Wisdom Understanding Emptiness

8/10/2019 Wisdom Understanding Emptiness

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wisdom-understanding-emptiness 1/27

WISDOM: UNDERSTANDING EMPTINESS 1

Dependent Arising andEmptinessVen. Robina Courtin

DEPENDENT ARISING, THE KING OF

LOGICS TO PROVE EMPTINESS

Paraphrasing Lama Tsong Khapa, LamaYeshe says that dependent arising is the“king of logics” to prove emptiness.

All of Buddha’s teachings, from grade oneto graduation, are based upon theassumption of emptiness. Emptiness isimplicit in all the teachings. This is theunique characteristic of Lord Buddha’s view.You could say that the view of self-existence– which is what Buddha argues with, whichis exactly the opposite view – is theassumption of all our current views ofsamsara. All the views – my mother andfather made me, or a creator made me, Ididn’t ask to get born, it’s not my fault, I’m

just the body – are all based upon theassumption of self-existence, and this is the

exact opposite of the Buddha’s view. Theexact opposite.

And so, the point of it all is, as alwayswith Buddha, we need to make itexperiential. I mean, we can read all aboutemptiness, we can squeeze our brains, asLama puts it, we can get all very excitedwhen we hear about emptiness, but unlesswe understand how to internalize it, it’s justfilling your head with knowledge.

So let’s try to unpack it, demystify it, and

see how it applies to our daily life. Because ifit doesn’t, it’s completely useless.

EVERYTHING IS A VIEWPOINT

One way of describing what Buddha’stalking is that everything in our mind is aviewpoint, is an opinion, is an attitude, is aninterpretation. Everything in our mind is aviewpoint, is an interpretation of the peopleand things and events and self that are theoccupants of our lives. Everything is view.Everything is how we see things.

Things exist, and we can agree on them –cups, toilets, love, omniscient mind – but it’s

how we interpret them, understand them,their causes, etc., etc., that distinguishesthem. There are the samsaric views, theChristian views, the scientific views – they’reall viewpoint. And Buddha has his own veryspecific views about how things exist.

For example, Buddha uses the term“superior being.” Well, we all know from

being Christians that’s exactly how they talkabout God. The same term, superior being.You hear the characteristics of God:omniscient, all-knowing, all-powerful,pervading the universe, seeing everything.Well, Buddha agrees with this. He’s alsosaying: there’s omniscient mind, pervadesthe universe, knows everything, infinite

compassion. You could say they agree onthis. But the difference is in the view – theinterpretation of how that superior being,how that omniscience exists. So in otherwords, the Christian teaching, the Muslimteaching is that it’s self-existent. It exists fromits own side. It’s intrinsic, inherent. TheBuddha says it’s the capacity of every mind.And, of course, the creator religions so thissuperior being is the creator of everything.Buddha disagrees utterly. We don’t need

creating, he says; we already exist.

WE’VE GOT IT WRONG

Christianity would interpret the world oneway, materialism interprets it another way,Buddha interprets it another way. So, it hasto do with interpretation, it has to do withview.

Buddha, then, is basically saying, “We donot see correctly how things exist. We getthings right to the extent that we can say,“I’m Robina and you’re Fred.” “That’s a cupand not a knife.” That’s cool. Correct. But wedon’t get it right anything after this. We’vegot it wrong.

So, basically, things exist in the world.Things exist. But as Lama Zopa Rinpocheputs it, the delusions in our mind, theneuroses in our mind, the misconceptions,the negative states of mind, what they do isdecorate on top of what does exist layers

upon layers upon layers of characteristicsthat don’t exist there.




DON’T BELIEVE A WORD BUDDHA

SAYS

So of course, Buddha’s would say sayconfidently that his views are the correctview. But the big difference here is he’s notforcing us to believe him; he’s not saying, “If

you don’t believe me, I’ll send you to hell.”It’s not his job to do this. He’s like Einstein. IfI were Einstein here, and I start telling youabout E=MC2 and I say, “This is the truth!”well, you would hope I would be confidentthat it is true; if I’m sitting here saying, “Well,I’m not sure if it’s true,” you’re laughing andtell me to shut my mouth, don’t confuse you.If I’m not confident, keep quiet.

So we want Buddha to be confident thathe is right. But he’s not asking us to believehim. He’s asking us to check it out ourselves.It’s up to us; we’re the boss, not Buddha. So,it’s nothing to do with believing anything; it’sto do with listening to what Buddha says andif we like what we hear, we’re confident inthe Buddha, and we’re confident in what wehear so far, we’re prepared to give it a go –prepared to take his teachings, his views, asour working hypothesis. How else can youwork with something if you don’t propose it?

That’s why it’s got nothing to do with believing it, squeezing it inside yourself.Nothing like that at all. Nothing to do withliking it or not liking it, because it’s eithertrue or it’s not. And we have to find out.That’s the Buddhist approach.

WISDOM MEANS SEEING THINGS AS

THEY ACTUALLY EXIST

So this is what wisdom means. Wisdom’s notsome – we use this word a lot in Buddhism –

it’s not some special holy word, all high andfancy. “Wisdom” simply means beingcorrect. If you say there are two cups on mytable, that ain’t wisdom, honey, that’signorance. There’s one. There’s one cup onmy table – that’s wisdom. You get it right. So,of course, the wisdom Buddha’s saying wecan accomplish is a pretty outrageous level ofwisdom: seeing the universe as it existswithout mistake. That’s the level of wisdom

we can accomplish; he calls it omniscience. Imean, my Catholic mother was shocked by

that! This is what Buddha is saying. So, it’squite radical, what he’s saying.

So, what is Buddha’s view? When weunderstand karma we understand how wecome into existence, and we understand whatmind is, his view of the law that runs the

minds, his view about karma; the law ofcause and effect. That’s Buddha’s view. Andremember, you have to take it as yourworking hypothesis. Otherwise, you know, ifyou read a scientist’s book, and you can’teven trust that he’s speaking from his ownexperience, then you shouldn’t be reading the

book, don’t get yourself confused. So wehave to – having checked – decide thatBuddha is talking from his own experience.

That’s why you need to check theBuddhist centers carefully, check theBuddha’s teachings carefully, check thepeople who teach, check the Dalai Lama, andif he’s a valid person who representsBuddha’s teachings, you can be delighted tohear his teachings. If not, be careful. Don’tconfuse yourself. So, we have to assume thatBuddha is a person who has accomplishedthese things that he states. Otherwise, howcan he talk about it if he hasn’t realized them

himself? It’s extremely arrogant.So, basically, what he’s saying is that there

are countless minds, countless mind-possessors, “sentient beings.” And there aresome minds that are “in samsara,” and thereare some minds that are “not in samsara.”You can say like this, broadly speaking,really just broadly speaking. And those of uswho are in samsara, the main determiningfactor, the factor that determines our being asamsaric being – an ordinary being – is the

presence in our mind of these delusions. Ifwe look at our mental consciousness, we’vegot positive, negative and neutral states ofmind; there’s no fourth category. Let’s forgetthe neutral, you’ve got the positive and thenegative. It’s a simple statement. Positive,negative. But don’t hear it in a moralisticsense, like we tend to. These are technicalterms.




NEGATIVE STATES OF MIND ARE NOT

IN SYNC WITH REALITY

A characteristic of the negative ones is thatthey’re liars, they’re not in sync with reality,the reality of interdependence. But thevirtuous ones are to some extent in sync with

reality. The virtuous states of mind have thecharacteristic of being peaceful – just checkthe last time you were loving, kind, generous;you felt peaceful. And, there’s a sense ofinterdependence there. You’ve got a sense ofconnectedness with others, which meansyou’re in sync – to some extent – withinterdependence, which is reality.

When you’re caught up in anger,depression, jealousy, it’s a nightmare, isn’t it?

It’s like hell. You’re not in sync with reality,you’ve got this vivid, vivid sense of aseparate, unhappy self-pity me, as LamaYeshe calls it – lonely, bereft, not fair, poorme, things are done to me. Hungry, needy,wanting something more, resentful, angry,hurt, low self-esteem – this is samsara, beingcaught up in this junk, that’s samsara. That’swhat it means, being in samsara.

UNAWARENESS

And the root, the mother, of all these lies inthe mind, these neurotic emotions, thesewrong views, is simply called “ignorance.”Like all these words, it’s got a very specificdefinition. “Ma-rig-pa” in Tibetan;“unawareness.”

So, unawareness of, finally, how thingsactually exist. Or, as they say in Buddhistlanguage, the ultimate way that things exist.It means the actual way that things exist intheir bones, finally. We are utterly ignorant ofthis reality. But like I said yesterday inquoting His Holiness from the teachings in(Washington) D.C. recently, you know, thisignorance has two functions: the first one isthe mere ignorance of how things are, justmerely not knowing; but that’s not the mainproblem. This ignorance also has an addedproblem of having made up its own fantasystory, and that’s the one we’re believing innow, which is the story, the belief, that

everything exists in and of itself, from itsown side, intrinsically. This is so abstract forour minds, we don’t even get it.

So, before we even go into the meaning ofwhat ignorance is – you know, whatignorance thinks, that is that everything isintrinsic – there’s an inherent I, intrinsic, selfexistent, blah-blah-blah…forget that. Don’teven go into that. Let’s just look more

broadly at how things do exist conventionally– because even that we don’t get right.

THE TWO TRUTHS

Buddha talks about how things exist in twoways, well, many ways, actually. But thisparticular way of presenting it he calls thetwo truths: conventional truth, the waythings exist conventionally; and the waythings exist finally, or ultimately. So initially

when we hear these, they, for us, totallycontradict. But in reality, they actually arelike flip sides of the same coin, and our job isto get to see that, to understand that – evenfirst intellectually, very beneficial.

So the shorthand for how things existconventionally is “dependent arising.” Youread it sometimes as “dependentorigination.” I prefer the word “dependentarising.” Things exist interdependently.Things exist in dependence upon this and that,

conventionally. And then ultimately, theshorthand is “emptiness.” In other words, thewords they use in the Tibetan – Buddhistliterature as you know is that “emptiness” isthe nature of reality ultimately. This is theway they talk.

So let’s unpack these ideas. Let’s look atthe use of these words, because part of ourproblem is we don’t even know how thesewords are used. We can’t get our headaround the general concepts. You know,thirty years of hearing Buddhism, you stillhaven’t got a clue what emptiness is becausewe haven’t just technically got ourselvessorted out, how to use this terminology.

THE WORD “EMPTINESS”

Before we go into understanding the waythings exist, let’s first look at this word,“emptiness” itself and how it’s used. In themost simple sense, it means “absent,” doesn’t

it? It means “not there.” If I say, my cup hasno water in it, we would simply say, “Mycup is empty.” What we mean is there is no




water in my cup; it is empty of water; wateris absent from my cup.

EMPTY OF WHAT?

Clearly, Buddha’s not telling us that thingsare empty of water. So, what is he saying?

What is he saying things are empty of? Wehave to understand the way the word is used.

Okay. So, if you’re not color-blind, you’regoing to agree this white cup is not red. Youagree, don’t you? This cup is not red. So wewould simply say, “You’re right, Robina, it’snot red.” The Buddha would say, using thislanguage, “the cup is empty of being red.”It’s a fancy way to talk, but we can hear themeaning very simply, can’t we? It’s just thatwe don’t speak it like this. We don’t say,“The cup is empty of being red,” but the useof the word there is exactly the meaning. Thecup is not red. And why would he tell us it’sempty of being red – I mean, it’s empty of

being lots of things. He would only tell us it’sempty of being red because we think it’s red,

because our mind is making a mistake, isseeing it wrongly. This is crucial tounderstand.

ESTABLISHING WHAT DOES EXISTOkay. You can see the cup is white, right.Well, you could say, “White exists on thiscup.” It’s a quaint way to talk, but youunderstand the meaning, don’t you? “Thereis white on this cup.”

Now, because of that we can see there’s nored on this cup. So, we can also say, “Theabsence of red exists on this cup.” Would youagree with that? That on this cup, wouldn’tyou agree, there is an absence of red? It’s a

weird way to talk, so let’s discuss.There is a good reason for talking this

way. In Buddhist philosophy there areseveral synonyms for “that which exists” –and Buddha is all about our discovering “thatwhich exists.” That’s his big thing. Becausehe says we’re in la-la land right now,

believing in things that don’t exist.So, whatever does exist is necessarily a

phenomenon, an object, an existent. The

definition of an existent is “that which can becognized by mind,” a valid state of mind,obviously – and there are precise ways of

defining what is valid and what is not. Andwhat we’re attempting to do in this pursuit ofwisdom is to eventually cognize all existentsprecisely as they exist, no more and no less:that’s omniscience.

So, you agree, right, that there is an

existent, a thing that can be cognized by themind, called white? And it exists here on thiscup, yes? Would you agree with that? Whitedoes exist here on this cup, doesn’t it? It issomething that your mind can cognize.

Okay, how do we know it exists? Well, wehave to first establish it conventionally. Weneed to label it, define it, then check that itfulfils the definition and make sure there areno other valid cognitions of it that contradictthis. Then we can all shake on it and agreethat this object, this phenomenon calledwhite, exists here on this cup.

COGNIZING THE ABSENCE OF RED

Now that we’ve established there is whitehere, we can deduce logically that it’s notred, right? Because we know it’s white, wecan deduce it’s not red.

Now, let’s say I am color-blind and when Ilook at white I see red. I’m making a mistake,

aren’t I? Remember, we’ve established theexistence of this conventional phenomenoncalled white by defining, etc., etc., andagreeing upon that – that’s what“conventional” means: by convention it’scalled white.

So, how can you help me get to see thetruth? And what is the truth? Well, there aretwo ways of putting it. The truth is it is notred. The truth is also that it’s white. But youneed to take me through this, one step at a

time. The first thing you want me to realize ishow it’s not red. I need to see my mistake.

The simple way you’d say it is, “Robina,the cup’s not red!” But let’s turn it into anoun, a think, an existent: then it becomesthis thing called “absence of red,” “emptinessof red.” It’s got huge meaning.

How can you phrase it, then, in order tohelp me? You will want me to cognize “theemptiness of red on this cup,” won’t you?

And that absence is a very real phenomenonthat does exist, isn’t it?




So: the phenomenon called white doesexist on this cup. I am ignorant and cannotsee the truth. So you need to guide me to beable to cognize the phenomenon called theabsence of red on this cup, don’t you?Because it does exist there, doesn’t it?

There is a phenomenon called “white.”Easy – no argument. And there is also aphenomenon called “absence of red.” And sothey’ve got equal status insofar as they’re

both phenomena that do exist. There is aphenomenon called “emptiness of red” thatexists and there is a phenomenon called“white” that exists. They are both existentsthat can be cognized by a mind

ABSENCE OF KEYSWhen we hear “emptiness,” we tend to thinkof it as meaning “nothing.” But the“emptiness of red” is a very vivid thing thatdoes exist. But for whom? So let me give youanother example. Let’s say you are runninglate and you rush to the front door and on theway open the drawer where you always keepyour car keys. You know the keys are there,you totally expect the keys in the drawer. Butwhen you open the drawer you get a big

shock. “Oh my God! No keys!” What did you just see in the drawer? The absence of keys,the emptiness of keys. It’s a very vivid thing,isn’t it?

Now, if I’m not expecting keys and I openthe drawer, all I see is a boring drawer withnothing in it. I see nothing. But you seesomething very vivid – the absence of a thingthat you thought was there. And that’s theidea about emptiness. And the only personwho will see that vivid thing calledemptiness of keys is the person who expects

keys to be there, who believes keys are there.Back to the cup. I am making a mistake. I

am seeing something that doesn’t exist,which I totally believe does exist. So youcan’t just bully me into believing it; you haveto help me see the truth. And how do you dothat? You help me correct the mistakes: youcheck my eyes, my glasses, the lighting, thevarious dependent arisings. Then I look again

at the cup and what will see? I’ll get a bigshock – “Oh my God, the cup is not red!” In

other words, I will cognize the emptiness ofred.

It’s obvious that this is only relevant tosomeone who sees red; to someone whoexpects the keys. That person will see theabsence of the thing they always thought was

there.So Buddha is saying, “Robina, you need to

cognize the emptiness of the self-existent I.”Why? Because for eons I have been imposingon myself and everything else a characteristicthat doesn’t exist there. The mistake we make– our ignorance makes – is seeing inherentlyexistent I where there isn’t one, an inherentlyexistent cup where there isn’t one, aninherently existent everything where there

isn’t one. We’ve been decorating on top ofwhat does exist – a conventional I, aconventional cup – the characteristic calledinherent existence, which doesn’t exist andnever has. So Buddha wants us to see thatabsence, that emptiness.

And where does that absence of inherentlyexistent I exist? On the conventional I thatdoes exist.

THE BIG MISTAKE

Buddha’s saying for eons we have been believing in this big mistake. Where did youlearn this? We didn’t. We’ve believed it since

beginningless time. And all of our suffering,all our attachment, all our anger, all ourpride, all the wars, all the dramas, all therebirths are all the consequence of thismisconception. This misconception is theprimordial misconception that is the sourceof all suffering.

But we can’t see it, because it’s totallyassumed as the truth. It’s the default mode inour minds. We can’t even begin tocomprehend the meaning of “I see myself asinherent.”

So Buddha says we have to see , we have to

realize , the absence of that mistake. So that“absence of inherent Robina” is a very vividthing that our mind has to cognize just likethe absence of red is a very vividphenomenon that we have to cognize.

You’ve got to squeeze your brain a bit toget it first. But once you get used to this, then




you read about emptiness, it will start tomake sense.

SEEING EMPTINESS – THE PARADIGM

SHIFT When you finally see the absence of the I that

you think is there, that you thought for eonsis there, they say there’s this mind-bogglingparadigm shift that occurs in your mind.When finally, the penny drops, and you getto realize directly the absence of the fantasy Ithat you always thought was there but in facthas never been there.

So, “seeing emptiness” is a verymeaningful way to say it. It’s the emptinessof the fantasy “I” that you thought was there.And, just like with the keys, the personwho’d see the absence of the inherent I is, ofcourse, the person who believes it’s there.The person who’d see the absence of red onthe white cup is the person who had believedit was red. So, you see the absence of yourinherent I only if you had inherent I in yourmind. It has nothing to do with vacuousspace, vague nothingness. It’s a very vivid,vivid thing, when you can get it. So this wayof talking is extremely important. When we

can understand this, it can really help us.And like I’m saying, the only reason

Buddha’s telling us that, you know – as theway they use the words “emptiness is theultimate way that things exist” – it’s not somefancy religious trip he’s putting on us; it’s

just the way they talk, you know. But theonly reason he talks about emptiness is

because we’ve made the mistake of thinkingthere is something in us that isn’t there. So, ofcourse, to understand the absence of red –

red’s easy, because we know red because it isa phenomenon that does exist in general. Butinherent I? There’s never been such a thing,and never could be. It’s completely made up

by our minds.

WHAT DOES INHERENT MEAN?

So let’s talk about what it means, “inherentI,” “intrinsic I,” “self-existent I,” “I that existsfrom its own side,” “I that exists in and of

itself.” They are all synonyms for the mistakeour mind makes, for the mistake that thisignorance in the mind makes.

If something existed like that, it wouldnecessarily not depend on anything else. Andif we think even roughly, we’ll see there isnothing that exists that doesn’t depend onsomething for its existence.

All the delusions see something that isn’t

there. So attachment projects a delicious,divine cup – the mistake called “attachment,”the delusion, the lie; aversion – another lie –projects “ugly, revolting cup.” Ignoranceinforms both and it projects a self-existent

beautiful cup, a self-existent ugly cup. Inother words, ignorance underpins all theother delusions. It’s the deepest assumptionunderneath attachment, aversion, depression,

jealousy and all the rest. Once you removethat underpinning, all the other samsaricviews collapse in a heap of nothingness.

So the deepest assumption, the deepestmistake is this belief in the “inherent me.”Like I said, it’s so subtle, we don’t realize wethink it. No one taught us this. It’s just thedefault mode. We were born with it. It’s infact the motor that propels us to even take arebirth in the first place. So, it’s prettyprimordial.

THE MIDDLE WAYIn the Buddha’s teachings, there’s differentlevels of understanding things, and each ofthem, removes a little bit more of what theythink doesn’t exist until eventually you get tothe highest view, the Middle Way, andwithin that the view called theConsequentialists, the actual meaning ofBuddha’s teachings. As His Holiness talkedabout this in D.C. recently, that when wefinally have the true view, according to

Nagarjuna, who really explained this fifteenhundred years, whatever, it sounds soradical, it’s scary: that there is nothing fromthe side of the cup, the I, the table, the mala,the flower, there is nothing from the side of athing that makes it that thing.

We think there is, and we desperatelycling to there being something inherent –something in the “thing” that makes it thething. That’s what we think. That’s what

ignorance thinks, and we desperately wantthis. We cling to this, because there’s panic




and fear to think – it just sounds like nihilism.And that’s why it’s so tricky.

The moment we hear that there is nothingfrom the side of the thing that gives it itsthingness, we immediately hear it as, “Oh,there’s nothing there.” Nihilistic. We chuck

the baby out with the bath water. Instantly,we hear it this way. We can’t help but hear itthis way. Buddha says that’s one of theextreme views deep in our minds. We go toofar, we chuck too much out. And then assoon as we hear dependent arising, thatthings exist in dependence upon this andthat, but we don’t hear that properly either.We hear it as, “Ooh, what a relief!” and grasp.“Thank goodness there is something there

after all.” So we reify it. We put too muchonto it.

DEPENDENT ARISING MEANS

EMPTINESS AND EMPTINESS MEANS

DEPENDENT ARISING

What Lama Tsongkhapa says we need to dois every time we hear “emptiness” – thatthere is nothing from the side of a thing thatmakes it a thing, there’s nothing in and ofitself that is making it that, there is no I from

its own side, there is no intrinsic, inherent mein there that makes me, me – instead ofinstantly going to the nihilistic view andchucking the baby out with the bath water,we consciously bring ourselves toward theMiddle Way and we say to ourselves – whichis counter-intuitive for us – “Aha, Robina. My“I” being empty means it is a dependentarising I.” There is an I: there is an I thatexists in dependence upon this and this. Andthen every time we hear about dependentarising, that there is an I existing independence upon this and that, instead ofclinging onto it and exaggerating it andreifying it, we will again counter-intuitivelygo towards the Middle Way and say, “Aha,Robina, that means it is empty.”

So, right now, these are opposite to us.Because what Buddha’s saying and whatTsongkhapa really runs with is that whenyou think “emptiness,” it should remind you

it means “dependent arising.” And when youthink “dependent arising,” it should remindus that that means “emptiness.” They in fact

are the two sides of the same coin. In factthat’s the true Middle Way. That when youthink “emptiness,” you think “dependentarising,” and when you think “dependentarising,” you think “emptiness.”

We have to practice thinking this, because

intuitively we go to the two extremes. Andthis is very meaningful, this is very tasty, andexperiential. It’s not just intellectual cleverstuff. This is why it is crucial to have the rightwords. Buddha’s main gift is his words. Ifyou can’t put it into words, then we’re just

being lazy. We have to practice, becausewords are the way of communicating.

There’s an old Danish guy in the SantaCruz called Age, he’s ninety-something now,

and he was a friend of Lama Yeshe’s, and hewas a Toaist. Lama asked him one time, “Tellme what you think, what your philosophyis?” and he said, “Oh, no, it’s beyond words.You can’t describe it.” And Lama saidsomething like, “Ah, you’re just beingintellectually lazy. You’re cheating. If youcan’t describe it, then what good are you tosentient beings? How can you help?”

So, he took this to heart, and he said hespent twenty years thinking through the

entire philosophy and writing a book.Because if you don’t have words, how canyou hear Buddha’s teachings? It’s notpossible. We have to have words and thewords have to be correct. If I just sit here and

bliss out to you about how amazing, howspecial the taste of the cake is, wow, it’s

beyond words – how mean of me! I have togive you the recipe, don’t I? And that’swords. Then you can get the taste.

Buddha’s main gift is his words. Wordsare deadly serious, because they lead you tothe taste. So, get your words right. That’swhy you need to listen to authenticteachings. Check carefully before you read,there’s so much junk around, you know,that’s called Buddhism. Be very careful whatyou listen to, and you’d better be carefulabout what you hear from me! From theDalai Lama! You should check. You know,we all love the Dalai Lama; we think, “Oh,

isn’t he wonderful, he makes me feel good.”Well, I’m sorry – Hitler made people feelvery good! No logic. So check up on your




facts, you know. Have some confidence, havesome certainty.

ESTABLISH THINGS AS EXISTING

CONVENTIONALLY

So, if things exist in dependence upon

various factors, and if they’re empty ofinherent existence, then we need to thinkabout it, we need to prove that it’s true. Andto do that, as I said before, we have to start

by establishing something in order to discusshow it exists. So how do we do that? Well, westart with the name, and then we have todefine it. A definition has two parts.

“Mummy, what’s a cup?”“Well, darling, it’s that flat-bottomed clay

container with a handle on it.” I can see it,can’t I? “But Mummy, what does it do?” “Oh,it holds my tea, sweetheart.”

The first part of the definition tells you itsconventional characteristics, its substance,and the second part that tells you its job,what it does, its function. “It holds my tea.”

But we’re not confident yet. We now haveto check that it does, in fact, fulfil its function.So I pour tea into it and if it holds the tea,then it does the job we said it does. But

there’s more: we now need to check thatthere are no other valid cognitions in theminds of anyone else that contradict that.And if there aren’t, then we’ve established acup, haven’t we? And then we all shakehands on it and agree.

That’s conventional reality in general. It’sa cup literally “by convention,” byagreement. And, actually, that’s also subtledependent arising: it’s merely labeled, made

by our own minds. And that’s how

everything exists, doesn’t it? But we’ll get tothat later.

FIRST, THINGS EXIST IN DEPENDENT

UPON CAUSES AND CONDITIONS

Let’s look at the different levels of dependentarising, taking it one step at a time, leadingus to the subtlest level. The first way inwhich things exist is in dependence uponcauses and conditions; they come into

existence in dependence upon countlesscauses and conditions. And when it comes to

the thing called a person, that’s called karma,isn’t it?

When I first learned this from KhensurRinpoche Jampa Tegchok, who was the abbotof Sera Je monastery for seven years, he wasthe abbot of our monastery in France for ten

years and my philosophy teacher in Englandin the early 80s. He used the example of theobject called “Robina.” He said that it can besaid that everything in the universe up to thefirst moment of Robina is validly a cause andcondition for the existence of Robina.

I’ll never forget it, and at the time, thatsounded pretty cosmic. But let’s look at thelogic of it. It’s perfectly true. You can startanywhere you like. Let’s discuss this cuphere. So let’s say Mrs. Smith was the designerof this nice cup. So we can say, obviously,one of the first causes of this cup is Mrs.Smith, isn’t it? Her mind imagining,conjuring up this design. We can say that,can’t we? Very clear. We know that perfectlywell. We know it didn’t fall out of a tree likethis. A human mind created it. So, Mrs. Smithhad a mother, didn’t she? And if Mrs. Smithdidn’t have a mother, there could not be Mrs.Smith. So, Mrs. Smith’s mother had a mother,

and then you can’t help but say Mrs. Smith’smother had a mother, and where can youfind the first mother? Because as soon as youposit one, you’ve got to posit the previousone, which is the simple logic of cause andeffect. It’s like a domino effect, going theopposite direction. That’s the simplest levelof dependent arising. As soon as you posit athing, it has to have a cause.

Then you’ve got another angle – you thinkof the clay. Well, clay came from a mountain

and that came from previous something andthat turned into something else. Then youthink of the paint. Everything you look atabout this cup – once you start, you cannot doanything but keep going back and back. Ofcourse, we are desperate to find the firstcause – but logically, given cause and effect,such a thing cannot exist.

It’s fascinating: we always want a firstcause. This is the view of self-existence. This

is the view that is actually manifesting in theteachings of “creator” and “soul” – that thereis a “first cause” and it’s called “God.”




Buddha says it’s irrational and illogical. Youcannot – if you posit a law of cause and effect– you cannot have an effect without a cause.You can have a cause without an effect: ifthere’s a chicken, it has to have come from anegg. And you know that egg has to have

come from a chicken. But you know that ifyou have an egg, you don’t have to get achicken, you can break the egg.

So, if there is an effect – and everythingthat exists at this moment is itself an effect,isn’t it – it assumes a previous cause, so youwill never find a first one. But we franticallywant there to be a first cause. “But but butthere must be,” we’ll say. We ask thequestion: “When did it begin? When did

delusions begin? When did suffering begin?When did karma begin? When dideverything begin?”

We’ve got this view because we cling toself-existence, because we have thismisconception deep in the bones of our

being. We assume there has to be a firstcause, because grasping at self-existent me,grasping at “self-existent anything” is theopposite to cause and effect.

So the first way in which things come into

existence, the first level at which things existinterdependently is in terms of their existingin dependence upon causes and conditions.And you just keep going. You can’t find afirst cause. And there are countless causes foreverything.

KARMA IS THE FIRST LEVEL OF

DEPENDENT ARISING FOR THE OBJECT

CALLED ME

That’s why karma is a marvelous example ofthis. The object is called me. So right now, wecan see we cling to a sense of self that’s veryvivid, that’s very solid, separate, lonely,

bereft, self-pity, self-conscious, angry,depressed, fearful – all the drama. We live inthe bubble of this sense of a separate, lonelyme, don’t we? There’s me, and there’severyone else. This is the biggest lie. This isthe experiential, emotional consequence of

believing in “inherent I.”

Like I said, we don’t think we believe “ininherent I,” we don’t even know what itmeans. But this is the experiential

consequence of it. Fear, drama, anxiety,anger, depression, low self-esteem,loneliness, poor me – these are theexperiential consequences of this primordialmistake.

In other words, the way we assume about

me, is that there’s no causes, it’s just me, Ididn’t ask to get born, it’s not my fault,everything is done to me. So, you know, wedon’t want the ugly things done to me so wehave huge aversion and anger and push itaway, and we do crave the lovely things sowe have attachment. Attachment andaversion are the consequences of thisignorance. The natural outcropping ofignorance, because we assume an I to have

things for. We assume an I that doesn’t wantsuffering. It’s an assumption deep in the bones of our being. This is the experientialconsequence of this mistake that our mindmakes.

But thinking about how I am the result ofpast karma, I’m the result of past actions –you hit me because I hit you before, you’regenerous to me because I must have beengenerous to you before – it loosens the grip ofthis lonely, bereft me. It sees that I’m this

interdependent scenario. That’s why to talkabout karma, to think about karma is themost marvelous way to loosen the grip of the“self-pity me,” to loosen the grip of the ego,of the ignorance. Takes time, of course. Thisis why you’re not really a Buddhist until youthink about karma: karma meansinterdependence and interdependence isBuddha’s thing.

So the first level of dependent arising isthat things exist in dependence upon causesand conditions. There is a cup that does exist– in dependence upon countless causes andconditions. But you will not find a cupamong any one of those causes andconditions. This is the first level to thinkabout. And what this means is, you thinkabout this and what it brings – this is thepoint – is the conclusion: “Oh, I see!Therefore there’s no cup from its own side.”You see the absence of the inherent cup.

We go, “Well, how do I think aboutemptiness? Just sit there and think, “The cupis empty, the cup is empty, the cup is empty,”




waiting for some vision to come. Ridiculous!You don’t sit there thinking about emptiness.You sit there thinking about dependentarising. And that thinking, that logicalanalysis, triggers the conclusion, “Oh, I see –therefore, there’s no cup from its own side,

therefore the cup is empty of existing from itsown side.”

Emptiness is the conclusion you come to,having thought about dependent arising. It’sa very practical thing. It’s not cosmic, becausevery simply, if you think about how the cupexists interdependently , this proves that it isabsent of existing independently. Obvious –they’re the opposite.

If it is empty, if it is interdependent, it isempty of being independent, isn’t it? If it is

interdependent, it is empty of being independent.

Independent and interdependent areopposite. So if it is interdependent, it lacks

being independent. Simple. That’s the simpleway of talking.

And here we’re talking about the simplestlevel of dependent arising: that things areempty of existing independently of causesand conditions.

There are subtler levels to it.

SECOND, THNGS EXIST IN

DEPENDENCE UPON PARTS

Now, the second way the cup exists independence upon various factors is the cupexists in dependence upon its parts. There isa cup, but you won’t find cup apart from itsparts. But we think there is, and our languagecheats us. Our language is really tricky. Itreinforces self-existence. You listen to theway we talk, you know?

Back in the seventh century, Chandrakirti,this Indian great commentator onNagarjuna’s teachings on the Middle Way,which are at the heart of all the teachings onemptiness in Tibet, he talked about using theexample of a chariot. “Well,” he said, “ inorder to look for this inherent chariot that wethink is there, let’s break it down into itscomponent parts, to search for this inherentchariot.” You won’t find anything left over

after you have dismantled all the parts, andinstinctively we think we will. We thinkthere’s an owner there.

So, we can do this little meditation. You’ddo an analysis in your mind, you’d do it veryrigorously. You would start to break downthe component parts of your own self – justlike with the chariot – and you’d put them allout there, in little piles. All the hard bits and

the soft bits and the mucky bits and all the bits of your mind – the negative states, thepositive ones – as many piles as you want.Keep stripping it away, deconstructing this Iinto its component parts.

Now, when we finish that deconstruction,we believe we’re going to end up with thisnaked self-conscious little I that’s been foundout, that’s the owner of all the parts, becausethat’s what we believe is there. We talk likethis: “I did not do this.” “I am a specialperson.” “I am so fat and ugly.” “I am notthis.” “How dare you say that about me!” Wereally believe there’s a component in therecalled I or self that is walking hand in handwith the other components, the parts, themind, the body, etc., etc.

Let’s do an exercise to prove it. Okay. Mytable has a cup, a clock and a vase. Can yousee this? So, how many phenomena did Imention? Four. My table, the cup, the clock,

the vase, right? Four phenomena. We’retalking conventionally here, nothing tricky. Ifit’s a true statement that I just made, youmust point out four separate, distinctphenomena: you have to point out a tablethat is not a cup, not a vase, and not a clock,right? A clock that is not the table, the cup,the vase. Etc. You have to point out fourseparate phenomena. There’s a table, there’sa cup, there’s a clock, there’s a vase. Youagree, don’t you? And we can do that, can’t

we? Easy enough.Okay then. Another statement: I have a

nose. You agree? And I have a foot. And Ihave a hand. How many phenomena? Three?No. There are four phenomena, aren’t there:I, nose, foot, hand. Do you agree? So, samediscussion. If those four phenomena do existconventionally, you have to find fourseparate, distinct phenomena, each of whichis distinct, is not the other, don’t you agree?

Same as before.Well, there’s my foot – cut it off! There’smy nose – you can have it! There’s my hand.




Now, where’s the I? Where is the I that is notthe nose, not the hand, and not the foot. Ohdear. . . Most annoying, isn’t it? You can’tfind a separate I.

It’s just the same with the cup. Cup has ahandle and a base – there’s the base, there’s

the handle. Where’s the cup that isn’t the base, that isn’t the handle? Where’s the I thatisn’t the nose, the foot?

That absence of an I or a cup that is notdependent on the parts is what we have torealize.

Now we have the subtlest level ofdependent arising.

THIRD, THINGS EXIST IN DEPENDENCE

UPON THE MIND THAT LABELS THEMSo this gets us to the third level of dependentarising, which is that things exist independence upon the name, upon the mindlabelling them, upon concepts. There isnothing that is independent of mind. Cup ismerely a name we use, we impute, upon theparts, which is the valid base for that label:the handle, the base, the clay, the this, thethat. “Robina” is a name we impute upon allthe bits of Robina: the hand, the foot, the

nose, the anger, and all the rest.Same discussion – you can’t find a handle

among the parts of the handle, because“handle” is merely a name imputed on itsparts. You can’t find a hand among the parts;it is a hand, it does hold a cup, but it’s merelya name imputed by mind upon the valid

base, which is the fingers and the thumb andthe palm and the wrist.

So, we’re not satisfied, we think, “Oh, I’m just a name? What a bore. I thought I wasmore than that.”

Everything exists like this. Prison is madeup by our mind; love, anger, jealousy, hell,enlightenment: they all exist in dependenceupon the mind calling them that, buying intotheir being that.

But they do function as that, remember?They must in order to establish asconventions. You can’t call a cup a knife justy

before you feel like it. You have to establish it

conventionally, and it has to function, and wehave to agree to it.

As Lama Zopa Rinpoche says, “When wehave realized emptiness, realized how thingsactually exist, it’s as if there is nothing there,

but there is. But what exists is so subtle it’s as

if it’s an illusion, it’s as if it doesn’t exist.” Aswe’d say in the West, “It’s all smoke and

mirrors.”

FEAR IS THE VOICE OF IGNORANCE

As Pabongka Rinpoche says, “ When younearly fall off the mountain, you don’t say,“My body nearly fell off the mountain. Yousay I nearly fell off the mountain.” Ifsomeone insults your nose, you don’t say,“How dare you insult my nose! You insultedme!” we’d say. We believe there is this me in

there, that’s more than the parts, that doesn’tdepend upon the mind, the name.Even conventionally, Buddha says, you

won’t find that one. He’s just being practical,not being cosmic. But this belief in this self-existent, over-exaggerated boss that runs theshow is the source of all suffering. When wehave realized the absence – when we haveseen the absence of that , when we haverealized emptiness.

WHEN WE KNOW EMPTINESS THERE ISNO FEAR

When we have realized the emptiness of thatfantasy I, as Lama Zopa says, “Then there isno fear.” Fear is finished, because fear is themain emotion of all the delusions, inparticular ego-grasping. This ignorance isknown colloquially as ego-grasping, and itsmain job is fear. Fear and panic. And I is themain voice of it. So when we realizeemptiness, there is no fear, as Rinpoche said.

When he was a little boy, when he waseight – he was recognized when he was verysmall as the reincarnation of a previous yogicalled Kunsang Yeshe up in the mountains inSherpa country, you know. He was thismeditator called Kunsang Yeshe and he livedas an ordinary layman, hanging out, youknow, going off to Tibet and buying salt andselling it to the Sherpas and everything, andeventually left home and went to this little

hole-in-the-wall in the mountains, which isnow known as Lawudo. I think it was wherethey stored the radishes or the onions;




“Lawudo “ means “radish” or “onion,” Ican’t remember which. Anyway, he pulledout the radishes and moved in, and that

became his little home for the last twenty-fiveor whatever years of his life. He got to beknown as the “Lawudo Lama.” And so when

he died, being a great yogis, he had completecontrol over the death process, and couldchoose his rebirth.

Anyway, this little boy got born down thehill, in the little village below Lawudo, andhe was – I forget his name then, he wasn’tZopa, actually, but pretend he was calledZopa then. From the time he was a tiny boy,apparently, his mother, she’d go outside tochop the wood and Zopa’s gone , you know.He’s crawling up the hill, back to – well, not

back to, we discovered this later – he’scrawling up towards the cave. And from thetime he could talk, he’s always going up thehill, always. He’s relentless, very determined.And his mother would say, “Come home!”He’d say, “No! That is my home,” pointingup to the cave.

So then from the time he could playgames, his sister said, he’d always play therole of being a lama, sitting on a throne and

having a bell and having all these pujas anddoing torma offerings and then he’d say that“all my benefactors are coming” and he’dgive the list of all the names of his previous

benefactors from his past life, saying theywere turning up for puja.

So, she’d thought she’d better check withthe local lamas and found out theyconsidered, yes, he seems to be thereincarnation of Kunsang Yeshe. Then he

became known as a Rinpoche, “Precious

One.”He’s eventually handed over to some

manager, and he told this story one timeabout how up in the mountains at someparticular monastery – he’s eight years old –and there’s this big river. And on the otherside of the river, there’s these kind of strange,pale-faced people with straw-colored hair.He really wanted to meet these people.There’s this little rickety bridge, his manager

kept saying, “No,” but he insisted. So he brought a little bowl of potatoes, being aSherpa, you know, you bring your gift of

potatoes, and when he was halfway acrossthe bridge he fell in the water.

When Rinpoche told this story, he said,“The head was bobbing up and down.” Ofcourse, they don’t teach them to swim up inthe Sherpa country, so his head is going up

and down in the water and he’s seeing hismanager running up and down on the shore.Then he said to himself, “Hmm… thethought occurred to me, the person known asthe Lawudo Lama is about to die” – veryrationally to himself, as he’s going up anddown for air. And then he said to himself, “Ididn’t know anything about emptiness, but

there was no fear.”

Obviously, so far, being eight years old, inthat life he’d never heard about emptiness,

but we can deduce from his experience, inmy own opinion, we can deduce from thisthat he obviously had the realization ofemptiness, if he is said to be who he was, andit was in his mind already. Because he had inhis mindstream an intuitive understanding ofemptiness, there was no ego-grasping, andtherefore there was no fear.

Of course, in our culture, we would findthis utterly inconceivable. You’d be called

mentally ill if you proposed this possibility toWestern psychologists. Because Westernpsychology is based – like I said, not just thereligious teachings but the materialistteachings as well – based on the assumptionof a self-existent I. We say it is natural to havefear. We call it “instinct for survival.” Weassume fear, jealousy, anger, paranoia, upset,depression, all the rest are normal behavior.Animals have it. Humans have it. Soeverything is based upon the assumption of

this as reasonable mental health.To hear that Buddha says you can remove

all these neuroses from your mind, you caneradicate them from your mind, and go

beyond all fear, and develop infinite wisdomand infinite compassion for all sentient

beings, they’ll think you’re crazy; they’ll giveyou a pill and lock you up.

But this is exactly what Buddha’s saying.It’s easy for us to say it in nice religious terms

– nirvana, Buddhahood – but we need to hearit as real, doable, actual psychologicalpossibility, which is how Buddha means it.




So this ignorance, this ego-grasping – thisdeep, deep primordial delusion – thisabsolute default mode, this ancient, eons-oldhabit that we come programmed with fromcountless lives, along with its branches calledattachment, and anger and all the rest – this

is what we call normal. But Buddha sayswe’re all mentally ill. We’re all living in amental asylum in our own head.

Once we understand the branch delusions– how they misconceive, how theyexaggerate – then we can begin tounderstand the root delusion, the ignorancethat clings to the self-existent I, the ego-grasping. Once you’ve seen the emptiness ofthe fantasy I, you’ve pulled out the root and

then, of course, the others collapse, the branches die. There’s no longer anything to be attached to, or to be angry about, or to bedepressed about.

ANY INHERENTLY EXISTING

PHENOMENA

Q: Is there any phenomenon that hasinherent existence?

Ven: No. Buddha says it’s a contradictionin terms. You cannot have such a thing. If

something were inherent, it would mean itexisted without depending on anything. Andthat is simply an impossibility. Everythingthat exists, necessarily existsinterdependently. By definition, all existentsare dependent arisings.

This is where they say the eternalistic viewof “creator” and “soul” are a mistake. There’sthis need for us to hold onto something, as ifsomehow “inherent” is above everythingelse. And that’s very much the feeling. Iremember talking to a friend of mine – she’sa Buddhist now, but she was a Christian, andvery sincere Christian – and she said she hada real struggle when she heard that a Buddhawas ordinary first, and then became Buddha.

That seemed to diminish Buddhahood.Whereas she was more comfortable with theidea, which is the Christian one, which is thatGod is always above everything. And hasalways been. And doesn’t exist in dependence

upon anything. It sounds like it’s diminishingGod

But Buddha would say if you analyze verycarefully, you’ll see something that isinherent can’t exist. It’s the opposite toexistence.

In fact, things exist because they are emptyof existing from their own side. Because

they’re empty, they can exist.Q: You just blew my mind…A: Okay, good! You see, our instinct is to

think “empty “ means “nihilistic,” so we hearthe opposite. It kind of splits us in half, sowe’ve got to keep remembering, emptinessmeans dependent arising, dependent arisingmeans emptiness.HOW TO MOVE FROM INTELLECTUAL

UNDERSTANDING TO EXPERIENTIAL

Q: I was wondering, do you have any advicefor taking our understanding of emptinessfrom the intellectual to the experiental.

A: Yes, let me tell you how. It’s notdifficult. Have you ever learned anythingyou didn’t know before? A certain science ora skill? Give an example. What is it? Whathave you learned? Okay, you’ve learnedpiano. Okay. When you first began, it wasmerely intellectual knowledge, don’t youagree? Wasn’t it? And even then, when you

looked at those weird looking notes on thesheets of music, you thought, “What is thisstuff?” You couldn’t get head around it, evenintellectually, could you?. Then you startedlearning the theory, didn’t you? And thenslowly you started putting your hands on thepiano and you could gradually translate that

boring intellectual stuff into somethingexperiential. So what was the main that thingyou did every day?

Q: Practice.A: And then guess what happened? It

became experiential, didn’t it? That’s how welearn everything. Nothing special. Well, thisis how you get enlightened. There’s nothing

special. You just have to do it: start with thewords, the theories, then through thinkingand meditating, they eventually become yourexperience.

If you had the wrong ideas about Bach’smusic, this theories, you’d never play it right.

So you got to have the right words, and thenyou just think about them every day, youanalyze, you meditate on it, you think about




it, and gradually, slowly, over years, months,years, the penny begins to drop, untileventually it becomes your direct experience.It’s exactly the same process. You just have to bepatient and persistent. Do you see what I’msaying? That’s the answer.

Then, of course, in Buddhism, especiallyin Tibetan Buddhism, you’ve got all these kitof tools that hugely help this process happen.Which seem to be the more religious side ofthings. The delusions, in our mind, themisconceptions, the obstacles are so strong,so huge, that without these extra tools wecan’t get far.

My analogy is this: Let’s say you see seeMichael Jordan getting all these balls in thehoop. (I’m probably twenty years out of date,

but I always think of Michael Jordan.) Andyou go, wow, I’d like to do that. You go tohim and you say, “Hey, man, please show mehow to get the ball in the hoop.” Right?Looks easy, doesn’t it? You go boom, boom,

boom, you get the ball in the hoop. Becauseyou can see, with basketball, the essence of itis getting the ball in the hoop.

Now, he will tell you, “Okay, good. First Iwant you to go off for ten years, study

basketball theory, go on a special diet, do lotsof jogging, build up muscles, train in this andtrain in that. . .”

And you say, “No, no no – you didn’t hearme. How do I get the ball in the hoop?” Andhe’ll repeat his answer. Why? Becauseobviously, even though getting the ball in thehoop looks so easy, you have to haveamazing skills and training and years ofpracticing other things that don’t seemdirectly related to getting balls in hoops

before you can do it effortlessly.Same with your mind. The idea of

familiarizing our minds with these new ideasuntil they’re our own direct experience is the

job, but we need to do many other practicesto prime our minds to be able to do it.

The Tibetan Buddhist call them“preliminary practices.” You’ve got to purifyyour mind. You’ve got to create masses andmasses of virtuous karma that prepares your

mind to do the actual job of being your owntherapist every day and getting therealization of emptiness. All the prostrations,

all the water bowls, all those different thingsthat seem so abstract and so disconnectedfrom practice, that seem so un-psychological,so “religious.”

But when we understand their function –and we have to think about this carefully –

they’re the ones that prime our minds, thatenable us easily to get the realizations. Thenwe can realize emptiness.

THE BEHAVIORAL IMPLICATIONS OF

WORKING WITH THE CONCEPT OF

EMPTINESS

Q: Say I’ve learned to understand theconcept of emptiness. How does that nextmake the leap to feeling less fear, guilt…

A: I understand. Initially, it doesn’t seemevident to us, doesn’t it? This is why you’reasking the question. That’s why another wayto put emptiness is to see things asinterdependent.

Okay, let me use the example of thosenuns in Tibet. There they were being torturedand sexually abused in a prison, right? Now,normally speaking, with the usual view thatwe have of “I didn’t ask to get born, it’s notmy fault, I don’t deserve this…” we would

literally have a mental breakdown, wouldn’twe? Just about, we would. And we’d beangry, we’d be freaking out, we’d be raging,we’d want to blame, we’d want to sue…lookat the mental torture we’d have in relation tothose kinds of things.

Now, their response – they weren’t angry,and they even had compassion. That isliterally coming from understanding karmawhich is meaning they created the cause, thisis not who I really am; and karma is

dependent arising, and dependent arising isthe flipside of emptiness.

Because, if you look at the normal egoresponse, the way we have ego now, – LamaYeshe calls it “the self-pity me” – and I’m nottrying to be cruel, now. But it is the way wesuffer. And if we analyze, if we unpack self-pity, unpack anger, you see it is “poor me, Ididn’t do this, I don’t deserve this, why isthis happening, there is no cause, I don’t

understand it, why me, what did I do todeserve it.” Would you agree this is the waywe think about suffering now? That is




coming from the philosophy of “I didn’t askto get born.” That’s coming from thephilosophy of “no cause and effect,” of “nokarma,” of being an “innocent victim.” That’sthe philosophy of the world. That’s why wehave our freaking out now.

If you have the view of karma, it causesyou to own responsibility for this thing that’shappening: you’ve made your bed and nowyou’re lying on it; which means there’s nofear, which means you’re confronting it,which means you’re accepting it, and then iteven means you can have compassion. Sothat’s a very different way of interpreting asituation, isn’t it? And all of this is implying:therefore this is not existing from its own

side, therefore it isn’t causeless. Because theway we have ego now, it’s all causeless.“Why is this happening?” and panic and fear.And that’s because we are graspingprimordially at “innocent victim me” whodidn’t ask to get born.

That’s a way of expressing emotionallyhow it feels to have ego; whereas if you havethis other one, it’s more spacious. Yourecognize why. You know you did it. It’smore spacious and it’s linked to

interdependence, which is the flipside ofemptiness. One has to think about it againand again and again. It’s a practical thing,you know. It sounds so abstract, to hearabout “understand emptiness.” It reallymeans to see interdependence and karma is aperfect example of how things exist independence upon various causes and factorsand things, you know. Does it make sense alittle bit? So, thinking about interdependenceis the way to put it.

Saying “emptiness” seems a bit abstract, because interdependence is the flip side ofemptiness, because the way ego is, “graspingat the self-existent me” – this is the label for it– is the one of thinking there’s no cause,thinking it’s not my fault, thinking “poor me”and therefore the panic and the fear and therage and the guilt and the shame and all the

junk that arises when bad things happen.Does it make sense a bit?

And so finally, after years and years ofmuch analysis and logic and thinking andmeditating, one finally gets the direct insight

into emptiness. That’s when we finally haveseen directly the absence of this fantasy “I”that we’ve been clinging to for so long. That’swhen you cut the root of delusions. Becausethere’s no longer the misconception of the I.Therefore there’s no longer fear, no longer

anger, no longer attachment. We have a wayto go before you completely finish it all and

become a buddha, but you’ve made thismajor shift when you’ve realized emptiness.That’s the real purification. That’s when youcut the root of suffering and its causes.




How Ignorance Grasps atthe IBy Lama Thubten Yeshe

THE MOUNTAIN OF SELF

Our conception of ego instinctively feels thatI’m somewhere around here; Thubten Yesheis somewhere here. Where is Thubten Yeshe?My ego’s instinctive interpretation is that I’mhere, somewhere in my body. Check foryourself. See what comes up in your mindwhen you think of your name. The hugemountain of your self will arise. Then check

exactly where that mountain of “me” can befound. Where are you? Somewhere aroundyour body. Are you in your chest, in yourhead?

You feel this instinctively. You don’t haveto study philosophy to learn it; you don’thave to go to school; you parents didn’t teachyou. You’ve known this since before youwere born.

Buddhism describes two kinds of egoidentity: kun-tag and lhen-kye.it comes at conception.

LEARNED GRASPING AT SELF

Kun-tag means the sense of self that’sphilosophically acquired. It’s something thatyou learn through outside influence fromteachers, friends, books and so forth. This isthe intellectually derived ego. Can youimagine? You can even acquire an egothrough reading. This one is easier to

remove, of course, because it’s moresuperficial. It’s a gross conception. Thesimultaneously born sense of self is much,much harder to get rid of.

INNATE GRASPING AT SELF

The one I’m talking about is lhen-kye , thesimultaneously-born one; the one that existssimply because you exist. It was born withyou; it needs no outside influence for itsexistence. Like the smell that comes with a

pine tree, they’re one. The pine tree doesn’tgrow first and then the smell comes later.

They come together. It’s the same with theinnate sense of ego;

This instinctive conception of ego is reallyconvinced that around my body is whereyou’ll find Thubten Yeshe. Someone looks atme and asks, “Are you Thubten Yeshe?”

“Yes,” I reply, “I’m Thubten Yeshe.” Where isThubten Yeshe? Around here. Instinctively, Ifeel I’m right here. But I’m not the only onewho feels like this. Check up for yourself. It’svery interesting.

MY NAME IS NOT ME

Until I was six years old, I was not ThubtenYeshe. That name was given to me when I

became a monk at Sera Monastery. Beforethat time, nobody knew me as ThubtenYeshe. They thought I was Döndrub Dorje.The names Thubten Yeshe and DöndrubDorje are different; different superstitionsgive different kinds of name. I feel my nameis me, but actually, it isn’t. Neither the namesThubten Yeshe nor Döndrub Dorje are me.But the moment I was given the nameThubten Yeshe, Thubten Yeshe came intoexistence. Before I was given the name, hedidn’t exist; nobody looked at me and

thought, “There’s Thubten Yeshe.” I didn’teven think it myself. Thubten Yeshe did notexist.

But when one superstitious conceptionnamed this bubble, my body – “Your name isThubten Yeshe” – my superstition took it:“Yes, Thubten Yeshe is me.” It’s aninterdependent relationship. Onesuperstition gives the name Thubten Yeshe tothis bubble of relativity and my ego starts tofeel that Thubten Yeshe really does exist

somewhere in the area of my body.

THUBTEN YESHE IS MERELY A NAME

The reality, however, is that Thubten Yeshe ismerely the dry words applied to the bubble-like phenomenon of these five aggregates.These things come together and that’s it:Thubten Yeshe, the name on the bubble. It’s avery superficial view. The ego’s instinctivefeeling that Thubten Yeshe exists somewhere

around here is very superficial.You can see that the relative reality ofThubten Yeshe is simply the name that’s been




given to this bubble of energy. That’s allThubten Yeshe is. That’s why the greatphilosopher and yogi Nagarjuna and thegreat yogi Lama Tsongkhapa both said thatall phenomena exist merely in name. As aresult, some early Western Buddhist scholars

decided that Nagarjuna was a nihilist. That’sa conclusion that could be reached only bysomeone who doesn’t practice and spends allhis time dealing in concepts and words.

If I were to show up somewhere andsuddenly announce, “You’re all merelynames,” people would think I was crazy. Butif you investigate in detail the manner inwhich we’re all merely names, it becomesextremely clear. Nihilists reject the very

existence of interdependent phenomena butthat’s not what Nagarjuna did. He simplyexplained that relative phenomena exist butthat we should view them in a reasonableway. They come, they go; they grow; theydie. They receive various names and in thatway gain a degree of reality for the relativemind. But that mind does not see the deepernature of phenomena; it does not perceive thetotality of universal existence.

RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE EXISTSIMULTANEOUSLY

Phenomena have two natures: theconventional, or relative, and the absolute, orultimate. Both qualities exist simultaneouslyin each and every phenomenon. What I’ve

been talking about is the way that bubbles ofrelativity exist conventionally. A relativephenomenon comes into existence when, atany given time, the association ofsuperstition and the conception of ego flavorsan object in a particular way by giving it aname. That combination – the object, thesuperstition giving it a name and the nameitself – is all that’s needed for a relativephenomenon to exist. When those thingscome together, there’s your Thubten Yeshe.He’s coming; he’s going; he’s talking. It’s all a

bubble of relativity.

THUBTEN YESHE IS A BUBBLE

If right now you can see that Thubten Yeshe’sa bubble, that’s excellent. It helps a lot. And ifyou can relate your experience of seeing me

as a bubble to other concrete objects youperceive, it will help even more. If you cansee the heavy objects that shake your heartand make you crazy as relative bubbles, theirvibration will not overwhelm you. Your heartwill stop shaking and you’ll cool down and

relax.If I were to show you a scarecrow and ask

if it was Thubten Yeshe, you’d probably sayit wasn’t. Why not? “Because it’s made ofwood.” You’d have a ready answer. You canapply exactly the same logic to the argumentthat this bubble of a body is not ThubtenYeshe either.

I believe very strongly that this is me because of the countless times from the time I

was born up to now that my ego hasimprinted the idea “this is me” on myconsciousness. “Me. This is me. This bubbleis me, me, me.” But this bubble itself is notThubten Yeshe.

THUBTEN YESHE IS NOWHERE TO BE

FOUND

We know it’s composed of the four elements.However, the earth element is not ThubtenYeshe; the water is not Thubten Yeshe; the

fire is not Thubten Yeshe; the air is notThubten Yeshe. The parts of the body are notThubten Yeshe either. The skin is notThubten Yeshe; the blood is not ThubtenYeshe; they bone is not Thubten Yeshe; the

brain is not Thubten Yeshe.The ego is not Thubten Yeshe. Superstition

is not Thubten Yeshe. The combination of allthis is not Thubten Yeshe either – if it were,Thubten Yeshe would have existed before thename had been given. But before thiscombination was named Thubten Yeshe,nobody recognized it as Thubten Yeshe and Ididn’t recognize it as Thubten Yeshe myself.Therefore, the combination of all these partsis not Thubten Yeshe.

If we call the scarecrow Thubten Yesheand then analyze it to see exactly whereThubten Yeshe can be found, we can’t findThubten Yeshe in any of the parts or on allthe parts together. This is easy to understand.

It’s exactly the same thing with the bubble ofmy aggregates. Neither any singleconstituent part nor the whole combination is




Thubten Yeshe. We also know that the namealone is not Thubten Yeshe. So what andwhere is Thubten Yeshe? Thubten Yeshe issimply the combination of superstitionflavoring an object with the words, “ThubtenYeshe.” That’s all that Thubten Yeshe is.

BEYOND THE NAME, THERE IS NO

THUBTEN YESHE

Beyond the name, there is no real ThubtenYeshe existing somewhere. But thesimultaneously-born ego doesn’t understandthat Thubten Yeshe exists merely as aninterdependent combination of parts. It

believes that without question, around here,somewhere, there exists a real, independent,concrete Thubten Yeshe. This is the nature ofthe simultaneously-born ego. Therefore, if wedo not remove conceptions like, “Somewherein this bubble, I’m Thubten Yeshe,” wecannot release the ego.

The conception of ego is an extreme mind.It holds very concretely the idea thatsomewhere within this bubble of the four-element combination body there exists a self-existent I. That is the misconception that wemust release. If the ego mind assessed the

situation reasonably and was comfortableand satisfied perceiving that superstitiongiving the name Thubten Yeshe to thisinterdependent, four-element bubble wasenough for Thubten Yeshe to exist, thatwould be a different story. But it’s notsatisfied with that. It cannot leave that alone.It wants to be special. It wants Thubten Yesheto be concrete. It’s not satisfied with ThubtenYeshe being a mere name on a collection ofparts. Therefore, it conceives an imaginary,

unrealistic, exaggerated, concrete self-entity.

Excerpted from Lama’s commentary on the

yoga method of Divine Wisdom Manjushri,

Manjushri Institute, Ulverston, Cumbria,

England, August 1977. Edited from the Lama

Yeshe Wisdom Archive by Nicholas Ribush.

Published in the June 2001 issue of Mandala.




You Cannot Find the I AnywhereLama Zopa Rinpoche

Let’s concentrate for a few moments on whatI’m saying. [Silence.] We believe, “I am here,in this building.” We believe, “I am inAmerica, Soquel, Land of Medicine Buddha,Land of Medicine Buddha, Land of MedicineBuddha! I’m in this gompa, I’m in Vajrasattvaretreat, I’m on this cushion, I’m in pain! I’mtired! I’m sleepy! I’m exhausted from a longday! What is he talking about? What is hemumbling about?” Anyway, thinking likethat.

We think there’s a real one, a real I, a realme, here doing Vajrasattva retreat, orlistening to teachings. Here, sitting on thischair, or on this cushion – a real me listeningto teachings. Now, I is your label; me, I.

You point to your body and label it I: “Iam going out.” You don’t pick up a book andpoint to it and say, “I am going out!” No. You

point to your body and apply the label, “I amgoing out.”

And as your mind does the activity ofthinking, you label, “I am thinking.”

As your mind meditates, “I ammeditating.” By first thinking what kind ofactivity your mind is doing – for example, it’swandering – you say, “I am wandering. I amnot meditating.” “Are you meditating now?”

“No.” You check the mind, then you say,“I am wandering,” or, if it is meditating,

being transformed into virtue by analytical orfixed meditation, you say, “I am meditating”;you call, or label, it, “I am meditating.”

In exactly the same way as in thisexample, when you say “I,” instead ofpointing here [at your chest], point at thistable; label I on this table.

So now, you have labelled I on the table, but where is that I on the table?

You cannot find I on the table. Eventhough you label I on the table, you cannotfind it anywhere, on any corner of the table,inside the table, above the table – you cannotfind I anywhere. Not only that, but this

corner of the table is not I, this other corner isnot I – no part of the table is I. Even all theparts of the table together are not I.

So now, like this, it’s exactly the same,exactly the same, even though our mindconstantly labels I on this association of body

and mind [Rinpoche pointing to his chest],constantly, twenty-four hours a day, labels Ion this association of body and mind, exactlyas in the example where your mind labels Ion the table – even if you label I on the table,you cannot find I on the table – the table isnot I, nor is I on the table, inside the table, oranywhere else; you cannot find I on any partof the table, and even the whole thing is not I– in the same way, I cannot be found

anywhere on the association of body andmind. If you look for your I, you cannot findit, from the ends of your hair to the tip yourtoes – your little toes, your big toes –nowhere can it be found. You cannot findyour I anywhere. It is neither inside yournose nor on the tip of your nose! I’m joking!

Anyway, I is nowhere to be found, noteven inside your body.

Normally you believe I to be inside, buteven if that’s what you normally believe,

apprehend – that there’s a real I inside the body, there’s a real me inside the body – ifyou look for it, you cannot find it. When youstart to analyze, it cannot be found. Where isit exactly? Look for it. Where is it exactly,inside the body? Where is it exactly, insidethe chest – the part of the body where wenormally believe the I to reside? It’ssomewhere there, within the body. We don’tthink that the I is outside – we think that it’sinside, inside the chest. But if you try toidentify exactly where the I is located, itcannot be found. There is no particularlocation. You can’t find it. If you look for theI, you cannot find it or its particular location.

Even though you normally believe that theI is there, somewhere inside your body,inside your chest, if you really check insidewhere it is, its exact location, you cannot findit.

SUBTLE DEPENDENT ARISINGWhen you think that the nature of the I isdependent arising, subtle dependent arising,




THE LABEL & THE BASE CANNOT BE

ONE

Perhaps another thing to mention is this. Theaggregates, the association of the body andmind, is the base to be labelled, and I is thelabel to be applied – what the base is to be

labelled with. Again in Tibetan, I is dagchö,the label to be applied, and the aggregatesare dag-shir,what is labelled, the base to belabelled. The aggregates are the base to belabelled, and I is the label, what is labelled onthe base. Thus again here, one is the base, theother is the label. Two totally differentphenomena; two totally differentphenomena. They don’t exist separately, butthey exist differently.

If they did exist separately, it would help alot if you were a criminal!It would help a lot. Because then you

could say, “It wasn’t me that did it; it was the body. I didn’t do it”! Or you could say, “Thismind did it, not me”! You could have manyarguments! In court! You could argue incourt, “I didn’t do it – the body did it; themind did it.” If what you did was criminal orsomething for which you’d get punished,you could say, “The body did it; the mind

did it. I didn’t do it.” But if it was a situationwhere you had something to gain, then youcould say, “I did it”!

Say your body did something thatnormally brings millions of dollars, butnobody saw it. If your I had no relation toyour aggregates, you could say, “I did it”!Since doing the action that brings millions ofdollars didn’t depend on the body or themind doing it, you could take the credit, “Idid it. I should get the money”! You couldargue like that. If there were something goodto gain, something that you like or want toacquire, you could say, “I did it.” But if whatyou’d done were criminal or subject topunishment, you could say, “It wasn’t me”!

Anyway, I’m saying that if the I existedseparately from the aggregates, it could bevery helpful. You could do that. Maybe youcould still argue, “I didn’t do it because Icannot find the I anywhere. I cannot see the I,

so how could I have done it?” I’m joking!What I’m trying to say is that since the

aggregates are the base to be labelled and I is

what is labelled on them – the aggregates arethe base and I is the label – they are twototally different phenomena. Therefore, theyare not one; the aggregates are not I.

THE MIND IS NOT THE I

Similarly, the mind is not I. It’s the same –you can use all those reasons that Imentioned regarding the aggregates, with themind, to understand that the mind is not I.Your mind is not you. My mind, your mind –that shows it is not you. Your mind is notyou; my mind is not me.

If something that the I possessed had to beI, were the I, then everything you possessedwould be you. Your car would be you. Your

kaka would be you!It’s exactly the same with the table, as Imentioned before. You can find the Inowhere on these aggregates. Neither are theaggregates the I.

Exactly the same. Even though you label Ion the table, you cannot find I on the table.The table is not I. Exactly as you cannot findyour I on the table even though your mindlabels the table I, exactly like that, eventhough your mind labels I on the aggregates,

you cannot find I anywhere on theaggregates. Neither that, nor are theaggregates I.

When you get a feeling that the aggregatesare not I, when you cannot find I on theaggregates, this understanding makes veryclear what is the base and what is the label;you are able to differentiate. Now you areable to differentiate between the base and thelabel.

After this analysis, you are able todifferentiate what is the base and what is thelabel I.

Before, it was unclear to your mind; thesetwo things were unclear. His Holiness theDalai Lama would say those two are mixedup, as if the table were mixed into the base,as if the table were inside the base.

His Holiness Ling Rinpoche used to saythat the definition of the object to be refuted

is the appearance of the base and the label asundifferentiable.

For your mind, in your view, the base and




the label – for example, the base to belabelled “table” and the label “table” itself –are undifferentiable. His Holiness LingRinpoche explained during a commentary onthe Seven Point Thought Transformation atDrepung Monastery many years ago that this

is the object to be refuted.You are unable to differentiate between

the label and the base. Your mind is veryconfused. Your mind is in a state ofconfusion. What appears to your view is thatthese two – the base, the aggregates, and thelabel, I, are undifferentiable. Now, throughthis analysis, you can see clearly that they –the label, I, and the base, the aggregates – aretwo totally different phenomena.

WHEN THE REALIZATION OF

EMPTINESS OF THE I IS REAL, IT IS SO

POWERFUL

Now, even if you have one hundred percentunderstanding, or recognition, that the base,the aggregates, is not I, that the I existsnowhere, I would not call that havingrealized emptiness. In other words, youunderstand through the four-point analysis,the analysis of the four vital points, that if the

I is inherently existent, it should exist eitheras oneness with the aggregates or ascompletely separate from them; it has to bepervaded by being either oneness with theaggregates or existing separately from theaggregates. But simply understanding thatthe inherently existent I is neither onenesswith the aggregates nor does it existseparately from them – having a clear ideathat the aggregates are not one with the I butalso don’t exist separately from the I – this

awareness alone, the ability to distinguish between label and base, is not the realizationof emptiness. Even if you had this awareness– the ability to distinguish label from base –even if the difference between the base andthe label had become clear for your mind,still I would not say that you had realizedemptiness.

When you realize emptiness – not just thatthere is no I, not just the feeling that there is

no I – you should feel something veryintensive. It should be very much more thanthat. Your understanding should be

something very intensive. Not just the feelingthat there is no I. The feeling should besomething very deep; the feeling “there is noI” should be very intensive, very deep. Youshould feel as you would if you’d had avision that you had received a million

dollars, that somebody had put a milliondollars into your hands, and you had totally,one hundred percent believed that youactually had all that money – and thensuddenly realized it was just a hallucination!It’s gone! Like that, suddenly you realize thatit’s not there, it has totally gone.

What you have believed, were onehundred percent convinced of, and sostrongly clung to, grasped at, is suddenly,totally non-existent.

There’s nothing to grab onto, nothing tohold onto. Suddenly, it’s totally non-existent.Nothing of what you have been holding onto,cherishing as if it really exists, is truly there.Nothing of what, so far, you have never hadany doubt about, have been grasping atcontinuously, holding onto like a catgrabbing a mouse – all its claws clutchingtightly together – nothing of that I exists.Suddenly, that about which you have never

had any doubt since beginningless rebirths –even since this morning or since you were

born into this life – suddenly, it doesn’t goanywhere. Suddenly, there’s nothing there.Maybe it’s gone to the beach! Or to themountains! To a retreat center! Anyway, itdoesn’t go anywhere.

Just there! Suddenly! You realize there isnothing there. Suddenly, it is not there. Yourealize that it’s totally non-existent. Totallynon-existent.

There’s nothing to hold onto. It’s lost.Totally lost. Just right there – where it was –totally lost. Not that it’s gone somewhere, butright there, it has become totally lost. There’snothing to hold onto. You feel somethingvery intensive – not space, but empty, likespace. During that time, there’s no dual view,there’s no “this is I and that is emptiness”; no“here is the subject, perceiver, realizer andthere is the object, emptiness.” It’s not dual;

non-dual. At that time, the view that shouldappear should be non-dual, not “this I ismeditating on emptiness, seeing emptiness.




Oh, that is emptiness.”Instead, there should be a very intensive

understanding, seeing very intensively that . ..the I is empty. It’s not just thinking thatthere’s no I; it’s not just that. It’s not like, aftersearching for the table, the labelled table, the

general table – not the inherently existenttable but the general table, the labelled table –looking to see if any part of the table is thetable – it’s not that – or if perhaps the wholecollection of parts together is the table – it’snot that either – and only after all that, thenthinking that the table does not exist. It’s notthat kind of experience. Nor is it likeanalyzing the body to find if the I is insidethe body or on the aggregates, or

understanding that the aggregates togetherare also not the I, then, after all that analysis,at the end, coming to the conclusion thatthere’s no I.

Because you cannot find it, thinking thatthere is no I. It’s not just that.

WHEN YOU SEE EMPTINESS, THERE IS

EITHER UNBELIEVABLE JOY . . .

The right way of perceiving that the I isempty is an extremely deep, intensive

experience, but there are basically two kindsof experience you can have. You can feelincredible, that you have discovered the mostprecious thing, such as a wish-granting jewel.Or like a person who has been looking for orwaiting to meet a dear friend for many, manyyears – praying, wishing, to meet that personfor many years – and then, after all thesemany years, suddenly meeting that friend. Orlike you’ve been waiting to get a billiondollars for a long time and then suddenlyyou get the money. In other words, when yousee emptiness, you feel unbelievable joy;incredible joy that makes you cry.

. . . OR UNBELIEVABLE FEAR

The second kind of experience is one ofunbelievable fear, incredible fear. Not justany kind of fear. Not just the fear of beingattacked by somebody; not that kind of fear.It’s a very deep fear; something deep inside

your heart, in the very depths of your heart.A very deep fear. The other fear is not fear oflosing the I – something is going to happen to

this I, but it’s not losing the I. The ordinary isfear that this real I is going to receive someharm, but here, something that you’ve

believed in – not only from birth but from beginningless rebirths up until now –something that you’ve believed in one

hundred percent, only now, only now yourealize that it’s not there. Only now yourealize that it’s totally nonexistent.

This can cause an incredibly deep fear toarise.

As I often say, even when you recite The

Heart Sutra , when you say the words, “Noear, no nose, no tongue...no ice cream! Nocoffee, no chocolate, no cigarettes, nodrinks...!” – if fear comes into your heart

when you say “no this, no that,” if fear arises,that’s a good sign. Fear arising means yourrecitation of The Heart Sutra , The Essence ofWisdom, is hitting, or touching, the root ofsamsara, hurting it. Your recitation of The

Heart Sutra has touched the root of samsara,ignorance; has hit it.

Your recitation of The Heart Sutra , yourway of thinking when you recite The Essence

of Wisdom , is fitting – like an arrow or a bomb. As an arrow hits its target, as a bomb

or a torpedo hits its target, the enemy atwhich you aimed, like that, your recitation ofThe Heart Sutra , those teachings onemptiness, your way of thinking, yourmeditation, has hit its target, the object ofignorance, the inherently existent I – the Ithat is apprehended by simultaneously-bornignorance. You have hit the target you’resupposed to hit. The target that you aresupposed to hit with the arrow or bomb ofyour recitation of the words of The Heart

Sutra and thinking on their meaning is theobject to be refuted, the inherently existent I.

Fear in your heart means that you have hitthe target.

The texts explain that it is highlyintelligent practitioners who have theexperience of incredible, blissful joy, tearsrunning down their cheeks, and feel as ifthey’d found an unbelievably precious jewel,and less intelligent practitioners who feel fear

when they realize emptiness. At that time,you should not try to escape from this fear –trying to do so is your greatest obstacle to




realizing emptiness. Instead, you mustrealize that this is the one time, the oneopportunity, to realize emptiness – the onlywisdom that can directly cut the delusions,the root of samsara, the gross and subtledefilements, bringing liberation from

samsara and full enlightenment. Knowingthis, you must go through the fear; you mustcomplete your experience. Go through thefear like crossing a river.

Otherwise, if you block your own progressthe one time that you have the opportunity ofrealizing emptiness, if you run away fromthat, like running away from teachings, frommeditation courses, especially my meditationcourses – of course, those are good to runaway from! – if you run from the fear thatarises when you realize emptiness, that is nogood at all.

BUT DON’T BE AFRAID THE I WILL

DISAPPEAR; THERE IS ALWAYS

CONTINUITY OF THE LABEL I

However, you never have to worry about theI ceasing, because the I never ceases. The Ithat is the label never ceases. The I neverstops, never ceases. Why is there always

continuity of the I, the label? Why is therealways continuity of the self? Because there isalways continuity of consciousness. Evenafter enlightenment, the consciousnesscontinues forever.

Even though the body might change – one body stops, another body is taken – thecontinuity of consciousness is always there,even after enlightenment. Therefore, thecontinuity of the I never ceases. It alwaysexists because the base, the continuity of

consciousness, always exists.Therefore, thinking, “I’m going to cease,

I’m going to become non-existent” is totallywrong.

When that feeling arises, the appearanceof losing or having totally lost your I, youshouldn’t be worried that that appearancemeans you’re falling into nihilism. Because ofthat appearance, you should not be worriedthat you are falling into nihilism – just as you

should not be worried that the I is becomingnon-existent. There are two things – one isthe fear of falling into nihilism; the other is

the worry, “I am becoming nonexistent.”You should not be scared of those things.

If you do get scared, you’ll block yourselffrom realizing emptiness; this oneopportunity to realize emptiness will havearisen and you’ll have blocked it yourself.

A very clear commentary on theMahamudra by Ketsang Jamyang (I’m nothundred percent sure that’s his name), whichis regarded as a very effective teaching,explains why this appearance of the self

becoming non-existent happens. It happens because it has to happen. Furthermore, it is asign that there is no inherent existence on theI, the merely labelled I. There is no inherentexistence on that I, and the experience of its

becoming non-existent shows, proves, that.When you have this experience, you see theMiddle Way, the Madhyamika, view. You seethe Middle Way, devoid of the two extremesof nihilism and eternalism.

REALIZING EMPTINESS IS THE FIRST

STEP TOWARDS LIBERATION

I would say that realizing that the object ofignorance – the concept of the inherentlyexistent I – is empty, realizing the emptiness

that is the negation of the object to be refuted,is the first step towards liberation.

I’m not saying that by that alone you haveentered – of the five paths to liberation – thepath of merit. I’m not saying that. But it’s likeyou’ve taken a step towards liberation,

because that wisdom is the main thing thatdirectly ceases the defilements.

CONCLUSION: THE I EXISTS BUT NOT

HOW WE THINK IT DOES

Just to conclude now – before we all go tosleep! – as I mentioned before, how whenyou label I on the table, it’s not there – inexactly the same way, when the mind labels Ion these aggregates, it’s not there either. Theaggregates are not the I; the I is not there. Iexists, but it’s not there. The I that is labelled

by your mind exists, but it’s not there. Eventhat is not there. Even that. Besides the real Ithat you believe to reside in the heart, inside

your body, not being there, even the I merelylabelled by your mind, which does exist, isnot there either. I’m not saying it’s not here




[in this room], I’m saying it’s not there [onyour aggregates].

So now, the I that is merely labelled by themind exists. That is here, that exists, but eventhat cannot be found on these aggregates, onthe base of the aggregates. It doesn’t exist on

these aggregates. The merely labelled I exists because the base, the aggregates, exists. In thesame way, the base, the aggregates, whichare merely imputed, exists, but it doesn’texist on the gathering of the five aggregates;it doesn’t exist there. The merely labelledaggregates exist, but they don’t exist on thecollection of the five aggregates. They don’texist there; they cannot be found there. Sothat’s clear. The merely labelled aggregates

cannot be found on the collection of the five.They don’t exist there.In exactly the same way, for each

aggregate – for example, the aggregate ofform, the general aggregate of form – it’sexactly same. The same logic applies. Themerely labelled aggregate exists but it doesn’texist on that base. Empty. It doesn’t existthere; it’s not there, not existent on this base.The aggregate of form does not exist on thecollection of the limbs, either in all their parts

or on the whole collection together. So there’sno question about the inherently existent,real aggregate: it doesn’t exist anywhere.

The real one appearing from there – theaggregate, the general aggregate of form –exists nowhere. Similarly, if you go to theparts of the limbs, to the arms, head, legs,stomach, and so forth, all those merelylabelled ones exist, but they don’t exist ontheir own bases. Even the merely labelledhead cannot be found on the collection of itsparts, the brain and everything else. If youlook for head, it cannot be found there.

Like that, it’s the same for the arms, thelegs, the main body – everything down to theatoms – that which is merely labelled exists,

but it doesn’t exist on its own base. Even themerely labelled atom exists, but it doesn’texist, cannot be found, on the collection of theparticles of the atom. And it’s the same foreven the particles of the atom – they can’t be

found on their own base either.Thus, everything from the I down to the

particles of the atoms, or, from the general

aggregate of form down to the particles ofatoms, which appears as something real, isnot there. It’s totally empty; every singlething is totally empty. What appears to yourview, your hallucinating mind, seems to besomething real, from there – but it’s not

there.Starting from the real I down to the real

particles of the atoms, what appears is notthere; it’s totally empty – not space, but likespace; totally empty, non-existent.

That was form. How about the aggregateof feeling, that which is labelled on thethought, the mental factor that experiencespleasure, indifference and suffering? It’s thesame with the aggregate of feeling – the

merely labelled aggregate of feeling exists, but cannot be found on its base. It’s also thesame with the aggregate of cognition, whichdiscriminates phenomena as bad or good, asthis and that, as friend and enemy, fat andskinny, long and short, and so forth. Themerely labelled aggregate of cognition exists– because its base exists – but it doesn’t existon that base. So that’s the same. Then, if youanalyze the pleasant feeling, the sufferingfeeling, the indifference, you cannot find

those feelings on their base. Similarly withthe aggregate of cognition – you can do thesame analysis, but neither can cognition befound on its base, even though merelylabelled cognition exists.

It’s also the same thing with the aggregateof compounded phenomena.

It’s also labelled, merely imputed, becauseits base exists. Subtracting feeling andcognition from the fifty-one mental factors,the rest are called the aggregate ofcompounded phenomena, labelled that, butthat aggregate cannot be found on that base.

Finally, it’s the same with the aggregate ofconsciousness. Merely labelled consciousnessexists, but it cannot be found on its base, likea carpet on the floor. The merely labelledconsciousness doesn’t exist like that. Themind, which knows phenomena, which doesthe function of continuing from one life to thenext, perceiving merely the essence of the

object, that knowing phenomenon, she-pa, because that mind exists, your mind labels itnam-she, consciousness. But using the same




analysis I mentioned before, neither thatconsciousness nor the split seconds ofconsciousness can be found on theirrespective bases.

Therefore, starting from the I down to thesplit seconds of consciousness, each

aggregate – form, feeling, cognition,compounded phenomena and consciousness,down to the split seconds of consciousness –everything that appears to our mind, to ourview, as real, as something real existing fromthere, is totally non-existent. Normally, aftermaking all this analysis, you should meditateon this emptiness; let your mind dwell in itfor a while. Looking at everything as empty,let your mind stay in that state of emptinessfor as long as possible. That’s extremelygood, very effective.

DWELL IN THIS EMPTINESS OF NON-

EXISTENCE FROM ITS OWN SIDE

So that’s reality; that’s how things are. This isreality, so let’s place our minds in this statefor a while. Concentrate for a little bit on thisconclusion that the whole thing is totallyempty. Everything – from the I down to, andincluding, the particles of the atoms and the

split seconds of consciousness – is totallyempty from its own side.

[Long meditation.]The final thing is that it’s totally non-

existent – from its own side. It’s totally non-existent, but non-existent from its own side.So the second part of that expression makesthe way of thinking or the experience correct– seeing it as not just empty, non-existent, butempty, non-existent, from its own side.

Like this, the nature of everything else in

existence – forms, sounds, smells, tastes,tangible objects, hell, enlightenment,samsara, nirvana, happiness, suffering, life’sgains and losses, virtue, non-virtue,everything – is totally empty, non-existent.But, non-existent from its own side.

WHILE EVERYTHING IS EMPTY, THEY

DO EXIST – MERELY LABELLED BY

MIND

So, while things are empty – everything istotally empty from its own side – they exist.They exist in mere name, by being merely

labelled by the mind – which also exists inmere name. Things exist as merely labelled

by the mind, which itself also exists in merename. Everything is unified with emptinessand dependent arising, as Guru ShakyamuniBuddha realized and Lama Tsongkhapa

praised highly. Lama Tsongkhapa himselfalso actualized this emptiness – which isunified with dependent arising, subtledependent arising – this right view, thiswisdom, which is the only one that can cutthe one particular root of samsara: theignorance, the hallucinating mind that –while there’s no I on these aggregates,including the inherently existent I – throughnegative imprints left on the mentalcontinuum, projects on to these aggregatesthe appearance of an inherently existent I andthen believes it to be true; the ignorance that

believes this inherently existent I is true, thatit really exists.

This particular root of samsara – theignorance that apprehends the I, which ismerely labelled by the mind, as existing fromits own side, as not merely labelled by themind – can be cut only by this specificwisdom, only by this right view, this

wisdom, this right view. Only by generatingthat can you be totally liberated fromsamsara, from the entire ocean of sufferingsof samsara, which are divided into three –suffering of pain, suffering of change andpervasive, compounded suffering. Withinsamsara, there are the specific sufferings ofeach realm and the general sufferings ofsamsara, such as the six, the four and thethree.

It is only with this wisdom, this particular

right view, the Prasangika view, that you can be totally liberated from the oceans ofsamsaric suffering – all the specificsufferings of each samsaric realm, and thethree, four and six general sufferings ofsamsara. By ceasing the cause – delusion andkarma – you can achieve the sorrowless stateof total liberation from samsara, and onlywith this wisdom, the Prasangika view, canyou also eradicate the subtle defilements,

achieve full enlightenment and be able to doperfect work for all sentient beings, leadingthem to enlightenment as well.



I’d better stop here, otherwise we won’tfinish until tomorrow morning!

To escape from this hallucination, to beliberated from this hallucinating mind, wetake refuge and keep precepts. Refuge is thevery foundation of the Buddhadharma, the

gate through which we enter the Dharmapath.

We take refuge and vows to make certainthat we practice, to make sure that we devoteourselves to actually practicing Dharma. Thatis the fundamental reason for taking refugeand vows. In order to liberate others from thehallucinating mind, ignorance, first weourselves have to be liberated from thehallucination, from the hallucinating mind,

from all these sufferings that we have beencaught in since time without beginning, for beginningless lifetimes. Thus, refuge andprecepts are the basic means, the veryfoundation of the path, for liberating bothourselves and others from the hallucination,from the hallucinating mind, from allsuffering, and gaining the ultimate happinessof the highest, full enlightenment.

Teachings of Lama Zopa Rinpoche given

during a Vajrasattva retreat at Land of Medicine Buddha, California, in 1999.

Wisdom Understanding Emptiness

Documents

Transcript of Wisdom Understanding Emptiness