Homeowner Forum / Lawn and Garden / August 2007

Emptiness does not mean "lack of" anything.  It's a term used to
describe what Buddhists call "right view."  One example of emtpiness
is a table.  That is a table...then someone sits on it.  Then, it's a
chair or a place to sit.  There is no tableness to the table.  That's
the label we put on it.

And the shortest chill hour peach tree requires 400 hours of
temperatures below 45 in order to set fruit.  That's a fact.

This is what emptiness means in the Buddhist view:

Interview on Emptiness
Lama Zopa Rinpoche

Find more like this at www.lywa.org

This material comes from Ven. Thubten Chodron’s interview with Lama
Zopa Rinpoche at Sravasti Abbey January 29, 2005, and also
incorporates clarification of a few points during an interview with
Rinpoche in Wisconsin, July, 2005. This document has not yet been
checked by Rinpoche.

Thubten Chodron: I have a question about emptiness that comes from
Geshe Sopa-la’s teaching last summer. A couple of things are confusing
to me. One is: In the four point analysis we are supposed to search
for the inherently existent I. However, in the syllogism—the I, for
example, is not inherently existent because it’s a dependent
arising—the I that is the subject of the syllogism is the conventional
I, not the inherently existent one. So which I are we searching for?
How are we to meditate on this?1

Lama Zopa Rinpoche: We ordinary beings who haven’t realized emptiness
don’t see things as similar to illusions. We don’t realize that things
are merely labeled by mind and exist by mere name. Generally speaking,
we don’t see the mere appearance of the I2 until we become
enlightened, because whenever our mind merely imputes something, the
next second the negative imprint left on the mental continuum by
previous ignorance projects true existence. In the first moment, the I
is imputed; in the next it appears back to us as real, as truly
existent, as not merely labeled by mind.

Until we achieve enlightenment we have this appearance of true
existence. Except for the meditative equipoise on emptiness of an
arya, all other consciousnesses of sentient beings have the appearance
of true existence. During an arya’s meditative equipoise on emptiness
things don’t appear truly existent. It is without the dualistic view
(in two senses, first) not only is there no appearance of true
existence, but there is no appearance of subject and object. This
wisdom mind and its object are inseparable, like water put in water.
The arya’s meditative equipoise on emptiness hasn’t completely
eliminated the dualistic view from the person’s mindstream forever,
but it has absorbed it temporarily. That is how the wisdom meditates
on emptiness. It realizes emptiness directly, becoming inseparable
from emptiness.

After arising from meditative equipoise on emptiness, everything
appears truly existent again, even though the meditator no longer
believes that this appearance is true. In this way, the meditator sees
things as like an illusion in that they appear one way (truly
existent) but exist in another (dependent, merely labeled). These
post-meditation times are called subsequent attainment, or rjes-thob
in Tibetan. So the appearance of true existence is there until we
attain enlightenment. That’s why it is said that every consciousness
of sentient beings except an arya’s meditative equipoise on emptiness
is a hallucinating mind—everything that appears to it appears truly
existent.

So whatever appears and whenever there is the thought “I,” aryas have
the appearance of a truly existent I during the time of subsequent
attainment. If this is the case for aryas, there is no question that
ordinary bodhisattvas on the path of accumulation and the path of
preparation, who have not realized emptiness directly3, have a
hallucinating mind. Everything that appears to them appears truly
existent. Needless to say, whenever we common people, who haven’t
realized emptiness, think “I,” we don’t think of a merely labeled I.
Generally speaking, when we common people talk about I, it’s the real
I, the I existing from its own side. During our conversations every
day, we don’t talk about some other I; we’re always thinking and
speaking about a truly existent I. That is how we see and think of
things. Ordinarily people do not question that appearance. Nor are
they aware that they assent to that appearance, grasping it as real
and true.

So when we think “I” or point to I, naturally we think it’s truly
existent. We don’t have any appearance other than that of true
existence. Then we believe that appearance to be the way things
actually exist. So when we say “I,” we’re automatically pointing to
and thinking about a truly existent I because the merely labeled I is
not appearing any more. But the I that appears to us is false; it
doesn’t truly exist. When we meditate on emptiness, we drop an atom
bomb on this truly existent I. The atom bomb is the reason of
dependent arising—the I is not truly existent because it is a
dependent arising. It’s not true. What appears true, what appears to
exist from its own side, isn’t true. Thus it is empty of true
existence.

But its being empty doesn’t mean the I doesn’t exist. The real I, the
truly existent I, the I that exists by its own nature, the I that
exists from its own side, is not true. It doesn’t exist. However, the
conventional I, the I that exists by being merely labeled, the I that
is a dependent arising, that I exists.

In the Heart Sutra, Avalokiteshvara says no form, no feeling, and so
on. This is like throwing an atom bomb on the appearance of truly
existent things. That appearance is not true. Those truly existent
things that appear to us do not exist. Then what comes in our heart is
that they’re empty. It’s not that they don’t exist. They exist, but
they’re empty. Why? Because they’re dependent arisings. Because they
are dependent arisings, they are empty of true existence; because they
are dependent arisings, they exist (conventionally). Use the reason
“It’s not true because it’s a dependent arising.” Do analytical
meditation to search for the I, then do stabilizing meditation when
you see its emptiness.

For us ordinary beings, whatever we contact, talk about, or think
about—everything—appears truly existent and we believe in that
appearance. We grasp things as truly existent. However, when you
realize the emptiness of the I or any other phenomenon and train your
mind in that realization, you see that this phenomenon is merely
labeled by mind. Even though true existence still appears to you, you
don’t assent to that appearance; you don’t believe that phenomena
truly exist. You know they exist by being merely labeled by mind, even
though they appear truly existent. You have discovered that they’re
not true, that they exist in mere name.

Someone whose mind has realized emptiness in the meditation session
sees things as like an illusion in the subsequent attainment time. He
knows they exist by being merely labeled by mind. So even though that
meditator has the realization that everything is a dependent arising
and is merely labeled by mind dependent on the base, he still has the
appearance of true existence. But now he points at that and say to
himself, “This appearance isn’t true because it’s a dependent
arising.” There is nothing contradictory in this—things are both empty
and arise dependently.

Because this meditator has realized the emptiness of I, he has also
realized that the I exists by mere name and is merely imputed by mind
in dependence on the aggregates—this is the Prasangika view. The I is
there. It exists, but you don’t grasp it as truly existent, even
though it still appears to be. For example, let’s say you see a mirage
and have the vision that water is there. But since you just came from
that place, you know that only sand is there, so you don’t believe
that it’s water. You think, “That water is not true. It doesn’t exist
as it appears because there’s no water there. There’s the appearance
of water—that appearance of water exists. But there is no water.” Many
things are like that. Once when I was in Italy I saw a lady in a store
but she turned out to be a mannequin. Then there was another figure
that I thought was a mannequin but it was a lady. So this is similar:
the appearance is false, it appears one way but exists in another.

TC: In the texts, it says that we don’t realize that things are merely
labeled by mind until after we realize emptiness. So how can we use
the reason that things are merely labeled by mind as a proof that
things are empty if we can’t realize that they’re merely labeled by
mind until after we’ve realized emptiness?

LZR: It’s like this. There’s no contradiction. Being merely labeled by
mind indicates how things come into existence. At this moment, this is
not something you know through analytical meditation, not something
you know by realizing emptiness.

Usually in the philosophical teachings, it says that whatever appears
appears truly existent. That’s what normally happens due to the
hallucinating mind. The only time true existence doesn’t appear to
sentient beings is during the meditative equipoise on emptiness of an
arya.

But in Pabongka’s text it says there is mere appearance of the object
for a brief moment. Through analysis you can get the idea. For
example, when you see a drum, analyze it at the same time. Be aware
that your mind is labeling “drum” by seeing that base. Be aware at the
same time as you’re labeling. Analyze: to be able to label drum you
have to see a specific phenomenon. Even though the table is round like
a drum, you won’t label “drum” on the base you label “table.” It has
to be a specific base that performs the function of making sound and
that has material to produce sound when hit. You have to see that base
first. Then because of the function it performs—what it’s used for—the
mind merely labels drum. Seeing that base—its shape, color, etc.—and
knowing it has that function become the reason to label “drum.”

When you are aware and analyze at the same time as the labeling
process is occurring—that is, you’re analyzing while you’re labeling
drum—then, at that time, at the beginning there is a mere appearance.

If you’re aware of the brief instant the mind initially sees that
base, the instant you’re starting to label drum, there is a mere
appearance. When you’re aware the instant you begin to label drum,
you’ll be aware that there’s no real drum existing from its own side.
You’ll be aware that drum is merely imputed by seeing that base—that
which performs the function of making sound when struck. At that
moment, there’s just the mere appearance of a drum.

That awareness of the mere appearance of a drum lasts a very short
second. It doesn’t last because you don’t continue that awareness or
mindfulness and because you don’t yet have the realization that it
exists in mere name, merely labeled by mind. And because the negative
imprint left by the past ignorance is there, it projects a truly
existent appearance on the drum and you see a real drum that exists
from its own side. That’s the gag-cha, the object of negation.

I told Chöden Rinpoche that I agree with what Pabongka said. Why? For
example, let’s say you have a child and you want to give it a name.
While you’re thinking of the name—the minute you decide “George” or
“Chodron,” for example—you don’t see George or Chodron right in that
second while you’re labeling. If you’re aware that you’re labeling, at
that instant you don’t immediately see George or Chodron as totally
existent from their own side. So I agree with what Pabongka said—that
this mere appearance is very short, just a brief moment. Here we’re
talking about actual reality; that’s actually how things come into
existence, merely labeled by mind.

However, since you don’t continue that awareness or you lack
realization, in the next moment you see the object of negation that
was projected by the imprint of ignorance. George or Chodron appear as
if existing from their own side.

Except for the arya in meditative equipoise on emptiness, everything
that appears to us sentient beings appears to be truly existent. At
this time, the appearance of true existence is temporarily absorbed.
Only emptiness appears; it doesn’t appear truly existent to this
direct perceiver. This is what is usually said in the texts.

Also, it is normally said that as soon as you label something, it
appears back to you as truly existent and you believe it exists in the
way it appears to you. For example, suppose you are a parent with a
new child and it’s time to give it a name. The thought “Döndrub” comes
in your mind and you label “Döndrub.” Of course, the correct way would
be for Döndrub to appear merely labeled by mind. However, due to the
negative imprint or predisposition [Skt: vasana; Tib: bag-chag] left
by past ignorance on your mind, the moment after you label the child
“Döndrub,” Döndrub appears back to you as not merely labeled by mind
but as existing from its own side.

But Pabongka says—and I think I agree with him—that doesn’t need to
happen all the time. I think that sometimes if you’re analyzing and
watching closely, there is a brief moment when the mere object appears
without the appearance of true existence. Sometimes in the moment
after the mind labels “Döndrub” there’s not the appearance of a real
(i.e., inherently existent) Döndrub. Instead there is Döndrub but not
real in the sense of existing from its own side. There’s the
appearance of mere Döndrub, for a very short time. Then, due to the
imprint of the ignorance that grasps at inherent existence, the mind
goes into hallucination, believing that Döndrub exists from his own
side, not merely labeled by mind.

This is a unique explanation. It’s not common and comes due to
personal experience. I think I agree with what Pabongka said about
this. I showed the text to Chöden Rinpoche and consulted him about it.
I said I didn’t think that it would immediately appear truly existent.
You need to watch your perception when you’re labeling. You usually
don’t notice because the mind is not aware. Probably mere Döndrub
appears for a split second and then real Döndrub appears. There is an
evolutionary process: mere Döndrub; then Döndrub existing from its own
side—a real Döndrub appearing more and more, that appearance becoming
stronger and stronger.

Check with your own experience, especially when you’re labeling
something for the very first time. I think you will understand this if
you examine your mind when it’s happening.

For something to exist there must not only be the mind conceiving it
and the label but also a valid base. You can’t just make up a label
and think that therefore the object exists and functions according to
the label you gave it. For example, let’s say before they have a baby
a couple decides to name it “Tashi.” At that time, there are no
aggregates—no body and mind. Remember the lam-rim story about the man
who got excited and labeled a child he dreamed of having in the future
“Dawa Dragpa”? It’s similar here, where the couple thinks of the name
“Tashi.” At that time Tashi doesn’t exist. Why? Because there’s no
base. Whether Tashi exists or not mainly depends on the existence of
the aggregates, the existence of the base of the label. It depends on
whether there is a valid base4. In this case, since a valid base which
could be labeled “Tashi” doesn’t yet exist, Tashi doesn’t exist at
that time.

In another scenario, let’s say a baby is born—so the mental and
physical aggregates are present—but the name “Tashi” hasn’t been given
yet. So at that time, Tashi also doesn’t exist because the parents
haven’t labeled “Tashi.” They could label “Peter.” They could label
anything. So even though the aggregates are there at that time, Tashi
doesn’t exist because the parents haven’t named the child. When does
Tashi come into existence? It’s only when there is a valid base. When
a valid base is present, then the mind sees that base and makes up the
name “Tashi.” After making up the name and labeling it in dependence
on the aggregates, then we believe Tashi is there.

Therefore, what Tashi is is nothing. Nothing. Tashi is nothing other
than what is merely imputed by mind. That’s all. There’s not the
slightest Tashi that exists other than what is merely labeled by mind.

The Tashi or the I appearing to you that you believe is something even
slightly more than what is merely labeled by mind is a hallucination.
That is the object of negation. Anything that is slightly more than
what is merely labeled by mind doesn’t exist at all. It is the object
of negation. Therefore what Tashi is in reality is extremely subtle.
What Tashi really is is not what you’ve believed up to now. The Tashi
you believed existed for so many years is a total hallucination.
There’s no such thing. It doesn’t exist. The Tashi that does exist is
what is merely labeled by mind. Nothing other than that. So what Tashi
is is extremely fine, unbelievably subtle. The borderline of Tashi
existing or not existing is extremely subtle. It’s not that Tashi
doesn’t exist. Tashi exists but it’s like Tashi doesn’t exist. When
you examine, you discover that it’s not that things don’t exist. They
exist. There are the aggregates. Then the mind sees those aggregates
and makes up the label “Tashi.” Tashi exists by being merely imputed.
This is how all phenomena exist and function, including the hells,
karma, all the sufferings of samsara, the path, and
enlightenment—everything. All phenomena exist by being merely labeled,
as in the example of Tashi.

The I is similar. What the I is is extremely subtle. The borderline
between its existing and not existing is extremely subtle. Compared to
how you previously believed things exist, it’s like it doesn’t exist.
But it’s not totally non-existent. The I exists but how it exists is
unbelievably subtle.

Because the conventional I is subtle, gaining the correct view is
difficult. Thus before Lama Tsong Khapa there were many great
meditators in Tibet who fell into the extreme of nihilism, thinking
that nothing existed at all. It’s difficult to realize the view of the
Middle View devoid of eternalism—grasping at true existence—and
nihilism—believing that the I doesn’t exist at all. The Middle Way
view is free from holding things to exist from their own side and
holding that they don’t exist at all. As with the example of Tashi,
things are empty of true existence—they do not exist without being
merely labeled in dependence on a valid base—but they are not
non-existent. They exist ever so subtly, almost as if they didn’t
exist. But you can’t say they don’t exist. There’s a big difference
between the I that exists by being merely labeled in dependence on a
base and a rabbit’s horn. Similarly, there’s a big difference between
this nominally, or conventionally, existent I and an inherently
existent I.

While the I and all phenomena are empty of existing from their own
side, at the same time the I and all phenomena exist. They exist in
mere name, merely imputed by mind. The I is the unification of
emptiness and dependent arising. It is empty of inherent existence and
arises dependently. This point is unique to the Prasangika
Madhyamikas. Svatantrika Madhyamikas can’t put these two together.
When they think that something is merely labeled by mind they think it
doesn’t exist and thus fall into nihilism. Although Svatantrikas don’t
accept true existence (den-par drub-pa), they do believe that things
exist inherently (rang-zhin gyi drub-pa), by their own characteristics
(rang-gi tshän-nyi kyi drub-pa), from their own side (rang-ngös-nä
drub-pa). It means there’s something on the aggregates, something on
the base that can be found under analysis.

The term “true existence” has different meanings for the Svatantrikas
and the Prasangikas. If you don’t understand that, then studying their
tenets becomes very confusing. Although tenet systems may use the same
word, they often give it different meanings, so being aware of this is
very important in order to gain the correct understanding. For
Svatantrika Madhyamikas, “true existence” means existing without being
labeled by the force of appearing to a non-defective awareness. If
something exists without being labeled by the force of appearing to a
non-defective awareness, then according to the Svatantrikas it is
truly, or ultimately, existent. For them, it has to appear to a valid
mind and that valid mind has to label it for it to exist.

So for Svatantrikas something exists from the side of the object.
While they say that things are labeled by mind, they don’t accept that
they are merely labeled by mind. They don’t accept that things are
merely labeled because they believe that the I, for example, is there
on the aggregates. In other words, they believe you can find the I on
the aggregates. If you believe that the I is on the aggregates, then
it means the I is findable on the aggregates. For example, if there is
a cow on the mountain you’ll be able to find a cow on the mountain.
Since there is something in the aggregates that is the I, it should be
findable under analysis. This is their philosophy. You can find the I
on the aggregates, so while they think the I doesn’t exist truly, it
does exist inherently; it exists from its own side.

This is the big difference between Prasangikas and Svatantrikas.
Svatantrikas believe the correct view is that you can find the I on
the aggregates. Therefore they say it exists from its own side; that
it exists by its own nature. According to Prasangika philosophy this
is totally wrong; what the Svatantrikas believe exists is in fact a
total hallucination. Prasangikas believe this not just because their
philosophy says so but because if you actually meditate and search for
an inherently existent I, you can’t find it. In other words, this is
not intellectual wrangling but what you actually discover when you
analyze and investigate how things exist. Therefore, the Prasangika
view is the ultimate view.

Not only can’t you find a truly existent I on the aggregates; you
can’t find a merely labeled I on the aggregates either. Many people
seem to say that the merely labeled I is on the aggregates but that
there is no truly existent I. This is an interesting point. If the
merely labeled I is on the aggregates, then where is it? This becomes
a huge question. Where is it? For example, if we say there is a merely
labeled table on this base—four legs and a flat top—then where is it?
Is the merely labeled table on top or on the right side or on the left
side? If we say a merely labeled table is on this base we should be
able to find it. Where is it? It becomes very difficult to say exactly
where.

Do you remember last summer when Geshe Sopa Rinpoche was teaching I
asked where on the base the merely labeled table is? I think it would
have to cover the whole base. The merely labeled table would have to
cover the entire base, every atom of it, or it would have to exist on
one side or the other. We can’t find it on one side or the other, in
one part or another, so the merely labeled table must cover the entire
base, every atom of it. Then it becomes very interesting. Then if you
cut it in half you should have two merely labeled tables. But if we
break a table into pieces we see only pieces, and there should be a
merely labeled table on every piece. Take a little piece and it would
be a merely labeled table because table exists on the whole object. So
that is totally absurd! Many faults arise.

I find it much clearer to say that there’s not even a merely labeled
table on the base. Geshe Sopa Rinpoche debated with me. At that time I
think we were talking about the person, so I said a merely labeled
person is in this room, on this seat, but it’s not on the aggregates.
It’s much simpler, much easier, to say this. I don’t see any confusion
in it. The person is on the bed but not on the aggregates. Why is the
person on the bed? Because the aggregates are there. But the person is
not on the aggregates, because if it were, it should be findable when
we search for it.

If you don’t debate and just say, “The merely labeled aggregates are
on the aggregates,” it seems OK. But if you analyze and debate, it
becomes difficult to believe that5.

True, or inherent, existence is the gag-cha, the object of negation.
It appears and we grasp it as true. That is, we believe the label
exists on the base. Because of our deep habit of believing this, when
phenomena appear to us, they appear to exist from the side of their
base—from there on the base, appearing from there. But in fact, when
you come in the room, you see this phenomenon with legs and a seat
that you can sit on. Before seeing it, you don’t label “chair.” Why
not? Because there’s no reason for your mind to label “chair.” There’s
no reason at all. The label “chair” doesn’t come first. First you have
to see the base. Your mind sees that and immediately brings up the
label. Initially we learned the label from others; when we were
children they introduced us to it, saying, “This is a chair.” So much
of what we call education in childhood involves learning labels.
Whether we study Dharma at a monastery or another subject at secular
school, we’re learning labels. Whenever we have a conversation we’re
talking about labels. Studying science or any other topic is the study
of labels, learning labels that we weren’t previously aware of. This
is the same when we learn Dharma and everything else.

First you see the base; the next moment your mind gives it a label.
The same mind sees this base and then generates the label. The mind
merely imputes the label “chair.” It makes up the label “chair” and
then believes in that. In fact, nothing is going onto the object;
there’s nothing concrete going there and sticking on the object.
Rather, the mind imputes and then believes the object is that label.
The difficulty and the wrong view begin just when the label has been
imputed; we look and the object appears from there. There seems to be
the object there, existing from its own side, not something that was
merely labeled by mind, but something that is the object there on the
base.

That is the object of negation. It appears as a real chair or person
or table, not one that exists by being merely labeled. The reality is
that your mind merely imputed “chair” just now by seeing the base.
It’s the same with the table: in the next moment, it appears as a real
table from the side of the base, not as something that became a table
dependent upon your mind making up the label “table.”

Before seeing the base, you didn’t label “table” and no table was
there. First you see the base—something with legs that you can put
things on—then, upon seeing it, your mind imputes table. In less than
a finger snap, your mind imputes table, generates the label “table”
because as a child you were taught that name, “This is a table.” You
know the label, so by seeing the base, your mind imputes the label
table. Then you believe that. But the next moment, when you’re not
aware, because of the imprint of past ignorance, the mind projects the
hallucination of a real table.

For example, bile disease can make you see a white snow mountain as
yellow; wind disease can make you see it as blue. If you look through
colored glasses, a white snow mountain will appear to be the color of
the glass. It’s a little bit like that. The imprint of ignorance makes
us see the label on the base. What we see, in fact, is a labeled
object as existing from the side of the base, as coming from the base.
Precisely this is the object of negation; this is what doesn’t exist
at all.

Anything appearing from there, from the side of the base (i.e., from
its own side), anything coming from there is the object of negation.
It’s a hallucination. Actually, the table is coming from your
mind—your mind makes it up and believes it, but because you’re not
aware of that, in the very next moment the table appears to exist from
the side of the base. That’s the object of negation.

All objects of the senses—visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and
tangible—as well as the objects of the mental sense power—in sum, all
phenomena that appear to the six senses, are the object of negation.
They’re all hallucinations. The entire world, even the Dharma path,
hell, god realm, positive and negative karma, and enlightenment, were
made up by your own mind. Your mind projected the hallucination of
things existing from their own side.

This hallucination of inherent existence is the foundation. Then, on
top of that, you pay attention to certain attributes and label
“wonderful,” “horrible,” or “nothing much.” When you think, “He’s
awful” and get angry, you label the person an enemy. Not aware that
you created the enemy, you believe there is a truly existent one out
there and project all sorts of other notions on him. You justify your
actions, thinking they are positive, when in fact you created the
enemy. In fact, there’s no real enemy there. There’s not the slightest
atom of an enemy existing; not even a tiny particle of true existence.
Simply by hallucinating that an action is harmful or bad, anger arises
and you label the person who did it “enemy.” You label “harmful” or
“bad,” anger arises, and you’re your mind projects “enemy.” Even
though that enemy appears real, there’s no enemy there.

It’s the same with an object of attachment. By reasoning that a person
is intelligent or by projecting beauty on the body, then attachment
arises and you project “friend,” but friend doesn’t exist because it’s
built on the foundation of seeing a truly existent person, which does
not exist. The special insight section of the Lam-rim Chen-mo
describes this process. I think this is extremely important
psychology. Through such analysis, we can see that anger and
attachment are very gross superstitions. We understand the process by
which ignorance causes us suffering.

First there is ignorance. From it, attachment and anger arise.
Understanding this is very important; it is the best psychology. When
we realize that what anger and attachment believe does not exist, our
mind can be at peace.

The hallucinated appearance (nang-ba), the appearance of true
existence, exists. But the truly existent table doesn’t exist. We have
to identify the appearance of a truly existent table; it exists. If
the appearance of true existence didn’t exist, then there wouldn’t be
an object of negation. The object of negation is the object of that
appearance.

For example, when you take drugs, you may have the appearance of many
colors in the sky. That appearance is there. But are there many colors
in the sky? No, there aren’t. What you want to realize is that there
are no colors in the sky, because when you do, you will stop arguing
with your friend about what shade they are, in which direction they
are moving, and so forth. If there were no false appearances, then
whatever appeared to our mind would be correct and true, which would
mean that we would already be Buddha. [Is this what Rinpoche meant?]

One way to meditate is to start with your head. That’s one name that
the mind made up. But when we search this object we can’t find a head
on it. We see eyes, ears, hair, and so forth, but not a head. Head is
merely imputed by mind in dependence on the base and then we believe
in that. Then search for the eye and the ear. You can’t find them
either. You cannot find ear in any part of the ear. By depending on
this base, mind just made up this label merely imputed ear and
believed in that. What appears as ear from the side of the base is the
object of negation; it’s a hallucination.

Then if you mentally break the ear into pieces—lobe and so forth—these
parts are also merely labeled. Then mentally break the parts of the
ear into cells. These, too, are merely labeled. Then look at the
atoms. They too don’t exist from their own side but are merely
labeled. As we look at smaller and smaller parts of a thing all we see
are more labels. Even atoms: why are there atoms? There’s no other
reason other than because there are the parts of the atom. By
depending on them as the base, your mind labels “atom.” These parts
are merely imputed in dependence on other smaller parts. From the
body, to the limbs, to the cells, to the atoms, there is just another
label, another label, another label.

So the reality is that all these phenomena exist in mere name
(tags-yöd-tsam); they exist by being merely labeled; they exist
nominally; they exist in mere name. Everything is merely labeled by
mind, everything exists in mere name. The I exists by merely being
labeled. Consciousness also exists dependent upon its parts. We search
this life’s consciousness, today’s consciousness, this hour’s
consciousness, this minute’s consciousness, this second’s
consciousness, this split-second’s consciousness—each one has so many
parts. There’s another label, another label, another label. So every
thing, even the mind, exists in mere name. All phenomena, starting
from the I and going down to the atoms, parts of atoms,
split-seconds—none of them exist from its own side. Therefore
everything is totally empty. Totally empty.

That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. They exist, but they exist in mere
name, merely labeled by mind. So the way they exist is the unity of
emptiness and dependent arising.

It’s good to do this meditation when you’re walking, talking, or
engaged in other activities. There so many piles of labels to
investigate. All these exist in mere name, merely imputed by mind. The
feet doing the function moving forward one after another is merely
labeled “walking.” The mouth moving making communicable sounds is
merely labeled as “talking.” Writing, teaching, working are similar.
This is excellent mindfulness meditation to do when you’re walking,
eating, writing, and so forth. While you write, be aware that writing
exists in mere name; it’s merely imputed by mind. Therefore the action
of writing is empty. When you’re conversing with someone, teaching,
working, playing—these are good opportunities to do this mindfulness
meditation.

Until now we believed that things exist in the way they appear to
us—out there on the base, real from the side of the base. Our mind is
habituated with seeing this as true and believing it is true. When you
start to analyze, you find and discover that how things exist is
actually unbelievably subtle. What the I or any other phenomenon is is
unbelievably subtle. It’s not that they don’t exist, but they’re so
subtle that it’s almost as if they didn’t exist.

When we get an inkling of this unbelievably subtle way that things
exist, fear may arise in our mind because it has been habituated to
believe that what appears real is real, that it exists from its own
side. Our mind has been living with that concept our whole life, and
not only this life but from beginningless rebirths. Our mind believes
that if it exists, it has to be truly existent; it has to exist from
its own side. That which exists in mere name, that which exists merely
labeled by mind and is empty of existing from its own side—these
phenomena we think don’t exist. What in fact exists is for the deluded
mind what doesn’t exist. So what doesn’t exist—a real table, real
chair, real me—we believe all these exist. On the basis of believing
this, other delusions arise. In this way samsara comes about. Our
whole life and from beginningless lives we have believed that
everything inherently exists. So when we discover that everything we
believe in is totally false, it is terrifying. Discovering that
everything in which we have believed is a hallucination is shocking6.

TC: You spoke about labeling on a valid base. To me, that seems to be
a Svatantrika viewpoint. It sounds as if “valid base” means there is
something from the side of the object that merits its being given that
particular label. Gen Lamrimpa brought that up in his book, Realizing
Emptiness, and said that especially the first time we give a name to
an object, if we say it’s labeled in dependence on a valid base, it
sounds as if there is something inherently existent from the object
that makes it worthy of that label. In that case, it would be
inherently existent.

LZR: What is labeled exists. It has a valid base. Otherwise, if a
valid base weren’t required, then when you dreamed about getting a
billion dollars or dreamed about getting married, having ten children,
all the children growing up and some of them dying, all those things
would exist. But when you wake up you see that none of this happened.
It doesn’t exist. Why? The mere labeling was there, but those objects
don’t exist because there were no valid bases for those labels.

You have to distinguish the two kinds of merely labeled: 1) the merely
labeled where there’s no valid base, such as things in dream, and 2)
the merely labeled that relates to a valid base, such as this table.
Both are merely labeled, but one does not exist. The one that exists
is the one that has a valid base.

The valid base is, of course, also merely imputed by mind. What’s
called “valid base” is also merely imputed by mind. It also comes from
the mind.

For example, the I is merely labeled by mind. The base in dependence
upon which we label “I” is the aggregates, and each of the aggregates
is, in turn, merely labeled by mind dependent upon the collection of
its parts—the body is labeled in dependence on the collection of
physical parts; the mind is labeled in dependence on different parts,
such as the collection of moments of consciousness. It goes on and on,
each part being merely labeled in dependence upon its parts. Even
atoms and split seconds of consciousness exist by being merely
labeled.

Everything that appears truly existent—even atoms that appear real
from their own side—is totally non-existent. All of these are totally
non-existent—from the I to the aggregates down to the atoms. All of
these are totally empty. But while they are totally empty, they exist
in mere name. They are the union of dependent arising and emptiness.

This meditation is very good: starting from the I, to the body, to the
organs, the limbs and other parts of the body down to the
atoms—everything that appears truly existent is a hallucination, is
totally non-existent. From the I to the mind to the various types of
consciousness to the split seconds of consciousness—everything that
appears to be real from its own side is a hallucination and is thus
totally non-existent. All of these are empty. Concentrate for as long
as possible on the fact that everything is empty. This is an excellent
meditation to do.

While they are empty, all of them exist in mere name; you don’t need
to worry about that. They are empty and exist in mere name—this is the
union of emptiness and dependent arising. While it’s empty, it exists;
while it exists, it’s empty. Whether you are sitting or walking, do
this meditation that everything is empty, from the I down to the
atoms. Investigate one by one; they are all empty. While they are
empty, they exist in mere name; they exist by being merely labeled.
Contemplating in this way even while you’re walking is very good. You
can do this meditation while sitting, walking, or whatever.

The following might depend on the individual person’s level of
realization of emptiness, but normally when you think, for example,
“The I is merely imputed in dependence on a valid base, the collection
of the five aggregates,” at that time you don’t see the aggregates as
merely imputed. Even when you say “I is merely imputed in relation to
the aggregates, even without using the word “valid base,” the
aggregates appear existing from their own side. But when you analyze
the aggregates you see they are empty. Before, when you think, “The I
is merely labeled dependent upon the aggregates” you may see the I is
empty while the aggregates still appear to exist from their own side.
But when you think, “The aggregates are merely labeled in relation to
their parts,” then how the aggregates appear to you is different. They
don’t appear truly existent; they don’t appear truly existent. When we
meditate that something is empty or merely labeled, at that time its
base appears truly existent. Until we achieve enlightenment, the base
will appear truly existent in post-meditation time. But when you take
what was the base and analyze it you see that it exists by being
merely imputed in dependence on its base and thus is empty. On and on,
nowhere do you find anything that is truly existent.

If you have realized emptiness of the aggregates, for example, when
you come out of meditative equipoise on emptiness, in the time of
subsequent attainment, there will still be the appearance of the
aggregates existing form their own side. This doesn’t mean you hold
them as true. Instead, you recognize that they are empty, that that
appearance is false. You look at them as you would the water of a
mirage. There is the appearance of water but you know there is no
water there. Similarly, if you recognize you are dreaming, you have
the appearance of many things but you know they are not real. It’s
similar here; there’s the appearance of the aggregates existing from
their own side but you realize that appearance is not true. It’s
empty. But without realization that the aggregates are empty, the
feeling of the aggregates existing from their own side is stronger.
But the valid base of the I—the aggregates—also exists by name, by
being merely imputed by mind.

TC: So something is not an inherently valid base. Its being a valid
base is merely labeled.

LZR: When you’re focusing on “I is merely labeled on the aggregates,”
there appear to be truly existent aggregates but the next minute, when
you see the aggregates are merely imputed on their bases, the
aggregates don’t appear truly existent, though their bases may.
There’s no problem with that. That’s an expression of our mind at the
moment. It’s a hallucination; it doesn’t mean that things exist from
their own side. The base isn’t truly existent.

TC: Regarding functioning things, if we meditate that they are
dependent on causes and conditions—just that level of dependent
arising—is that sufficient to realize emptiness? Or is it only one
step and a deeper understanding of dependent arising is necessary?

LZR: Meditating that things depend on causes and conditions helps to
realize emptiness, but it’s not the most subtle dependent arising. It
is gross dependent arising. You will understand that things are empty
of being independent of causes and conditions and that helps to
realize emptiness, but it is not subtle dependent arising.

The extremely subtle one is this: because there is a valid base, when
the mind sees that valid base, it merely imputes, simply makes up the
label this and that. What exists is just simply that, nothing else.
There’s nothing more real there, nothing extra than what is merely
imputed by mind by seeing that valid base. Whether a phenomenon exists
depends upon whether there is a valid base for that or not. The reason
it exists is because a valid base exists and the mind merely imputes
this or that in dependence upon that base. This is subtle dependent
arising according to the Prasangika system.

TC: So in order to realize emptiness, we have to realize a deeper
level of dependent arising than things being dependent on causes and
conditions. But I’ve heard it said that we can’t realize subtle
dependent arising—that things depend on concept and label—until after
we’ve realized emptiness. So meditating on which form of dependent
arising gets us to understand emptiness? For example, we should
meditate that the I is empty of inherent existence because it’s a
dependent arising. But if we can’t realize that the I is a dependent
arising in terms of its being dependent on name and concept until
after realizing emptiness, how can we realize emptiness?

LZR: It’s like this example. We talk about generation stage and
completion stage. You can meditate and get the idea but it doesn’t
mean you have the actual experience. So it’s similar. You may not have
the actual realization of the Prasangika view of dependent arising but
you get some idea. For example, you don’t have the actual experience
of completion stage but by going through the words you have some idea
of how to practice. That idea helps. By developing it, later on you
actually have the experience. It’s similar.

TC: But if it’s only an idea and not the realization of subtle
dependent arising, then how is that sufficient as a reason to enable
you to realize emptiness?

LZR: That is because dependent arising and true existence are totally
opposite to each other. They are contradictory. So when you think
about dependent arising even intellectually, it helps. Even though
it’s just an intellectual understanding now, it helps you to see that
phenomena are not true, that they are not truly existent.

In the Three Principal Aspects of the Path, Je Rinpoche said,

   Without the wisdom realizing emptiness,
   You cannot cut the root of existence.
   Therefore, strive to realize dependent arising.

It’s important to realize emptiness; without that you can’t be free
from samsara. In order to realize emptiness, you must put effort into
realizing dependent arising.

Different lamas have different views about what “realize dependent
arising” means in this context. Kyabje Denma Lochö Rinpoche emphasized
that the meaning of “realize dependent arising” is to realize
emptiness. In order to do this you must realize dependent arising
according to the Prasangika view. This is subtle dependent
arising—dependent on concept and label. Geshe Lamrimpa, who gave so
many teachings in Tibet and passed away there, also said that
“dependent arising” means emptiness, and that means subtle dependent
arising.

But when I received the oral transmission of the text from Chöden
Rinpoche in Mongolia, he said that here “dependent arising” meant
dependent on causes and conditions, the gross dependent arising.
Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche said that Pabongka explained it similarly. So
that makes it easier: understanding gross dependent arising helps to
realize emptiness. If you analyze in this way, even if you don’t
realize it, having a correct intellectual understanding helps you to
understand that it’s not independent. This, in turn, will lead you to
realize the subtle view of Prasangika, how the sprout exists—that it
is empty of inherent existence but exists by being merely labeled,
dependent on name and concept.

First gain a correct intellectual understanding by listening. Then
familiarize your mind in that; meditate on it until you actually
experience it, until you have the realization and actually see things
that way. Intellectual understanding is like a map. Somebody tells
you, “Do this, you’ll see this.” But you have to actually go there to
have the experience. You can have an intellectual idea of what Lhasa
looks like, but when you actually go there, that’s experience. It’s
similar here.

I think your question —the sprout is not truly existent because it is
dependent arising—is connected with this. What level of dependent
arising is meant in the syllogism? The sprout is the subject. You
haven’t yet understood that it is not truly existent, so that is what
is to be proven or understood. “Because it is dependent arising” is
the reason to prove that it’s not truly existent. For the person
hearing this, understanding the sprout is a dependent arising helps
her realize that the sprout is not truly existent. This reasoning here
and what is said in the Three Principal Aspects of the Path is the
same. There is no means to realize emptiness other than by developing
the view of the Prasangika school.

You can have an intellectual understanding of emptiness by using the
reason of dependent arising, when dependent arising means relying on
causes and conditions. This is the preliminary to the actual
realization of subtle dependent arising. With the support of the
collection of merit, strong guru devotion, imprints of the correct
view put on your mind stream from hearing teachings and thinking about
them in the past, this intellectual understanding will act as a cause
to realize the extremely subtle dependent arising of the Prasangika
view school. This is something to think about. This may be a way of
harmonizing the two views above. Words and belief can create hell;
they can lead to nirvana.

Thank you for your question.

Notes
1. This question is related to, but not the same as, the issue of
identifying the object of negation presented in Dreyfus, Georges. The
Sound of Two Hands Clapping. Berkeley; University of California Press,
2003, pp. 284–6.[return to text]

2. This is the conventional I, the I that exists.[return to text]

3. This is referring to the bodhisattvas on these first two paths who
initially entered the bodhisattva vehicle.[return to text]

4. See Lamrimpa, Gen. Realizing Emptiness. Ithaca NY; Snow Lion, 1999,
pp. 91–2.[return to text]

5. Notice that “the I is merely labeled in dependence on the
aggregates” has a different meaning from “the I is merely labeled on
the aggregates.” “In dependence on the aggregates” means there is a
dependent relationship between the I and the aggregates; in
relationship to the aggregates, the I was labeled. It doesn’t imply
that the I is findable among the aggregates. However, saying “on the
aggregates” implies that the person is there, somewhere on or in the
aggregates; that the person is findable under analysis.

Here Rinpoche is also showing the difference between ultimate
existence (the object of negation) and conventional existence (how
things exist). While a conventionally existent person is on the seat
or in the room, an ultimately existent person is not on the
aggregates.[return to text]

6. This is why refuge, devotion to our spiritual mentor, and the
accumulation of positive potential (merit) are so essential. They
enrich the mind and enable it to sustain this realization and
transcend any fear that may arise.[return to text]