December 7, 1993

The base is not the label

There was an interest in reciting the words of the Essence of Wisdom, so we will meditate a little bit on its meaning. I used the example yesterday of how one phenomenon, the E, comes from the mind. I explained the gradual evolution of how the E comes into existence, first by seeing the lines, the design, which is the base, and then designating the label “E.” We don’t see the base and the E at the same time. That doesn’t happen, seeing them both together. The design—the lines that are the base—and the E that is the label; those two are different phenomena.

In the same way, the association of body and mind is the base, and the name, “George” or something like that, is the label that is imputed by the mind. Those two are different phenomena. The association of body and mind is not the name “George.” It is not oneness with the name, George.

Maybe I’ll mention this. If the association of body and mind, if that base were the label “George,” then whenever you see the aggregates, the association of body and mind, you would see George at the same time. In that case, the association of body and mind is George, the base is the label.

However, normally the evolution that makes us decide on that particular label, “George,” is by seeing the particular aggregates, the association of body and mind, that particular shape of body, the face and so forth, and the particular behavior, the person’s way of acting. From that, we decide on the particular label “George,” the particular name “George comes. Otherwise, there is no reason to give the label “George.” There’s no reason to label “George” because it doesn’t depend on having seen some particular phenomenon first, the particular aggregates, the association of body and mind, which is the base of what is to be labeled “George” but which is not George.

Having seen the base first, we then label it “George.” This is normally how it is—first the base comes in existence and after that the label, such as “George,” comes into existence by depending on the base. That is the reality. That is the evolution of how things come into existence.

If that were not the case, we could call anybody “George.” We could be labeling “George” on any aggregates we see. To call any aggregates, any association of body and mind that we see, “George,” is that OK? Is that OK or not? Is it wrong? Why is wrong? What happens if we call anybody, any aggregates we see, “George”?

Student: Different behavior. People look different and they behave differently.

Rinpoche: Yeah, anyway I’m not going to confuse the point.

Student: Because the base is different, the base that is labeled is different.

Rinpoche: Do you think there is one George or many Georges? What do you say, one George or many Georges?

Student: I think one George.

Rinpoche: You don’t think there are many Georges? Just one George, huh?

Student: There are many parts and every part is George, then everything is George.

Rinpoche: Yeah, that’s right. Even the name is George, even the blood that comes from the body is George. Becomes like that, if the base is George, the aggregates are George, then every single part becomes George, every single part of the body becomes George.

It’s true. When we think like this, that shortcoming, that mistake arises. When George sheds some hair and there are many thousands of hairs on the floor, [if every part were George] there would be many thousands of Georges on the floor. And as I often say, when George buys an air ticket, he would have to buy as many billions of air tickets as there are parts of the association of body and mind that are George.

In the Madhyamaka philosophical teaching on emptiness, there is the analysis of the four points. The very first point is recognizing the refuting object. For example, recognizing the I that does not exist, the false I, is the refuting object. In other words, the I that exists inherently, that is appearing to us as not merely labeled by the mind, that is the refuting object.

So, first we try to recognize the inherently existent I, the I that appears to exist from above the merely labeled I. It is the hallucination we place over the merely labeled I, the brocade that covers the table [that we see as the actual table], or the carpet that covers the floor [that we see as the actual floor]. This inherently existent I is the hallucination on the I that does exist. What is that? It is the merely labeled I. This hallucination, this inherently existence I has been decorated or projected by past wrong concepts, by the ignorance of inherently existence, onto the merely labeled I that does exist.

We must try to recognize this I that appears to be independent. We can use the common term used in the West and call it the “emotional I.” This is the refuting object that is placed over the I that exists—the merely labeled I—that we must see doesn’t exist at all. We must see that it is empty of this inherent existence we think it has.

The absence of this emotional I is the ultimate nature of the I; that is the reality of the I. The term that is used in common language in the West is the “emotional I.” Another one that is used in both the East and the West is the “real I.” As I mentioned yesterday, when we have the appearance of the real I or when we think of the real I, when we talk about the real I, at that time, exactly what we are thinking about when common people use the term “real,” what they are exactly pointing to is this emotional I, the I that appears from its own side, the independent I, the inherently existent I.

There is no E on the design, no tea in the liquid

As I mentioned yesterday, the tea is merely labeled by the mind and the E is merely labeled by the mind. When we think about tea, when we talk about tea, it is the tea that is merely labeled by the mind; there is no other reason. Just because have seen the liquid of the leaves in the container, the tea that is merely labeled by mind, we believe in this; there is no other reason. There is no other reason than that [for us to believe] that there is tea there.

On this liquid there is no tea. This liquid is not tea; this liquid is the base to be labeled “tea.” Because the liquid [flavored by] the leaves is the base to labeled “tea” that liquid cannot be the label itself, “tea.” If the liquid were the tea, there would be no need to put the label on it, no reason to label “tea” on the tea. We cannot find tea on this liquid.

It’s the same thing with the E. The E is merely labeled by the mind and we believe in that. There is no other reason at all except having seen this design, the lines like this. Because of having seen this design, the mind simply makes up the label “E” and we believe in that. Therefore, these lines, this design, is the base and not the label “E.” Base and label are two different phenomena. We cannot find E on this design, on any part of it, on any line or even on the whole design. The E does not exist on the design. There is an E in a book; there is an E in the world, but there is no E on that design, on those lines, either on any of the separate lines or on the group as a whole. But that does not mean that the E doesn’t exist. The E exists. There is an E on the blackboard where this design has been drawn but there’s no E on these lines, this design.

The E and the tea are the same in this. On the leaf-flavored liquid there is no tea. That is the base; it’s not the label “tea” and you cannot find tea on there. But the mug contains this liquid. The mug that contains this liquid has tea in it; it has the leaf-flavored liquid in it, but that is the base. It’s not the tea, it’s the based to be labeled “tea.” Therefore, we cannot find tea anywhere on this liquid. The tea doesn’t exist; the tea is not there. And when I say “there” I don’t mean there, in the mug, but there on the liquid.

That might be hard to understand. You might find it a little extreme saying “on the liquid there’s no tea,” or that the tea-flavored liquid is the base to be labeled “tea.” Anyway, I think maybe I should first introduce this, then it might help.

First, [when the water is boiled with tea leaves], the liquid that is flavored by the tea leaves is what we come to call “tea.” This is the base, that which we then label. From this we can understand that the base is not the label, the liquid is not the “tea.” Just from that first explanation, we can get the idea that there is no tea also on the base. I’ll introduce this first and then you can get the idea.

I’ll repeat. What makes us decide on the particular label “tea”? The reason is that we have seen a particular phenomenon first, the leaf-flavored liquid. You see, there’s a definite reason for this that makes our mind decide on the label “tea.” Before we label it, there’s a reason, and that is the base. Reason and base are the same.

Now, concentrate. If this base is already the tea, then the very first thing we see is the tea, not the base. It’s not the base of the tea, it’s the tea. Is this labeled or not? Put it this way. What is called “tea”—this is a name, and the name has to come from the mind. So, the tea that we first see, without depending on seeing the base first, what is called “tea” is the name; it had to come from the mind. It’s logical. If we see the tea first without seeing the base, what makes us decide on the particular label “tea”? There is no reason for it.

Now you can analyze this point. Without seeing the base first, there is no reason that makes us decide on this particular label “tea.” According to the view that this liquid base is tea, that would mean that we have to see the tea from the very beginning without depending on having seen the base first. When we check this logic we’ll see there is no reason to make us decide on this particular label “tea.” This is the shortcoming of thinking that the label is the base. It becomes strange, because if we don’t rely on a particular base to place the label, then we can place it on any base. We can label “tea” on any object at all, because it does not depend on having seen a particular object first. When we believe we see the tea from the very beginning, this mistake arises. Do you get the idea?

OK, now I’ll give you another example. What happens if you call everybody “husband”? [Rinpoche and students laugh]

Student: [inaudible]

Rinpoche: Why can’t you? What makes you decide on that particular label “husband” or “wife”? What makes the mind decide on that particular label?

Student: The presence of the object.

Rinpoche: The presence of the object? Any presence of any object? Any object that is present? This one or that one?

Student: I wouldn’t call them all “husband” but I would give them all a name, a label.

Rinpoche: You would give them all a label, but you wouldn’t call them all “husband.” Why not? [Rinpoche and students laugh]

Student: Because of a convention, a concept. I am conditioned to believe a certain object is a husband and another object is a clock.

Rinpoche: Let’s say there’s a statue of a husband and there’s a husband. Now, you don’t call the statue of the husband “husband,” do you?

Student: Well, I was just thinking. I would probably say, “That’s my husband,” but then I would have to remember, “Oh no, it’s not. It’s a statue.”

Rinpoche: That’s a good explanation! OK, I’ll put this one slightly differently. There’s a statue of the husband. This statue of the husband is therefore not the husband, right? So, in the same way, the husband’s body is not the husband. The husband’s mind is not the husband. The association of the body and mind of the husband is not the husband. The liquid of the tea is not tea. Just as the aggregates of the husband are not husband, so the liquid of the tea is not tea, right? You understand?

Is there any phenomenon that is not in your mind? Do you get angry with anybody?

Student: Do I get angry with anybody? Yes. I get angry with Peter. [Rinpoche and students laugh]

Rinpoche: Do you get angry with somebody who is outside your mind or somebody who is inside your mind?

Student: Inside my mind.

Rinpoche: You get angry with somebody who is in your mind! Why do you keep that person in your mind? [Rinpoche and students laugh]

Student: Stupidity! [Rinpoche laughs]

Rinpoche: Where did you fly from this time?

Student: Where did I come from? I’m Australian.

Rinpoche: Australia. How was the journey in your mind?

Student: How was the journey in my mind from Australia to here?

Rinpoche: How many hours did you fly in your mind?

Student: Fourteen hours, I think.

Rinpoche: You flew fourteen hours in your mind?

Student: Yeah. I think I did fly fourteen hours in my mind.

Rinpoche: Are there many airports in your mind?

Student: My idea of an airport is in my mind.

Rinpoche: Your idea of an airport? You have the idea; you have the visualization of the airport in your mind, but you don’t have the airports in your mind.

Student: The physical places?

Rinpoche: Yeah, the physical places.

Student: No.

Rinpoche: You don’t have them in your mind. Thank you very much. Why?

Student: Why what?

Rinpoche: The physical airports that are not in your mind, why? Why aren’t they in your mind?

Student: Because they exist outside of me.

Rinpoche: But they should be inside you because the person you got angry with was inside you, was inside your mind. That person you got angry with is in your mind but only the airports are outside. Only the airports?

OK, now the main question is this. The main point we are trying to understand is that when we see the husband, do we see the aggregates, the association of body and mind, first? Or to make it simpler, we’ll just say “body.” Do we see the body first or do we see the husband first?

Student: Probably the husband.

Rinpoche: You see the husband first before seeing the body of the husband?

Student: I know logically it’s the body and the mind that’s first and then the label on top, but I think my mind would see the label first.

Rinpoche: OK now, logically you see the aggregates first and then you see the husband later, right?

Student: I think that’s what the problem with my mind is, that I actually see the label first. I see what I believe first. I think that’s the problem.

Rinpoche: OK. So what you’re saying is that seeing what appears to the mind, seeing the husband first, that’s the problem, that’s the mistake?

Student: Yeah.

Rinpoche: So logically, we don’t see the body, the aggregates first, and then husband after?

Student: Yes, exactly. It’s like …

Rinpoche: Logically, which way do we see it? Seeing the husband first or the aggregates first and then after that the husband?

Student: The aggregates first, logically.

Rinpoche: Logically, yeah. So we see it that way?

Student: Uh, huh. If we are being logical! [Rinpoche laughs]

Rinpoche: Anyway, what you are saying is correct in regards the evolution. As I explained, the whole evolution is: before seeing that this is an E, it depends on having the appearance of this E, and that depends on the mind labeling that this is an “E” and believing it, and that depends on having seen this design. So, there’s a whole scientific or logical process. But it’s so subtle.

[Because it’s so subtle,] when we do not analyze, when we are not aware, it appears to our perception as if we are seeing the E first. It looks like we are seeing the husband first; it looks like we are seeing the father or the mother first, and then, after that, seeing the body. It looks like we are seeing the tea first, and then later the base. It looks like that. But it only looks like that in the view of the hallucinated mind, in the view of the mind when it is not analyzing, when we are not aware of the reality of the phenomena. It looks like seeing the E first, seeing the husband first. It looks like that but it’s not.

How we see it in reality is: first we see the aggregates of body and mind—this particular body and mind that has this particular shape and this particular behavior—then, by seeing this first, that particular body shape and behavior reminds us of the label “husband,” of the connection there is between us and that person. Then, that becomes the reason to choose the particular label “husband.” Then, after we see it and after we put the label on it, we have faith in the label. If we put the label on the base but there was no faith in the label, there wouldn’t be the appearance of husband. So, not only do we need to have the label, we also have to have faith in the label. Then, there’s appearance. Then we see the appearance as the husband.

This is how the evolution actually happens but this process is so subtle, so fast or so subtle, that we are not aware of it. It appears that we are seeing the husband first.

It got kind of elaborate, but the point I was trying to make was that if the aggregates of the husband were the husband, the label “husband,” that would mean that what we see initially has to be the husband—the label “husband”—not the base, the aggregates. In that case, we have no reason to label “husband” because it does not depend on seeing the aggregates first. It doesn’t depend on seeing that particular shape and collection to be labeled first. If that were so, anybody, any object we see we could label “husband.” Labeling would not rely on having a reason based on a particular object. If you can understand this point well, that the base is not the label, then that is the last point I was trying to say.

I think it may be better to have some empty tea. [Rinpoche and students laugh]

Searching for the table

I often use the example of the table, so this might help a little bit. We have to understand subtle dependent arising and to recognize what is the refuting object—that which is empty, that which is the ultimate nature of the table. Every single atom is like this, so I’ll start with the table. The table that exists is what is merely labeled by the mind. What is the table? The table that exists is what is merely labeled by the mind, relating to this phenomenon here that does the function of holding things up, of allowing things to be placed on top of. That is the table that exists. That is reality, the truth.

The table that doesn’t exist is the table in our perception, in our appearance, appearing from its own side or not merely labeled by the mind. That is the false view, the false table, the table that does not exist. That table is completely empty there, from where it is appearing. There is not one single atom of that table which is table. Every single atom of that table is not table, which means even the merely labeled table.

The table that exists is what is merely labeled by the mind, and the table that doesn’t exist is that which appears to us as not merely labeled by the mind, as existing from its own side. First, we should know the explanation of how the table exists and how it doesn’t exist, what is the truth and what is the falsity of the table.

Next, on this phenomenon that functions to put things on the top of, which is the base to be labeled “table,” we cannot find either a merely labeled table or a real table, a table that appears from its own side, one that is not merely labeled by the mind. Besides not being able to find a real table, we can’t even find even a merely labeled table on this base.

So, now we analyze. Every atom of the table is not table, which means the merely labeled table. Even the parts of the table are not table. Each part of the table is not table: this leg is not table, this leg is not table, the top is not table. Not even the whole collection together is table.

First, let’s make this clear. Even the whole group is not table but still it’s a merely labeled table. “General table” means the merely labeled table. Even the whole group of the table—all the parts of the table together—is not table because that is the base to be labeled “table.” It’s clear even from the term we use, “parts of the table” that the parts are not table, otherwise we would be saying “table of the table.” Even the language we use—“parts of the table”—shows these are two different things, not separate but different.

An example I often use is the car. If the parts of the table were the table, then the parts of the car should be the car. If that were so, if we had just one wheel, we would have the car and we should be able to transport people in it. We should be able to enjoy sightseeing or going to the beach in our car by just having one piece, just a wheel or another piece of the car. That one part could carry our surfbird to the beach. Surfbird? [Students: Surfboard.] Surfboard. Among the students, the Australians especially should be able to carry the surfboard on that wheel and drive to beach.

Anyway, it’s clear that the parts of the car are not car. In the same way, the parts of the table are not table, and even the group of the parts of the table all together is not table. Why? Because that is the base to be labeled “table.” The group of the parts of the table is the base of the table. When we say “the base of the table” it clearly shows from the language that we are talking about two different phenomena, not separate phenomena but two different phenomena. Otherwise, as I mentioned before, if that base were the table, then it would become the “table of the table,” which doesn’t make any sense. It shows these are two different phenomena. So first, make that clear.

Just from this explanation, it should be clear that there is no table on this base. When we reach this point, in our mind, there should always be some idea there is no table on this base. Then, the second analysis can be done again. If we do the second analysis, asking “Where is table?” we are talking about the merely labeled table, we’re not talking about the inherently existent table. We’re not asking, “Where is the inherently existent table? Where is the independent table?” We’re not checking that way at this moment, just about a table that is a merely labeled table, without specifying the appearance of the table that we have, just a merely labeled table. So, if we do the second analysis, asking “Where is the table?”, wherever we point we cannot find it, either within the parts or as a whole.

That doesn’t mean that there is no table. Because we cannot find the table on this phenomenon, the base of the table, that does not mean the table does not exist in this hall. There is a table in this hall. We can see a table in this hall. How many tables are there in this hall? [Student: Only one big one.] One big one, and many small ones? [Rinpoche laughs] So, there is no table on this base of the table, but there is a table in this hall. There is no other reason why we should say there is a table in this hall and believe it, except that there is this base that you can put things on top of.

So now, after doing this analysis clearly showing there is no table on this base—that none of the parts or the collection of parts is the table—but there is a table in this hall, after that analysis, do you still find the table in your perception, kind of stuck there? Do you still find there’s something stuck on this base or not? Does it appear to you like that? [Student: inaudible] After having done this analysis, when you look at the perception, is there is still a table stuck on the base? [Student: Yes.] [Rinpoche and students laugh]

Are you are actually saying “Yes” or did I force you to say “Yes”? [Rinpoche and students laugh] [Student: It’s definitely stuck.] Did you try blowing it? Anyway, I’m joking.

The importance of recognizing the object of refutation

It depends on the individual person; it’s not the same for everybody. It depends on a person’s state of mind. Some you have just the appearance of the base because of the analysis we have done, and for some, when you look at the appearance of the table, how it appears to you, there is still a table stuck on the base. The table that is stuck on the base, indifferentiable from the base, is the refuting object, the object of refutation. That is the false view of the table. The object to be refuted, the inherently existent table, the independent table, is the hallucination. That means this appearance—the table stuck on the base—is empty right there. This is the refuting object, the hallucination.

This emptiness is what we have to realize. When we realize the emptiness of the table that appears to us stuck on the base, appearing from its own side, at that time we are realizing the ultimate nature of the table, the emptiness of the table.

This way of analyzing is helpful. First, I’ll mention this. The reason why, even after this analysis, that the appearance is still there of the table stuck on the base, why nothing has touched this false view, this hallucination, is because we have not done the analysis correctly. Because of that, nothing has been touched. We have not started the analysis by recognizing the very first important point, the refuting object, the inherently existing table which is the object of ignorance. We haven’t overcome the concept of true existence, the ignorance, which is the hallucination, which doesn’t exist. We didn’t make the analysis on that, searching whether this table really exists in the way it appears to us or not. Where is this? Where is this? We didn’t search each piece, each atom, each part, even the whole group of parts to see whether the table exists as it appears, from its own side, independent or from above the base.

Not even the whole group of the parts is this. The way it appears to us exists nowhere. Another way of saying this is that it doesn’t exist separately from this base. Having discovered that this table that we see on the base is completely empty, that it doesn’t exist either way, we realize this table appearing from above the base is completely empty. Not even a single atom of it exists at all. When we realize this, we have realized the emptiness of the table, the ultimate nature of the table.

After realizing that the table we see on the base, appearing from its own side—the hallucination—is completely empty, completely nonexistent, as a result we realize that it is not that the table doesn’t exist. What we discover as a result is that the table definitely exists. How does it exist? By being merely labeled by the mind. It is merely labeled by the mind, relating to this base that functions as something that can be used to put things on.

With that understanding we realize the conventional truth of the table. First, we realize the absolute truth, and second, we realize how the table exists, being merely labeled by the mind, relating to the base that is able to do the function of having things out on top. This is realizing the subtle dependent arising of the table.

The Tibetan term for conventional truth is kun dzob den pa. It actually translates as the “truth for the all-obscuring mind.” This all-obscuring mind is ignorance, the concept of true existence. The function of this mind is to obscure us from seeing the ultimate nature of the object, therefore this ignorance is labeled “all-obscuring mind.”

It is true for that mind because that mind sees the object. Even from this explanation, we can get some idea that the table is not on the base, that first we see the base of the table which does the function of allowing things to be put on top. Because of the reason of having seen this, our mind makes up the label “table.” Even from this explanation, we can get some idea that there is no table there.

The middle way between the two extremes

In reality, when we analyze what the table is, it becomes extremely subtle. It is not that there is no table there, that the table doesn’t exist, but it is like it doesn’t exist. This is the Middle Way view, the view of the Madhyamaka, and in particular of the Prasangika Madhyamaka. This is their view of how the table exists, the subtle dependent arising.

Of the four schools of Buddhist philosophy, the Madhyamaka, [which is the most subtle] has two subschools: Prasangika and Svatantrika. With the Prasangika’s view of how a thing exists by being a subtle dependent arising, we see how the table exists, how what the table is, is extremely subtle. It is not that it doesn’t exist but it’s like it doesn’t exist.

This is an extremely delicate point, and it is so easy to fall into either extreme: the extreme of eternalism, thinking that the thing exists from its own side, or the extreme of nihilism, thinking that it doesn’t exist at all. Now you can get some idea of how subtle it is. We can so easily slip from believing it exists from its own side to believing it doesn’t exist at all, slipping from eternalism to nihilism.

 Now here, it’s not that it doesn’t exist. It exists but it is empty. It exists being merely labeled by the mind. Because of that, it’s empty from its own side. In that way, the way the table exists is the unification of emptiness and subtle dependent arising. This level of dependent arising is the most subtle, existing in mere name [depending on the base.]

This is what the Heart of Wisdom Sutra says, “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.” So, while the table is empty of existing from its own side, it exists by being merely labeled by the mind. Being merely labeled by the mind, it is therefore completely empty of existing from its own side.

Analyzing like this, it makes sense that there can be no form other than emptiness and no emptiness other than form. Applying that to the table, there is no table other than emptiness and there is no emptiness other than the table. The two truths of the table are unified. This line from the Heart Sutra shows the middle way, which is devoid of the two extremes, the extremes of nihilism and eternalism. So, you can now see the huge difference between how the table exists and how it normally appears to us and how we believe it to exist when we don’t analyze the object, when our mind is not aware of the reality of the table. There is the completely false view of the table appearing like this, from its own side, and this is what we believe. The reality of the table is never like that.

When we analyze how the table exists by being merely labeled by mind, that gives us the idea that there is no table on this base. If we could find the table on this base as it appears to us, if that were true, that would mean that the table existed from its own side. That would mean it was an independent, truly existent table, and when we search, we should be able to find the independent or inherently existing table on the base. But when we search the table that appears as an independent, inherently existent table, analyzing whether it really exists or not, we cannot find it. We cannot even find the merely labeled table. What exists is the merely labeled table. That merely labeled table is the table that we can use to put things on, but even that we cannot find on the base.

How can we find it? How can we find the table that is real, that exists inherently on the base? There is no way we can find a table that doesn’t exist. There’s no way to find this on the base. Therefore, we cannot find this table either on the base or separate from the base. We cannot find this table, the table that appears this way to us either on the base or separately from the base. It is nowhere; it is completely nonexistent. We cannot find the merely labeled table on this base, but we can find it in this room, in this hall, in this place where there is this base of the table. We can find the merely labeled table in the world where there is the base of the table. The conclusion is that we cannot find the table on the base, but we can find the table in this room, in this hall.

Phenomena, harm—everything comes from the mind

One way to meditate on this is to see how everything comes from the mind. This table comes from the mind; it is a creation of mind. Because this table is merely labeled by the mind it comes from the mind. Because the tea is merely labeled by the mind, it comes from the mind. When somebody harms us with their body, speech and mind, the harm they give us comes from our mind because it is merely labeled by the mind.

So, one meditation is like that, by doing the analysis as I have explained with those examples, the husband, the E, and so forth, how they come from the mind. We can use the same process using similar objects, seeing how they have all come from the mind because they have been merely labeled by the mind. The I is merely labeled by the mind. There is the appearance of the I and we believe that appearance, but that appearance comes from the mind. In the same way, the appearance of the aggregates comes from the mind; the appearance of the body comes from the mind; the appearance of the mind comes from the mind.

Everything comes from the mind, the whole thing, down to the atoms and the split seconds of consciousness, all these appearances come from the mind. Form, sound, smell, taste, tangible objects—every object of our senses that we are now experiencing comes from the mind. If the mind didn’t label those sense objects, we wouldn’t experience them. For example, if the mind doesn’t label “Kathmandu” or “Kopan,” if there were no mind labeling “Kathmandu” or “Kopan,” then would be no appearance of Kopan or Kathmandu. Then we wouldn’t see Kathmandu or Kopan. If no mind labeled “Kathmandu” or “Kopan,” there would be no appearance. Nobody would see Kathmandu; nobody would see Kopan. Like this, the whole thing comes from the mind.

There’s a general way to think about this and there’s a way to relate it to ourselves, to our own mind. If our own mind didn’t label “Kathmandu” or “Kopan,” there would no appearance to us that this is Kathmandu, that this is Kopan. We wouldn’t see that this is Kathmandu or Kopan. All appearances come from our mind.

We can practice mindfulness like this. During our meditation session or while working or walking, all the time our senses are contacting forms, sounds, smells and tastes. So, we meditate on how these things come from our own mind. How? We can analyze and see that whatever object of the senses we are experiencing has come from our mind by labeling. This includes friend, enemy and stranger, the objects of our attachment, anger and ignorance. All these things that appear to our senses have come from our mind by labeling. This is a very effective way, a very scientific, logical way to do this meditation. This is the reality. We are practicing mindfulness according to how things really exist.

The conclusion is this. Normally, in our daily life, we believe that problems come from the outside, and we put the blame on the outside, we put the blame on somebody else. As long as we believe the problem is coming from the outside, it really becomes a problem for us, it makes the problem bigger. That concept of believing any problem or any happiness comes from the outside becomes the fundamental problem in our life.

Because of that, in order to try to stop suffering and to achieve happiness, we put our effort into the outside, rather than trying to stop the suffering and achieve the happiness that arises from within our own mind, the actual evolution. When we believe that [our suffering and happiness] has nothing to do with our mind, with our karma, our positive or negative intention, which is also our mind; when we believe that everything comes from the outside, then all our efforts become futile. Wherever we put our effort also becomes wrong.

This question might arise. If most people put all their effort into achieving happiness and avoiding suffering in external things, which is futile, why do some people have success? This question may arise. Anyway, I’ve made the question! The success does not come from our present effort. I’ll give the example of the person who, with attachment and anger, becomes rich by stealing other people’s wealth. You can understand from this example that person has to put effort externally into stopping suffering and achieving happiness, and by stealing has become wealthy and gained a degree of comfort. However, the main cause of this is not because they have stolen. This is what common people in the world would see as the main cause, just that, but although it might be a condition, it’s not the cause of their wealth and comfort, something which is desirable for them. The main cause is a positive action done in the past. The cause is completely something else, not the negative action of stealing, done with attachment, anger or ignorance. They now have wealth, comfort, and many desirable things because in the past they have done a positive action of making charity to others or making offerings to holy objects, or having practiced rejoicing and so forth. The main cause of this person’s comfort and wealth comes from their good karma, their previous positive actions, their intention.

All this comfort and wealth comes from that person’s mind, from past positive intentions, good karma. But people who do not understand Dharma, people who do not understand karma—what is the cause of happiness and suffering—whose minds are completely dark, are unable to see there is some other cause created in the past; they cannot see how the main cause has come from within the mind. Ordinary people who do not understand Dharma always mistake the condition for the main cause. They always believe the condition that comes from outside is the main cause.

They don’t attempt [to see any further]. They just live on with that belief, believing that the conditions are the main cause, that happiness and problems come from outside. They live their life with that wrong view. That’s why, even though at the beginning a business might have some success, sooner or later it collapses. Yesterday, the businessperson was a millionaire; today they have become a beggar, not even knowing how to pay the rent or buy food. Even day-to-day living becomes a concern.

Although they start to experience more and more problems, they have no idea that those problems come from the mind. Because they can’t see that happiness and suffering—everything—come from the mind, they don’t do anything to purify the cause of suffering, which is the mind. They don’t do anything to purify the negativities already created that are there as seeds on their mindstream or try to abstain from creating further causes of suffering, failure, sickness, relationship problems, and so forth.

When we live with a Dharma mind, we try to purify the negative karma that has already been created and we try to stop experiencing the problem from within our mind by abstaining from having nonvirtuous intentions. Instead we live our life with a positive attitude, with a Dharma mind, keeping our attitude one of Dharma, transforming our mind into the cause of happiness. One way of saying this is that we stop the problems of life and obtain happiness and peace by transforming our attitude, our mind, through meditation.

The common people with no understanding of Dharma at all—those who really don’t know karma, what is the cause of happiness or suffering—don’t how to live their life, how to do business. They just live their life by living on their past good karma. All the comfort, success, wealth, reputation, power and so forth that they experience comes from past good karma. [They aren’t creating the causes now.] It’s like they have done some work in the past and earned some money and now they are just living on that money. Each time they spend some money, their bank balance diminishes; it never increases. They are enjoying the results of their past work, but that will get less and less and then run out.

So, those who do not understand Dharma, who do not understand karma, who do not practice meditation or do not practice Dharma, are just living on some past merit that they have accumulated. They are not creating any more merit by developing the mind, by doing positive actions for other sentient beings or making holy objects. Having some success is just because of some past life’s good karma, not from this present life’s negative action, like stealing. That can be a condition, but it is not the main cause.

This is a very important meditation. How everything comes from the mind itself becomes a meditation on patience. This mindfulness helps calm the mind; it stops anger arising for the enemy, for somebody who doesn’t love us or who harms us. This mindfulness itself becomes a practice of patience, a meditation we can do in daily life, while we are working, walking or eating. Doing this meditation becomes like watching television twenty-four hours a day, because we can understand that what we see, what we hear, what we smell, what we taste, what we touch, all these things come from our mind. Even when we see how people react, what they think of us, how they speak to us, how they behave, the whole thing becomes exactly like watching a movie, a story printed on film that is projected through a projector onto a screen. Here, everything is a projection or creation of our mind.

This is one way of understanding how everything comes from the mind. This movie we are watching becomes very interesting. Whatever we see, whatever we hear, whatever we touch, whatever we smell, whatever we taste, everything that our senses contact, comes from the mind. We are not looking at something that comes from the outside; we were looking at something that comes from our own mind. This is the reality. Then, it goes even deeper than that!

Recognizing the hallucinations as a hallucination

The reason why I brought all this up is because this becomes kind of like a spider web, but the main thing is to practice mindfulness in this way. That is one thing. Then, along with this, as I mentioned before, with these many examples, we can check what is false and what is truth in a different way.

All the sense objects, including I, action, object, just as we see the table on the base, everything that appears from its own side, we first look at our own perception of how things appear to us—how form appears to us, how sound appears to us, how smell, taste, and tangible objects appear to us—we analyze that appearance, that perception, how things appear to us. Do they appear as merely labeled or not merely labeled? This is the question we ask ourselves.

Then, anything that does not appear as merely labeled by the mind, such as the table on the base, that is a hallucination. All these things that are merely labeled by mind are completely covered by the hallucination. So, then we practice mindfulness. While we are eating, walking, working, during meditation, and especially at break time, we practice mindfulness by recognizing the hallucinations as hallucinations.

By practice mindfulness, the way that this I, the subject, appears–appearing to exist from its own side—is the hallucination. When we look at other people, they also appear to exist from their own side, not merely labeled by mind, but that is also a hallucination. So, the way that form, sound, smell, taste—everything—appear is a hallucination. Just constantly practicing mindfulness on how all these are hallucinations is a very powerful meditation.

When we practice mindfulness like this, seeing everything as a hallucination, as a result, the understanding that can naturally come in our heart is that everything is empty. We are putting effort into seeing everything as a hallucination but the understanding that comes is emptiness, how the I is empty, the action is empty, everything is empty, only emptiness.

This way of practicing mindfulness becomes an extremely powerful meditation on emptiness, while at the same time calming our mind, making it very peaceful and tranquil because it cuts off all the superstitions. It cuts off all the busy thoughts, the expectations, the worries, the fear, the anxiety, all these things.

That is one way to do it. The other mindfulness meditation we can do in our daily life is to be mindful of dependent arising. When we are walking on the road, we should be aware that this I that appears as something real, something we can find, is a hallucination. When we are walking, the action of walking appears as not merely labeled by the mind, as something real. And the road, the ground, we are walking on, which is hard, appears as not merely labeled by mind, as appearing to exist from its own side. While we are walking, as we step on the road, especially if it’s hard like a concrete road, it seems very real, not merely labeled by the mind. We should be aware that all these are hallucinations.

The way the ground appears to us, as something solid from its own side, not merely labeled, is completely contradictory to reality. When we practice this mindfulness of seeing everything as a hallucination, the idea of emptiness comes, the idea that all this is empty. It becomes a very enjoyable practice, a very wonderful practice.

Only emptiness can cut the root of samsara

Even just with the thought, even just generating faith in emptiness, purifies heavy negative karmas like committing the ten nonvirtuous actions or the five uninterrupted negativities of having killed our father, mother or an arhat, having caused a buddha to bleed and having caused disunity among the Sangha. It is said in the sutra teachings that even those five uninterrupted negativities are purified by having faith in emptiness. So here, we not only have faith in emptiness, but also by meditating on it we are actually experiencing emptiness. Each second of meditation on emptiness becomes like an atomic bomb to purify all that unbelievable negative karma.

There are so many benefits mentioned that show us what a powerful purification practice meditating on emptiness is, because the wisdom realizing emptiness is the only way to cut ignorance, the root of samsara, the root of the whole of suffering and its causes, delusion and karma. It is the only way to directly eliminate all this; there is no way other than the wisdom realizing emptiness. Even if we don’t know what it is talking about! [Rinpoche and students laugh]

The more we recite the teachings on emptiness, such as the Heart of Wisdom Sutra, even if we don’t understand what it’s talking about, just to read and recite the teachings over and over becomes an unbelievably powerful purification. It plants the seed, the imprint, on the mind and that leads to a realization of emptiness.

Because everything the Buddha talked about is unmistaken, generally any of the Buddha’s teaching we study, even if we don’t understand them, just by studying them or reading them over and over, that leaves an imprint on the mind again and again and that becomes the preparation to sooner or later realize emptiness. In this way, we are able to cut the root of the whole of suffering.

This is the only way we can achieve liberation from samsara; otherwise, there is no other way. And similarly, to remove all the obscurations of the mind and attain enlightenment so we can liberate other sentient beings. We need this to directly remove all the delusions, all the obscurations. Then, in the Mahayana, not only do we need emptiness to directly eliminate all the obscurations, the mistakes of the mind, we also need renunciation and bodhicitta. They help but they cannot purify all the gross and subtle delusions. That only comes from the wisdom realizing emptiness.

I’ll stop here.