Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 42-minute session on Śāntideva’s Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra, Kyabje Rinpoche distinguishes the nominal self—the everyday ‘I’—from the mistaken self that seems to exist intrinsically. He describes two kinds of ego-grasping: the innate clinging present from birth and the philosophical grasping constructed through doctrinal assertion. The core is a systematic search for an intrinsically existing self through the body (teeth, organs, blood, bones), bodily processes, and consciousnesses—showing why the self cannot be found anywhere. He reveals a key logical point: labeling itself proves the self lacks inherent existence. Things that exist by their own nature need no external label. The session sets up the refutation of three non-Buddhist views of self, to be explored in future teachings.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-06-14 – 5B – 9th Chapter – KR.mp3
UUID: 5e60bbce-7d2a-4872-a6ff-582036337b16
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
Date: 1994-06-14
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~2,622
Well, then what are these two egos or two self? Well, one is the self or ego which is which is there on mere nominal level, and the other self for ego is one which is to be proven as not there, what is so called translated as object of negation that which has to be negated as not there at all. The ego also which is there on mere nominal level is the ego which is there, which exists. Whereas the ego or self, which is to be proven not there, is the one is the ego or self which is nonexistent. So to paraphrase we have then ego of mere nominal level is the existing ego, and ego to be proved not there is the ego or non existent ego.
And it’s necessary to not confuse the two. The ego which is there on mere nominal level is the ego which we can relate as the feeling of I I, which we think as I I, and the way which we can relate as I am well, I am sick, someone is hitting me, I am explaining the teaching, I am doing the meditation. So that is the existing ego self which is there on mere nominal level. Engages into non virtuous actions and it engages into virtuous actions and it it is the one that receives the experience of suffering and receives the experience of happiness, in a way then we can say it is the ego which is the ego which creates or engages into virtuous actions. Therefore it is karmic doer, one which does or creates karma, and it is the one which experiences the karmic results and consequences.
And that ego or self, it is there undeniably functioning and not to be refuted. It is exist it exists. So that is the sense of I I, the nominal existing self. Now the other self which is to be negated, to be proven not there is the on the basis of that I or ego, there is the misconception that it exists by its own characteristic. Whereas in actual fact, there is not such self for I or ego to be found which exists by its own characteristic.
So that self supposedly existing by its own characteristic is the self or ego to be refuted, to be proven not there, the second ego. The self which exists on a mere nominal level is accepted by all schools of Buddhism. There is no dispute as regards to its undeniable existence or not. It is there. In our case, we also accept that, so that is beyond dispute.
And then where would the dispute between the two sides of Buddhist thinkers come about? Well, it is on the basis of the second ego or self, this ego ourselves to be refuted, which is where there is the dispute, disagreement. How that is so is the lower tenets, the thinkers of the lower tenets say that such ego exists, which means in their view they assert that the self or ego exists by its own characteristics. Whereas the highest the thinkers of the highest Buddhist tenets do not accept that. They explain that there is no such self to be found which exists by its own characteristics.
Śāntideva here who follows the highest tenet explains there is no such self or ego to be found which exists by its own characteristic. And he he explains by saying that such selflessness, such egolessness can be ascertained by analyzing through reasonings. And with that case, with that stand, here the teacher says, we then need to really analyze through reasoning whether such selflessness, such self which is supposedly existing by its own characteristic, is actually to be found as existing or not. Now if there is such which is supposedly existing by its own characteristic to be found, then we should find it on the basis of our body or mind because as an entity we say our entity can be looked in terms of body and mind. Now when it comes to the body, then we have to find firstly, we then need to search if there is such a self, can it be found on the basis of these two?
So then when comes to body, we have to find is this self to be found on our teeth, our hair, our nails. Now that’s where the latter part was because the list goes on after that. But they are not. The next series Is that self to be found on the blood and the bile part of our body? Is it to be found there?
Again, they are not the self. Then are they to be found in the bones part of our body? There are many types of bones as part of skeleton of our body. Again, we can say that the self which exists by its own characteristic cannot be found on them. Now in in an example, if say in a in a room, if there is supposed to be a valuable thing, then we should be able to find it by searching the room all around.
And if it is not found, then we can ascertain that the valuable thing supposedly was to be in the room actually does not exist, is not to be found there. So like that we need to search it on the basis where the self or ego is supposed to be there. Now when we look at all these parts of the physical basis, we find that there is no self or ego which exists by its own characteristic on them either. Therefore, it is a case where these parts, the body, and to use scriptural terms aggregates, are the mere basis on which on the basis of that the self or ego is a merely labeled thing. So in this first series series of reasoning, it is explained.
Because bodily parts are the basis on which the label ego is our self is given, the basis cannot be the entity which is being labeled labeled with reference to. So that’s how, on first reasoning, the supposedly existing self is negated as not being those parts. Likewise, the blister fluids, fats, they are not the self. Likewise, the organs, lungs, heart, so forth, they are not the self or the ego. Likewise the feces and the urine, they are not the ego or self.
Likewise the wind and the warmth, the heat, so forth in the body, there as well not the ego likewise, the holes of the body, such as nostrils, hole, ear, hole, so forth, there as well not the ego or self. Similarly, the six consciousnesses, six sense consciousnesses which we went over in the Thursday evening teachings, they also are not the ego or self. The reason why they are not the ego ourselves is because ego or self is labeled on the basis of these reference. So the basis reference basis of for labeling. So these reference basis of label cannot be what is being labeled at the ego because they are the basis on which the ego is being labeled at.
The self which is supposedly existing by its own characteristic is something that appears to us, to our conceptual thinking. As it appears from our side, we do cling on to the misconception that it exists there concretely. Now if it appears as if we cling onto and we need to search, really, such self exists or not. And in the course of our searching, the more we search and more reasonings we try to establish of its existence. If it actually exists, then it should become clearer and clearer the further we search search and put reasoning about its existence so forth.
That’s how it should happen. But generally how it happens, generally what it seems is it is a case where when not analyzed, it seems to be there. But when analyzed, it is not to be found. So that’s how it happens. Then going back to the point, we then need to search with reasonings.
Does such ego or self exist or not? And if it is and if it if it does exist, the more we analyze, more it should become clearer and clearer of its existence. But what happens is more we analyze, more reasonings we apply, it becomes further and further from its existence, and it’s after all we end up we we don’t find it at all. If such self existing by its own characteristic is to be found, then the time we search for it, we should find it. And if, let’s suppose, such self does exist, and if we do find it, then that would mean that there is, in the first place, no purpose, no need to label at all such self.
There’s no need to name, no need to label such self because it’s it is something that exists by its own side. There’s no need for external labeling and so forth. For example, generally, because of non existence by their own characteristic, there is need for label. We label horse, cat, human, so forth. There is need for label.
Similarly, here it has to be like that case that if it is to be found then it means that it is there existing and it does not require any labeling at all. We don’t need to label at all. Generally, with regards to what is labeled and the basis of label are two things. There is the basis of label and then there is the labeled characteristic. The characteristic of the label being labeled on the basis of label and in terms of one referent object the two are opposite, the two cannot be the same thing.
This can be clarified with this way of saying that how the two are separate is what is what is label? The label is a mere label. Label is a mere label given on the basis of label. So it is a mere label. It is not the basis.
It is mere label. So in that way, the two cannot be one thing. Oh, here these points especially about the selflessness is explaining about the about the self of a person lacking existence by its own characteristic. In that way these what’s called explanation are dealing with the selflessness of person between the two selflessness. Selflessness of person and selflessness of phenomena.
The misconception thinking that the ego exists by its own characteristic is called ego grasping. The way how one grasps onto such ego and therefore the ego grasping itself, it can be of two types. One is called the simultaneously born ego grasping, or in some translation called the innate ego grasping. By that it means the very spontaneous ego grasping with an ordinary mind from the time one is born, simultaneously born with mind. Therefore, from the time one is born, that without having done any philosophical thinking, search and inquiry, one uncontrollably views that self exist by its own characteristic.
There is a strong grasping that the self exists concretely. That is the innate ego grasping or the simultaneously born ego grasping. The other ego grasping is called imputed ego grasping, way which is the ego grasping of someone whose mind is oriented by philosophical inquiry and search. For example, someone may someone philosophically think and analyze about the nature of ego and self and draw one’s own conclusion based on such a philosophical orientation, and then grasp onto the misconception that the ego or the self exists in such and such way truly by its own characteristic. So that’s what’s called imputed ego grasping.
And in the earlier explanation anyway, in the explanation just ahead referred to is the ego grasping of the first type, innate ego grasping. And I think the latter part was it would be the ego grasping of a lot of people. With regards to the imputed ego grasping, which is the ego grasping due to philosophical orientation. Well, with regard to that here during Śāntideva’s time in what is now present day India, there were many non-Buddhist schools of spiritual systems who, due to their own inquiry of philosophical thought by their viewpoint, have drawn conclusion about self or the basis of person, how and what it is. And here in the ninth chapter, this part then starts with the refuting or negating the self asserted by those non-Buddhist tenets, where the ego grasping is the second type imputed ego grasping.
And principally, we start by looking at three main non-Buddhist schools. First, the Enumerators, or the one who keeps the lists, who enumerates. The enumerators who according to their viewpoint asserted that the self is the consciousness. And then the two others are the Particularists and the Naiyayikas. And these two both asserted that the self or the ego is an inanimate thing, the material, the form, body, and so forth.
So here then, in the ninth chapter, starts with refuting those ideas about about the ego. We shall look into that part how to counter how to counter the theory of ego or self based on such wrong philosophy in next Tuesdays onward. So for tonight, we shall stop here. And if you have any questions, we’ll have some minutes for that. Mhmm.
Because the There is no need to label because if it exists by its own characteristic, then it means it would exist in that form or entity, whatever it is. Say, if it is a stone, if it is a rock which exists by its own characteristic, it exists by itself as a rock. There is no need from anyone to label it as a rock. And if it is earth or soil which exists by its own characteristic as soil, there’s no need to label it. It would, from each side, appear and exist as that.
Similarly, it is human, then it would be the same case. Give it a name. And Of course, the way I put was then there would not be possibility of mentioning the thing by its name when we’re having a conversation with someone else. There would be no need at all even to label it in the course of conversation, or in your words, there would be no need to give it a name because it would call its name by its own, by itself, in the sense that if it is a rock, it would very starkly very starkly appear as a rock. And by its own characteristic, it’s earth, yeah, very starkly appear as anyway, that’s if it arises, let’s look at that thought.
If the handbag is existing by its own characteristic, then the moment we are born from our mother’s womb, the handbag should talk to us as I am the handbag. Yeah. That’s right. Yeah. You got any example?
Yeah. There would be its own name in the sense if we next time is born as another rebirth form, we would have a name in that rebirth. Say, if someone is born as a dog in next life, it would be called dog. And if they’re born the life after as a cat, it would be called as a cat. Yeah.
That’s So, actually, I think the name is called continuity. Yeah. Exactly. Yep. Yeah.
And if it is the continuity in the ordinary state, it is called saṃsāra Buddhist term. And if it is continuity in enlightenment, it is called enlightenment, buddhahood. Yeah. But it’s still continuity. To answer your question, there is no such name given for that process.