddhism is based on the Cittamātra view.
They rely a lot on sutras which present that view, the Cittamātra view. They may. I’m not one hundred percent sure. But I don’t think you can say Theravāda Buddhism as it is existing now is specifically Vaibhishika or Sautrāntika, but it it it is sort of more or less based on those those views. Because what I was trying to say is that and this is probably more I don’t if it’s really helpful to explain it, but in India, when Buddhism was flourishing in India, were different you know, spiritual masters, great masters, interpreting trying to understand what the Buddha really said.
So they, you know, they said when the Buddha said this, it means this. And a whole lot of people agreed with him, but another lama, you know, master would give a slightly different interpretation. So as a way to make sense of all these different views, what evolved among some Mahāyāna masters was to lump a whole group of people and say, these people have basically these common views, and these people will will call the Vaibhāṣikas, and this bunch will call the Sautrantikas, and this bunch are the, yeah, the Madhyamikas, and there there different groups. But no one at the time stood up and said, I’m I’m a Sautrāntika. This was just a way of trying to make sense, you know, put people into categories to make sense and realise that there was a particular interpretation of the Buddhist teachings.
There were common themes among a group of teachers who didn’t necessarily communicate with each other, officially form a school, because like in the West for example there are schools of philosophy, people who ascribe to a particular philosophical view about things and they teach at universities and they say, I’m a so and so’. There was the existentialist and Jean Paul Sartre and all the existentialists now there is the deconstructionists and post modernists and blah blah blahists. A particular philosopher says I am this, I follow this school. But there wasn’t probably anyone who stood up and said, I’m a Vaibhāṣika. Was an invention to say, well, all this bunch of people have the same idea and we’re going to call them Vaibhāṣikas as a way to make sense of different interpretations of the Buddha’s teachings.
I don’t think Nāgārjuna actually even I’m not sure. I don’t ever think he ever called himself a Mādhyamika. I mean, all Buddhists call themselves Madhyamikas because they follow the middle way, but that’s particularly referring to avoiding extremes of asceticism and indulgence. But in terms of philosophical ideas, I don’t know if Nāgārjuna ever said I’m a Mādhyamika. That’s my philosophy.
I think this was something that was that name was put on him later on. Among Tibetan scholars now, I don’t think there are any Tibetan scholars who would say they are Mādhyamika Svatantrikas. They all subscribe basically to the Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika school. As far as I understand, all the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism all say the Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika view is the correct one. But of course, it’s never that easy because the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism interpret the Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika school differently.
So the Gelugpa interpretation of the Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika developed by Lama Tsongkhapa is quite different from the views of not quite different but of Kagyu, the Sakya and the Nyingmapa. And they say that Lama Tsongkhapa is wrong. Lama Tsongkhapa says no, no, you are wrong. And there’s still debate that. But they’re all in agreement.
But the it’s being the Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika is being explained here is according to Lama Tsongkhapa. That is why we rely on gurus because we could never work it out for ourselves. Just have to have faith. There are eight special features interpretation of the Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika view that are significantly different from the preceding views in Tibet. Well, depends.
His Holiness, when he’s teaching, most of the time, yeah, most of the teachings his holiness gives are mainly to a Gelug audience, so he teaches the Gelug view. But there have been occasions where he’s been invited to teach, particularly the Nyingmapa view of Dzogchen, which is quite different. So he is considered to be an authentic master of the Dzogchen tradition. So when he teaches that, he teaches in a completely different way and different interpretation. And this is one of the things his holiness makes.
He makes the point that it’s very important to understand the difference between the four schools because also they use the same terms, but the when they use the other schools use the same term as we use, they mean something else or something slightly different. So if you don’t know that, you think if you attend teachings by your lamas of different schools, think they’re saying the same thing but they’re not. And you end up not understanding, being confused without even knowing it. Is why His Holiness encourages people to be non-sectarian and know all the schools, but as an ordinary person this is extremely difficult. It is extremely difficult for us as ordinary people even to know one tradition in this lifetime.
So I would highly encourage people, not from a sectarian point of view, but just from a purely practical point of view to study one tradition. Because it’s a major job just to understand one tradition. If we want to get anywhere, we we have to have a clear understanding of of the the traditions, of of what we’re doing. I mean, I I won’t go into any details because I don’t know them. Even things like, like in in the just very grossly speaking, in the Tibetan in the Gelugpa tradition, if we talk about the ordinary mind, we mean the ordinary mind, the the just the mind of this one.
But in the Nyingma tradition, ordinary mind means something completely different. It’s not ordinary at all. It’s quite extraordinary. So when it says something like rest in your ordinary mind, it doesn’t mean just be totally deluded. But a lot of people probably think, oh, that’s what it means.
Oh, terrific. I’m highly realized. I can do that at any time. Yeah. And also the Sanskrit word for ignorance is ma rigpa and the opposite, non-ignorance, is Rigpa.
But in the Nyingma tradition Rigpa has a very particular meaning of a particular state of mind. So that term really isn’t used in the Gelug tradition Rigpa. Anyway, so we’ll soldier on. So the inherent validators, so that which is the Mādhyamika Svatantrikas and all schools of tenets below them, so that’s the the Chittamatrans and the Sautrantikas and the Vaibhāṣikas assert no more than the presentation of disturbing emotions expounded in Vasubandhu’s explanation called the treasury of knowledge or the Abhidharmakośa. Yeah.
Therefore, they all assert that the source of cyclic existence is intellectually acquired ignorance and the mistaken view of the transitory collection. Okay, so what does that mean? So remember, in order to get rid of ignorance, we have to identify it. In order to get rid of suffering, we have to identify precisely the actual cause, and we have to avoid like the Mādhyamika said, have to avoid the two extremes of refuting too much, but also we have to avoid the problem of not refuting enough. So the the all of the the schools other than the Prasangikas, all assert that the source of cyclic existence is intellectually acquired ignorance.
That’s one thing. So there are two kinds of ignorance. There is well, actually, you can subdivide in many ways, but one way of looking at ignorance is there are two kinds. There is what is called this is according to the the Prāsaṇgika. There is what is called intellectually acquired ignorance, and then there is innate or inborn ignorance.
So according to the prasangika, what is the actual cause of saṃsāra is not intellectually acquired ignorance but this innate ignorance. Intellectually acquired ignorance refers to having a particular philosophical view about the nature of reality, which is wrong. So we as ordinary people, not being philosophers, I don’t know if any of you are actually philosophy professors or anything, but if you’re not and I’m not, then we don’t have, like, hopefully now as Buddhists, we have a Buddhist philosophical view. But before knowing that, we we don’t have an established belief based on logic for for having a philosophical view about the nature of reality. But some people do.
They study intensively. They’re extremely motivated by this, and they try and work out how things really exist. And they come up with a philosophical view based on their own reasoning saying things are like this. Yeah? So some of those views are completely wrong.
And those those wrong philosophical views can lead to mistakes and suffering, but they they’re not actually the cause of cyclic existence. Yeah. Am I yeah? Yes? So the Prāsaṇgika is saying, yes, these wrong views create problems, but they don’t create saṃsāra is already existing.
This is just bad icing on the cake of saṃsāra. It is not the actual cause of saṃsāra. The real cause is something innate. It has always existed. It is inborn.
It is there all the time. The ignorance which is the root of Samsāra never started. Never started. Because if it started, what does that mean? It means it would be inherently existing.
It would be independent. An inherent existence doesn’t exist. It can’t exist. As I’ve said before, when a child is born, that ignorance is there. They don’t acquire it.
You don’t acquire ignorance a bit later on. And that ignorance is in the womb, in the child, in the womb, in the fetus. The ignorance is there. The ignorance is in a cockroach. It’s there all the time.
It’s inborn, never started. Because as I said, I think last week, if it started it would mean that before we weren’t ignorant and if we weren’t ignorant that would mean we were either an Arhart or a Buddha. At least in our heart, experiencing perfect bliss, perfect awareness of everything, or perfect understanding of reality. But if that is the case, how could we suddenly become ignorant again? And if we could, what is the point of doing all the incredible difficulties of practicing the Dharma to become an arhat or a Buddha and then it stops again?
In other words it would mean that Samsāra will never come to an end. If ignorance has a beginning it would follow that Samsāra has no end. But because ignorance has no beginning, Samsāra can have an end. How about that? Isn’t that interesting?
Did that make sense? Think about it. It was logical. It wasn’t just me raving. If ignorance had a beginning it would mean that before ignorance started we were free of ignorance meaning we would have been at the very least an Arahant Completely blissful, no suffering, directly perceiving reality.
So if that was the case how could we suddenly become ignorant again? That shows that and if that was possible then what would be the point of working to become an Arahant if undergoing so many difficulties you become an Arahant and then after some time it stops and Samsāra comes back. So then you get rid of Samsāra again and it comes back. And you get rid of it and it comes back. This shows that in fact, ignorance has no beginning.
But it can. Here the Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika pointing out that all the other schools have this belief that the source of cyclic existence is intellectually acquired ignorance and the mistaken view of the transitory collection. The transitory collection refers to the five aggregates. The body, the aggregate of form, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors, and primary consciousnesses. These are the five aggregates or the five collections and they are transitory because they are impermanent and changing.
This is called Buddhist philosophy has some very complicated, interesting terminology. But then all sorts of philosophy does. The mistaken view of the transitory collection that there is an inherently existing self. And no, no. That anyway, the mistaken view of the of that that there is sorry.
Just a minute. They argue that the cause of cyclic existence is this intellectually acquired and the mistaken view of the transitory collection which is a complicated way of saying the belief in an inherently existing self. So they say that is the actual cause of saṃsāra. So this is an example from the Prāsaṇgika point of view of not refuting enough. We do have to get rid of, if we’ve got it, intellectually acquired ignorance, but that’s not enough to get rid of Samsāra and just getting rid of the wrong view of the transitory collection isn’t enough.
Because one has to all get also get rid of the wrong view of of phenomena as as truly existing. Anyway, our author who’s a Prāsaṇgika goes on to say, However, intellectually acquired ignorance can be found only in those whose minds have been affected by the study of philosophy therefore it cannot be the source of cyclic existence. Because in other words, intellectually acquired ignorance was the source of cyclic existence then people who weren’t philosophers wouldn’t be in saṃsāra. It would be us. It would only be people who had really deeply thought about things who would be in saṃsāra.
Everyone else, your average Joe Blow, would be okay. And the supplement, which is referring to Candrakīrti’s text, is a commentary on Nāgārjuna’s root text on emptiness, says, even those who have spent many eons as animals and have not beheld an unproduced or permanent self are seen to be involved in the misconception of an eye. So in other words, animals who’ve been in the lower realms for eons, they don’t have intellectually acquired ignorance. So if they don’t, how could they be in saṃsāra? But they are and they are in saṃsāra not because of intellectually acquired wrong views, ignorance, but because they have this innate misconception of an eye.
He goes on to say: If the object of intellectually acquired ignorance is taken as the measure for establishing the object of negation, the object of negation will be too narrow. In other words, not refuting enough. Consequently, if we were to familiarize ourselves with the object to be realized through such a negation, in other words, if we were to waste our time trying to refute this wrong view, liberation would not occur because the object of the mode of apprehension which conceives of persons, aggregates and so forth as existing by way of their own characteristics could not be dispelled. We would get rid of the intellectual, you know, this philosophical wrong view, but we would still have this innate conceiving of me existing from my own side. The precious garland, which is one of the texts written by Nāgārjuna, says: So long as the aggregates are misconceived, an ‘I’ is misconceived upon them.
If this conception of an ‘I’ exists there is action which results in birth. Meaning Samsāra goes on. So because we see truly inherent aggregates, because of that mistake, we also grasp at a truly existing ‘I’ and while we have that wrong conception of a truly existing ‘I’, we act, follow disturbing thoughts which result in birth in Samsāra over and over again. So according to our own system here our own system means the Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika school there are two types of ignorance and that which acts as the root of cyclic existence is innate ignorance. But in terms of recognising its aspect and mode of apprehending the object, there are two kinds of people: those who do and those who do not understand the valid presentation of mere imputation by thought.
Our author, Ngawang Namkhel, who is a direct disciple of Lama Tsongkhapa, is saying that according to the Mādhyamika Prāsaṇgika, the cause of saṃsāra is this innate ignorance and what is implied in the next part is what is going to destroy that wrong view, that ignorance, is the understanding that things don’t inherently exist but they arise dependently. They arise depending on causes, conditions, and the labelling mind that things exist by mere imputation by thought. So this is the most subtle aspect of the prasangika presentation, that things arise dependently. They are existing as mere imputations by thought. This is the unique view of the prasangika.
The most subtle explanation of that is just so there are those who understand that presentation and there are those who don’t. The point is, if you don’t understand it, one won’t become free of suffering. We need to understand that view in order to be able to realize it, in order to destroy ignorance. And it goes on to say, the outsiders, that is non Buddhists, have no understanding of this, and not all the schools of Buddhist tenets understand it either. So just before going on, some people may think that this sounds very sectarian and I’m right and you’re wrong.
Therefore I’m the goody and you’re the baddies. To some extent I think we would have to say this is true, not the last bit about being good and bad. So many people who are following different spiritual traditions want to say that it all comes down to the same thing, that all religious traditions, all philosophies are all the same. They present things in a different way, but it’s all coming down to the same thing. Right?
We’re all trying to you know? So this is a very nice view, but I don’t think it’s true. I’m sorry. This is what the and certainly I don’t what the Buddha believed. Because if you think about the Buddha’s life, the Buddha was a prince who had everything and realised that this didn’t make him happy and actually it meant everyone around him was not going to be happy either they were suffering, that they were going to die again and again, get reborn again and again, get sick again and again.
Anyway, he wanted to know what is the cause of suffering and he went firstly to one of the greatest living spiritual masters of India at the time, became his disciple, became his best disciple, realized exactly what that master was teaching And having realized that at some point, the Buddha, or he wasn’t appearing as the Buddha, the Prince Siddhartha, Gautama, realized that this state I’ve achieved, which my Guru says is liberation, isn’t. It’s a blissful state, but it isn’t liberation from Samsāra. So then he went to this other master who was even more revered and famous, followed him, gained the realization that that master had achieved, And that master said, you are now the equal to me. I want you to be take over from me and blah blah blah. But at some point, Siddhartha realized, oh, this is a very blissful state, but it isn’t liberation from cyclic existence.
So then he left that and went and sat under the the no. Did he do? Sat on the banks of the Niranjana and starved himself for six years and realized that while that didn’t work either. And then he sat under the Bodhi tree and achieved enlightenment. So that is already saying that the Buddha is saying these views that existed in India, there was many good things about them, they led to wonderful states, but they were wrong.
They hadn’t got to the real point. They hadn’t discovered the actual cause of suffering. Then the Siddhartha manifested it and the Buddha says: I have found the actual cause. And this is the cause. And the cause is ignorance, and this is what it is.
This is what ignorance is. And it’s not being like I’m right and you’re wrong, although in in a sense it is that. It’s really about the you know, do we believe the Buddha’s teaching that existence is suffering? Existence is suffering? If we come to an understanding that that’s true, then the question arises, why is suffering existing?
No one wants it. No one wants to suffer. So why are we suffering? Is there a reason? Is it is there no reason, no cause whatsoever?
Or is there a cause? And if there is, what the heck is it? And the Buddha is saying: I discovered that there is a cause. Yeah? And the cause is this, is ignorance.
You know, ignorance means this. You know? And if you if you if you don’t get rid of that, suffering continues. So this is what we have to really think about. You know?
So all other schools are saying other things. I mean, Christianity says, you believe in God, it will be okay. You go to heaven, no more suffering. But is that really the answer? To say it’s wrong as a Buddhist is not sort of like, oh, I’m a terrific person because I’ve got the right answer.
It’s just we have to work out what is the actual cause. Is the cause not believing in God or is it because we’ve got ignorance? Or is it because of something else or because we don’t have enough money? Most people think the cause of suffering is we don’t have enough money. Some people say it’s because we don’t believe in God or we don’t believe in God enough or we don’t love him enough.
So is that the answer? Or what? So it’s not about creating divisions and saying I’m right and you’re wrong. Just just for the sake of, like, from an ego point of view, how we, you know, if I believe something and someone disagrees with it, I have to be right. It’s not that.
It’s about really a question of life and death or happiness and suffering. If we get it wrong, we suffer. If we get it right, we will become free of suffering. And that’s why there were all these debates and why all these Buddhist and non-Buddhist philosophers fought with each other, because it was really crucial to get the right answer. And why the Buddhist philosophers argue amongst themselves.
In some cases it may be ego, unfortunately, but among the great ones it’s trying to work out what is the right answer, what is the right understanding, because if we don’t get it right, if we get it wrong, we suffer. Oh, Yes. Innate Innate just literally means inborn It’s there. We are born with it in a sense. So it’s it’s it’s with it’s a sorry?
Yes, Does it imply that? Maybe it does but anyway that is the term that is used in born. We are born with delusions but we can subdue them. Our delusions are innate. Yes, they are impermanent, changing, but they’re there.
We we bring them with us into this world. So we’re born with them, but they don’t start in this life. But even so, in this life, we can do something about about them. Yes. Okay.
So our author goes on to say that even among Buddhists, there are those who don’t there are those who do and those who don’t understand the valid presentation of mere imputation by thought. And he goes on and it goes on to say, even though all schools below the inherent validators assert the validity of those phenomena, they are unable to establish their validity when it concerns the meaning of mere designation of this or that by name. Therefore, they assert that if the object of a conventional imputation is found, they consider it to be validly established. If it is not found, they consider it not to be validly established. Thus they do not assert the validity of functional phenomena such as causation and production through mere imputation by thought.
What does that mean? When I read this at home I understand that when I try to explain it here it gets very tricky. Sorry that sounds like a big cop out. If something exists, especially if something inherently exists, if it really does exist from its own side, I mean nothing does exist that way, but if it did, if it was inherently existing from its own side, not depending on anything, then if you looked for it, if you investigated, you would find it because it’s really there. It’s not depending on anything.
If you look, you will find it. All the other schools say that if you can’t find something when you investigate, it’s not validly established. But the Mādhyamika are saying that when you investigate, nothing can actually be found. If you investigate if you look for an inherently existing object, you you can’t find an inherently existing object because it just doesn’t exist. You just can’t find it.
Wherever you look, you can’t find an inherently yes. But there can we have one? Yeah. Can you can you pass quickly past that? The the the that vase of flowers there.
Yeah, yeah, it makes it easier. Thank you. This is my favourite demonstration which you must have seen done before. You see whether we know it or not, right now we are experience we’re you know, this flower does from a Buddhist point of view, it does validly exist. And the way it validly exists, and it’s the only way anything can exist, is it’s arising dependently.
It’s a dependently arising flower, a merely labeled flower. It it depends on causes and conditions, the parts, and the labeling mind. Depending on all those things, a flower a flower is existing. But we we are we don’t we are not perceiving that flower. What we are perceiving right now or experiencing right now or what we think we’re experiencing is an inherently existing flower.
Now an inherently existing flower, if it if an inherently existing flower did exist but it doesn’t but if it did an inherently existing flower would have to be an independently existing flower. It wouldn’t depend on causes and conditions, parts, and the labeling mind because inherently existing means existing from its own side under its own power, substantially self existent, self sufficient, self sufficient, not needing anything else. Therefore, not not needing causes and conditions, parts and the labeling mind. That is whether we know it or not, that’s the object to be negated. But we think that there is such a flower.
So if there was such an inherently existing flower, if there was, we could find it. If it’s really existing, if I am really holding an inherently existing flower, we could find it. So, well, we we we say I am holding a flower, but, actually, if we investigate, I’m not holding a flower. What I’m holding is the stem of a flower. Is a stem of a flower a flower?
No. It’s a part of a flower. So where is this inherently existing flower? We looked and it’s not that. That’s just the part.
So is this the flower? No. It’s a petal. A petal is not a flower. It’s a part of a flower.
So wherever you go, wherever you look, wherever you investigate, whatever you touch, you can’t touch a flower. All you can touch is a petal, which is not a flower. And, you know, you touch this. I don’t know what this is called. Oh, leaves.
Oh, they’re up the top. I didn’t realize flowers. Okay. So this is not the flower. You know, I’m holding am I holding the flower?
No. I’m holding the leaves. So leaves aren’t flowers. They’re parts. You know?
So wherever you look, investigate, you can’t find an inherently self sufficient, independently truly existing flower. You can’t find it, and yet we believe it’s there. But, you know, you keep going, you keep looking, you know, look, look, look. You can’t find it. You can’t find an inherently existing flower.
And what is even more interesting is the flower that does exist which is a merely labelled, dependently a rising flower you can’t find that either. It’s just merely labeled. It’s just merely labeled. Oh, yeah. Merely labeled.
Because the same thing applies. Even the merely labeled flower, this isn’t the merely labeled flower. It’s just a merely labeled petal, which is a merely labeled part of a merely labeled flower. But there is a flower. When you don’t investigate, there is one.
When you investigate, you can’t really infer. There’s just a nominally existing, merely labeled, conventionally existing flower. So what this bit is saying is that or what it comes down to because of the So the views of the lower schools are not able to understand that cause and effect, causation and production are something that exists merely imputed by thought. They argue that functional things are not imputed by thought. They’re inherently existing.
So it’s only the Prāsaṇgika school that don’t deny cause and effect because this is one of the big problems of because all the other schools or non Buddhists say that your view of emptiness is basically saying things don’t exist or they don’t count. They don’t matter. So, you know, actions don’t produce results because you’re saying they don’t really exist and the results don’t really exist. So it really you’re saying if if your view is right, then this completely refutes cause and effect morality and everything. And people could do anything because people don’t exist, so it’s okay to kill them because they don’t truly exist.
But, but so our author, the Prāsaṇgika is saying that, if one really understands mere imputation by thought, it’s not invalidating cause and effect. Cause and effect do exist but they, like everything else, are merely imputed by thought. But they do exist. Causes exist but they are only imputed by thought that’s the only way they exist. They exist merely imputed by thought but they do exist.
And so the effects are only merely imputed by thought but because they’re imputed by thought they do exist. So it goes on to say Candrakīrti’s explanation of the thought of the exalted father Nāgārjuna and his son Āryadeva describes it, and this is the view of imputation by thought, as the most amazing exposition of the undistorted essence of the teaching of the Buddha, the transcendent subdurer. So the Buddha is the transcendent subdurer because he subdued completely all disturbing thoughts, all ignorance. So when it says father and son, it doesn’t mean that Nāgārjuna was the actual father of Āryadeva. This is just in terms of, like, guru and disciple, father and son, father and daughter.
So Āryadeva was the main disciple of Nāgārjuna. So he’s like the son of Nāgārjuna, the spiritual son of Nāgārjuna. Candrakīrti is saying that mere imputation of thought by thought is able validly to establish causality and production, the perceived and the perceiver, the attainment, and what gives rise to the attainment through imputation by thought. Everything only exists that way it is merely imputed by thought. Just as Nāgārjuna has said: Knowing that all phenomena are empty like this and relying upon actions and their results is a miracle amongst miracles but when he was giving the commentary said this is not the best translation.
He said it should say, is is a wonder amongst wonders, is magnificent amidst magnificence. So Nāgārjuna is saying that the middle way Prāsaṇgika school or their view is the most wonderful thing because it’s saying that everything is empty, is merely imputed by thought, and yet it doesn’t deny actions and their results. In fact, His Holiness, the Dalai Lama often says in teachings when His Holiness teaches about emptiness, Holiness argues that the more one actually understands or starts to get some understanding of emptiness, the more you realize how true cause and effect is and you will start to become really careful about cause and effect. To put it another way, the great fifth Dalai Lama said was it the fifth Dalai Lama or Nāgārjuna? Anyway, one of those great beings said something along the lines of until one has realized the highest view of emptiness, the ordinary person should take as their right view the law of cause and effect.
Which means, what it is basically saying is, that by basing one’s life and practice on observing the law of cause and effect, having understanding faith that causes always produce effects, the effects are always of the same nature as the cause, etc, that right view will become a basis to be able to actually realize the highest right view of emptiness that everything arises dependently. If one doesn’t have that understanding of the cause and effect, one will never understand emptiness. Because, you know, one of the aspects of understanding you know, the easiest way to understand emptiness is to understand dependent arising. The first level of dependent arising is saying everything depends on causes and conditions. So that is intimately related to the whole understanding of the law of cause and effect.
Effects arise depending on causes. And of course those causes arise depending on causes. If we don’t understand that, if we don’t accept that, there is no way to understand emptiness. And of course, at a more practical level, by not living according to the cause and effect, we engage in negative actions which pollutes the imprints pollute our mind. That polluted mind will never realize emptiness.
And by not observing the laws of cause and effect, it means our not living a virtuous life or trying to live a virtuous life, it means our disturbing thoughts are really uncontrolled. And with an uncontrolled mind, one will never develop the concentration that is necessary to deeply realize the nature of reality. We will never realize emptiness with a mind like that. We will have to develop a really calm, clear mind. So here, the author is just sort of giving an overview of everything and saying that one of the wonderful features, the amazing quality of the Prāsaṇgika view is that it’s incredibly profound saying that things are just existing, barely existing, are just nominally existing.
It’s just a convention in a sense, a convention of our mind that things exist. But so there is something. It’s it’s not nihilism. It’s it’s it’s not saying things don’t exist at all, but they are just so insubstantial and changing and impermanent. But nevertheless, karma works.
It’s not denying that actions produce results. So we have to be really careful. Even though those actions don’t truly exist, don’t inherently exist, they’re just nominally existing, but they are existing. Not the way we think, not so heavy and concrete, but they are existing. In the teachings it makes the point that what we are experiencing now, which we think is completely solid and real, is an illusion, a complete illusion.
Everything is just an illusion. And the way things actually do exist is like an illusion. How about that? Things are what we’re experiencing now is an illusion. The way things are actually existing moment by moment is like an illusion.
Like, you know, the reflection of the moon in a still lake where you look and there’s this perfect image of the moon, but there isn’t a moon there. But there’s an image of the moon like an illusion. So you can’t say there’s nothing there. There’s something there. Something’s going on.
But it’s not a solid moon floating on the water. So it goes on to say, the meaning of existence of its own accord, without being merely designated by force of thought to persons, aggregates, and so forth lies in all the objects marks of true existence, which are exaggerated by innate ignorance. So the way things are appearing to us, controlled by ignorance now, is that things appear, you know, people, our aggregates, everything seem to have this mark of true existence. They don’t appear to be merely designated by thought. They appear to be truly existing.
When the basis for the negation of this is a person, it becomes the selflessness of a person. When the basis for the negation of this is the aggregates and so forth, it becomes the selflessness of phenomena. So Candrakīrti, in his commentary to Āryadeva’s text called the four hundred verses says: Self here is that inherent existence of a phenomena that is not dependent on others. The lack of this is selflessness. This should be understood according to the two categories persons and phenomena as the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena.
The way phenomena are designated by thought is stated in the Questions of Upali Sūtra. In that Sūtra it says: The variety of blooming flowers and the magnificent radiant golden castles are not created by anyone. They are designated by thought. For the world is posited by the force of thought. I’m not completely sure, but I think the radiant golden castles is probably referring to, what is existing in the god realms.
So it’s saying, like, you know, all the beautiful things of this world, like, you know, radiant blooming flowers, everything even in the god realms, everything that is existing in Samsāra, isn’t created by anyone. It’s merely designated by thought. See, this is maybe why people have the belief in a creator god is because, you know, that from the very start, to have that view is is showing that the person has the view of inherent existence, believing that things out there truly inherently exist. They’re really there from their own side. And if they’re really there from their own side, or who put what put them there?
Who put them there? The answer, oh, god. This special being created them. But if one starts to understand emptiness, then one can start to understand there isn’t anything out there by itself. So there isn’t anything there to be created.
Therefore there is no Creator. The only Creator is our mind. And, of course, the the view of the creator god is also the view of inherent existence because a creator god is a first cause Because, you know, god god created everything else. And god is like you know, god is labeled god because they are the first cause. No one created god because if someone created god, that would be god.
And that one, no one created that god because if someone created that god, that one would be god. So a god is an inherent existing phenomena if it existed, not depending on anything, not depending on causes. But of course, according to Buddhist logic, if God existed as an inherently existing independent phenomena, God would be permanent. And if God was permanent, God wouldn’t be able to create anything, because permanent things can’t do anything. The Chittamatrans, Right.
To be honest, I am not one hundred percent. It gets very complicated. You will have to ask Geshe that. Right. Labeled by thought.
Yeah. It is to do with that because the Chittamatrans, from what I understand, is that they are not saying that there is a base there that for something to be labeled. It’s just merely created by mind, by these these imprints. It creates the sense of the person perceiving something and what is being perceived. Sort of.
Yeah. But of course, even if you go if you think about it, you know, the Prāsaṇgika view is saying that, know, everything is designated by thought, but it’s not saying things are just thought. You know, a a clock isn’t a thought. But the only way this clock can exist is depending on thought, but there has to be something there. But the you know, one can make the mistake of thinking the something that is there is really there from its own side, which is what the Mādhyamika Svatantrikas say.
But the base itself is merely designated by thought. So that gets kind of mind blowing. Yeah. Actually, I think you had a question, but we need to stop. Is it a nice easy question?
Sorry. Mind is what? All. Well, maybe that’s kind of a Cittamātra view you’ve got there, not the Prāsaṇgika one. You have to work on it.
Yeah, but it’s very tricky to make the distinction. But this is why the Tibetan lamas, the Gelugpa lamas argue why it’s so important to get a correct understanding of the different schools, especially the Chittamatrans. The Chittamatrans take everything to a whole new dimension away from the lower schools by saying it’s all mind. The prasangika say, or the Mādhyamika say, yes, it really does depend on the mind, it’s not just thought. It’s just not complete fantasy.
But the difference is very subtle. You mean death? Have you watched the Matrix movie? Well, actually, some of it there there is a there is a scene there where our hero is fighting with someone or learning to fight with, someone else. And, you know, they’re fighting away, then he stops and puffs away because he’s out of breath or something.
And the guy who’s teaching him do you remember the scene? Says I wonder what does he say? Do you really think you’re breathing? Because actually it’s all occurring at another level. He’s actually in another place and his mind is projecting all that and he’s projecting the belief that he’s fighting and therefore because he’s fighting so hard, it is very exhausting and so he is puffing away.
In saṃsāra, our mind creates the illusion that we are dying and being reborn and suffering. Something like that. But we don’t have our mind doesn’t have to create that fantasy which has the flavor of suffering. Our mind can create, depending merely designated by thought, the experience of enlightenment. Like I said, I am not really qualified to comment on and teach this, but I can just say a few things.
We will have to wait for some great Lamas to come and teach. Go to Bendigo when Lama Zopa Rinpoche is teaching. Rinpoche definitely teaches emptiness in a wonderful, very direct, down to earth way from the point of view of a yogi where you can really get some taste of the whole thing. Anyway, I hope tonight wasn’t completely a loss, that it gets you at least thinking about the subject and questioning what is going on. And I think just a very practical thing in trying to relate this to our life is to try to have that awareness when things are happening to us, especially when we get very attached and caught up with things or developing aversion and fear is to try to have that awareness that everything is appearing to me so concretely, but is it really like that?
To remind ourselves that it really does depend on my mind, and I can change my mind. Actually, it’s particularly in relation to, you know, when bad things are happening, we can try and change the causes and conditions. If we if we can, everything will change because nothing independent. It depends on causes and conditions. If we change that, things will change.
So not to be so upset. But maybe we can’t. But maybe we can change the parts, the different elements that are making up this difficult situation. But maybe we can’t. But we can always change our mind.
Not so easy sometimes. Actually, it can be very difficult. But the mind, maybe the causes and conditions can’t change, maybe the parts can’t change, but the mind can definitely change. It may take time and a lot of effort, but if the mind changes, the world changes. Because our world, our personal world that we’re we’re experiencing, is not something separate from our mind.
It appears to be right now, but just because something appears one way doesn’t mean it is that way. And the Buddha is telling us it isn’t. That is an illusion. Thank you very much. We can dedicate the merit I think we start on page eight through 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 Bodhi mind, not yet born, arise and grow. May that born have no decline, but increase forevermore. The object of refuge of myself and of all transmigratory beings in all our life lifetimes is the embodiment of the Three Jewels, the all encompassing three refuges in one, the guru, the wish granting jewel, his holiness, the Dalai Lama. The master Padmasambhava, the Dharma king Songtsen Gampo and Trisong Detsen, the abbot Shanta Rakshita, and the numberless holy beings who preserved and spread the Buddhadharma in Tibet, and the Tibetan people who practiced and served Buddhism so faithfully for a thousand years, as well as those who, along with many others, died sacrificing their lives for Tibet and his wholeness. May all their positive wishes be fulfilled immediately.
Due to their limitless kindness, the sun of Tibetan Buddhism has now risen in the West, which was a dark land. But now that I’ve met with the Dharma, I have received the perfect human body, enabling me to lead a meaningful life. Our refuge and savior, the supreme one, his holiness, the Dalai Lama, and the Tibetan people who have been so kind to us. Remembering this, we make the following dedication prayer. May all his holiness, the Dalai Lama’s wishes successful immediately.
May the snow land of Tibet achieve pure freedom and develop the Buddhadharma even more than before in Tibet, and may all mother transmigratory beings achieve enlightenment quickly. Savior of the snow land teachings and transmigratory beings who makes extremely clear the path that is unification of emptiness and compassion to the lotus holder, Tenzin Gyatso, I beseech. May all your holy wishes be spontaneously fulfilled. You who uphold the subdueers moral way, who serve as the bountiful bearer of all, sustaining, preserving, spreading Manjunath’s victorious doctrine, who masterfully accomplished magnificent prayers honoring the Three Jewels, savior of myself and others, your disciples, please, please live long. Lord of Dharma, who in accordance with the various dispositions of those to be subdued, makes clear in the light of your well spoken advice, the sacred Ganden tradition, essence of Buddhist teachings, oh, foremost and holy Lama, to you who are supreme, o Lama, please, please live long.