Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 43-minute Heart Sūtra commentary, Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen teaches how to identify the innate self-grasping that must be refuted in emptiness analysis. He uses concrete examples—being falsely accused of theft, walking alongside a companion—to show how the mistaken sense of a truly existent, independent “I” becomes obvious under certain conditions. He distinguishes three levels of self-grasping: the realized understanding of non-inherent existence, the conventional “labeled I” appropriate for ordinary life, and the mistaken grasping that must be refuted. The teaching emphasizes the difficulty of analyzing this subtle appearance skillfully: one must avoid both the extreme of clinging to inherent existence and the nihilistic view that nothing exists at all. For practitioners with prior Buddhist philosophical training ready to study emptiness directly.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 06 HS.mp3
UUID: 216f667b-3396-443a-a464-970d0c40eb2e
Teacher: Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen
Collection: Heart Sūtra (Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen)
Date: 1996 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 43.5 minutes
Words: ~2,518
Please to catch the thief. He or she had first have to identify all the thieves. So so if if you say like if you ask someone that who is the thief and the person says that he’s wearing he has a black hair and black he’s wearing black dress, there’s no way one can, like, find the person. So so first, we need to identify the self that which does not exist or the self that does not exist. And after identifying that, then one can apply these reasons or analysis.
So these different terms like truly existent and inherently existent in the lower tenets, in the lower schools, it has different meanings. But then to that of the final view, the ultimate the final view in in this like the true truly existing and inherently existing, these have the same, what’s it, same so that when we say the truly existing phenomena, whatever phenomena it may be, if it exists without depending on its cause and conditions and if it exists like So which phenomena existing are depending on its cause and conditions and like existing from its own from existing there without without without having any changes. So which is not dependent on other conditions. Existing from its own nature or it from its own side. And which is not dependent on others.
And existing from its own nature. That existing is known as the truly existing, the inherently existing, or existing from its own side. So which is, let’s say, existing existing from from existing inherently from its own side, not depending on its cause and condition. So so this this, like, truly existent or self-existent, when someone explains you this, when someone gives you the explanation, then you you you can you have some understanding of what it is mere through mere word. So what do you understand what do you understand to mere word doesn’t doesn’t help much?
So so just mere understanding of the words or the sound doesn’t help. But then if one analyzes this and and through one through one experience and analyzes analyzes this, then then one will have some experience of of of that. So if we did if this mere understanding of word word is a mere, I wanna say, understanding of someone’s explanations, that that is not enough. So so because when you have that understanding, someone’s explanation in one time one time, and then next time when you hear another explanations, then again, you may you may the understanding may change. So that that that mere understanding to others explanation is not enough.
So so one should from one should analyze the explanations and then how this self or the I that are existing from its own side or existing truly, how this I exists in that way. And once you found or once you have the experience or if you know that, what is existing truly or what is existing from its own side, then that experience you have through your analysis, if you have like a like seeing a form, like through your eyes, seeing an object, if you have that type of experience, then then even whatever other people may say or give explanation, because you have the experience you won’t, I would say, yeah, you won’t give up which is even if they tell you that they will chop your head up, you won’t give up your experience. So one first have to recognize or identify the the object that is to be refuted. That is what one first have to recognize that. Mhmm.
And and if k. Oh, So if if if one is not to recognize or identify this object of negation or object distributed negated, then it’s it’s possible that one might fall into one extreme, what you’re saying, extreme of nihilism. So how one falls into one extreme that is like the extreme of nihilism is that if say like if the the was if that doesn’t exist from its own side or if it’s not truly existing, then So if that doesn’t truly exist or or from its own side, then then it happens that it doesn’t the the then there one might have this view of that it doesn’t exist at all. So so so so we applying these analysis of logical reasonings in order to, what is it, to understand emptiness. But if if those are logical reasoning or analysis that makes one fall into one extreme, that is the extreme of nihilism, then out of that you create different karma that that which will that which will lead one into.
So so that at the very beginning, you should have said that the listener of the listener of emptiness. The listener should be one who is free from this two fold, and that’s the one one fault. So so So through these logical analysis or reasonings that if one come to a point where one views that things even doesn’t exist from from from mere input even things even doesn’t exist in part to even mere imputation or mere labeling, then then one falls into this extreme, which is the extreme So so as an example, when we analyzing when we use this reason for the analysis with with example like a that all all those different terms that we use for like to to its part and then analyzing where the VAS is. And when we come to the point where you don’t find VAS at all and there, you know, when if you if you think that past now doesn’t exist at all, then but past doesn’t exist at all. And if you think that is an as a emptiness, then but that is if you think that as emptiness, then it is not it is also it is known as the like falling into the extremes that is into nihilism.
So there are many texts or people who seem, who sees that I would say not finding they’re not finding the vast as being the emptiness and who meditates on that but Tsongkhapa explains that it is not the right one. So this is the view known as nothingness, view known as nothingness, like let’s say, view of nothingness, which is nothing exist. So so meditating on on this, the view of nothingness or not finding the vase. This doesn’t lead to understanding of emptiness, but but instead it it leads one to to like to to that leads one to breaking the term term as breaking the term such as past. So because of that, we should search this innate self-grasping which is known as the object to be refuted.
So the the innate self grasp grasping which which grasps self to be self to be existing truly and from self using from its own side. So that is that is which is to be reviewed. This eye that that which appear the eye that which is appearing to the to the innate self-grasping, that eye. So it is, I would say, on on this eye appears on the basis of the person that is the the aggregate. So that that that so-called I exists not not a mere word, not mere in word on the basis of on the basis that is the aggregate.
So on the basis of this on the basis of the collections of the aggregate, eye appears the I appears on the basis of the collections of the aggregate such as So sorry. On the basis of the collections of the aggregates, there you have this appearance for I. So this I is not as the innate self or the innate I and that is within all the beings like even the the ants and so on have have this this innate eye. This this this eye is of is the one which is known as the innate self or the the innate eye. So generally speaking, like grasping to eye.
So on the basis on the basis the the basis of person that there’s like three ways the I is held or grasped. So, a so three levels of grasping to the self on the basis of person, which person who have gained realization of emptiness, to them there is grasping of self with understanding the self or the I which is non inherently existent or non truly existent and then with understanding that the grasp of the self or the eye to the eye or the self. So so then on the next level is the person who are not influenced by tenets of of philosophy. In in them also, there’s one way how they grasp or agree to the self. So that self that they grasp is not, how to say, they don’t differentiate anything or they don’t think about it being truly existing or it being it being existing from its own side.
Nothing to do with that. Just for them, they have the appearance itself existing So so then and then the third level is that being who hold to the self that especially that specifically that self that exists inherently. So so so then so the second one that things who are not influenced by tenants, that they give or hold to the self, that self or the I is is known as the labeled the labeled eye. So so that I is the the normal I that which which is the the one which is the existing I. So the self within and that being the medium which medium one is the self that exists and the self which I would say which creates the and that’s the self which comes from the past to this end that which goes to the next life.
So so then the third one, the last one, the grasping at itself that it should be truly existent or inherently existent, that one is the one which is known as the mistaken one and that is the one which is to be refuted to to this logical analysis of reasoning. So this, what do say, self, the inherently existing self, the third one, that is the one which is to be refuted through the logical analysis and following that self, that’s how we say I go, I eat, and and such all this following that self, being an existing self that all these latter things happen which I go, I eat, and so on. So that that this innate grasping itself is there, it’s within us all the time. And one of the things that we didn’t we didn’t recognize them. So so this this innate grasping to self that come to be more obvious if it meet with some conditions.
And if it’s to meet with some conditions, then it comes to be obvious. So so as a example, as a condition, for example, as as myself or someone is very proud of themselves, if if that to that person, if if someone criticizes, even if one is even if one didn’t steal anything, if someone like if someone if someone, like, says that you you stole the thing. So so when when once when you are when one is accused of being being stealing something even if one didn’t, then then at that time, this self or the net grasping self that, let’s say, just like more in obvious, like obvious among the collections of the aggregate. It appears there in an obvious manner. So this I that appears on the collections of the aggregates.
So on on the collections of these aggregates, there there appears this I like a very, very obvious manner that appears there. And that is the eye which is So so to to to that eye is the one which which one should like a criticized or one should one should accuse of being the thief or So this this that is this self which is for the eye which is being accused and that is the eye or the self which is unable to be when one is being accused. So So now one has to analyze how our mind grasp that eye and how that eye is is clasped or So how should one analyze or check that eye? As an example, if two person walking on the street, like while they’re walking, a part of their mind keeps track of the way on the road. And part of their mind, let’s say, keeps track of the friend whoever they’re walking with.
So in that way, you should analyze that eye. So so so similar to that, like, first you recognize that self self, that innate self, the innate self grasping, you recognize that first and then while you recognize that self, a part of your mind should analyze how how that self is reacting. So so one one have to, what is it, skillfully analyze analyze that itself. If one analyzes too strong, then again it happens that in itself or that grasping to the self happen to, let’s say, disappear. So so when one analyze this in itself grasping that sometime saying that it sometimes it appears that in itself on the upper part of the body, and sometimes that appears that itself appears in the lower part of the body.
But sorry. But that that is not what is it? That’s not right how it exists. So so actual way how aggressive they are to that innate eye is that the basis which is the basis of the person which is the five aggregates. And on on the bay on that basis, the five aggregates, the person or the self or the eye is labeled to So so of these two, like the basis of the person that is the five aggregates and the term that we just imputed as a person or the self to aggregate.
Without, let’s say, depending on these two, the self or the innate self grasping exist like a pivot, something solid without depending on these two. And that vivid self which exists these out of these two, the basis and the term, that self which exists is not existed as a as a term, near near level. Yeah. But existing from its own side. So so one has that this appearance appearance that it existing from its own side.
So so that that that I or the self is the the the right object which is to be to be repeated. So so if one is to recognize that, then then it’s easy to, what do say, to to stop or avoid remove that eye. So but then this this object to be refuted is a it’s a a it’s very subtle, not not easy that what can we can, let’s say, recognize or it appears to us. So the reason that it’s very difficult that it’s difficult or it’s very subtle is that when this this self, if it’s not met with the conditions, then hides within the collections of aggregates.