Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 44-minute teaching from 1996, Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen guides practitioners through a central Mādhyamika practice: distinguishing the mere self that continues into future lives from the inherently existing self that must be refuted. He begins with the root problem—all suffering stems from delusion and grasping to this false self—then walks through the analytical framework: if the self exists inherently, it must be either one with the aggregates or entirely separate. He systematically shows why both options fail logically, especially when unified, making conventional language itself pointless. By working through this reasoning repeatedly, practitioners train the mind to recognize and dismantle the false conception at its root. For serious practitioners already familiar with Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 09 HS.mp3
UUID: b16a51a4-a7cb-4bf1-ae3c-517d0167a8b2
Teacher: Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen
Collection: Heart Sūtra (Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen)
Date: 1996 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.6 minutes
Words: ~2,064
So, quoting a line from the teachings of master Candrakīrti, especially Candrakīrti few lines which in those meaning of those lying is that the practitioner or the yogi should be, what is it, should be consistency. What the name and what they practice. So, as a yogi or as a practitioner, at this very time where we have achieved this precious human rebirth, one should seek the path that which is most beneficial to one and others. And And having the understanding of all these problems which all these bad circumstances that we face that of birth, aging, sickness that all being understanding that all are produced by delusion. So, those delusions like such as three poisons, all of these delusions and afflictions are caused or a product of this grasping to the self or grasping to mind that these two causes is the cause of all these different divisions.
So to to remove this internal, what is it, fault, the removal, the way how you remove, it’s not like removing external things like taking a thorn out from your body. It’s not like that. So, this internal mistakes or the internal, these delusions should want should see them completely being a fault and by seeing them being completely a fault, that’s how one, let’s say, get rid of those delusions. So whether it’s the self phenomena or whether it is the innate self, whatever it may be, it should one should analyze how this the self grasp to grasp or grip to that to that self. So, the self within one, that self is being inherently existent is what one should first analyze and then apply and then to identifying that one should apply all the logical analysis or the reasonings and logical analysis and the reasonings.
So if one is to do to do if one is perform like one is to perform like this or to do like this, then that is what is known as the yogi or the practitioner. So so this grasping itself one should ascertain that with one’s own experience. So just depending on other’s explanation of what that self basis is not good enough. So, as it is said in the Mādhyamika text that all problems arises from the delusions. The delusions depend on the transitory collection from that all problems arises.
So so then view of transitory collections that which are, the way that it grasped to the self, That self is to be negated and applying this logical analysis or reasoning. Reasoning to negate that self. That self is like the practice of a yogi. So generally speaking, the self can be understood in two. One, the self that is negated or that is to be refuted and one self known as the mere self.
So so the the view of the transitory collection, the self which is explained on the view of transitive collection that is the mere self. So then the self that is to be negated or to be refuted is So the the self that is refuted by the yogis is the self that which is to be refuted. The self that which is to be refuted is what is refuted by the yogis. So these two self one should understand, identify these two self, the mere self and the self that is to be refuted. So if one is not to identify these two then then if one is also to negate the the mere self, then So if if if one is to negate also the self that is known as the mere self, then there’s no self that continues to future life.
This is like a question that Champa asked yesterday. Sir, was just explaining in the the explanation that he gave us today, making it more clear. So this was saying, it’s only between who can speak to that. So, identifying these two self, the mere self and the self that needs to be negated negating self that is to be refuted is the practice of the yogi. So identifying this object which is to be refuted and now but through recognizing that one now use this logical analysis or the reasonings to refute that self and like applying this logical analysis and reasonings to refute that self which is to be refuted.
So, the reason for doing that, also thinking that I’m doing this for the sake of others and on that basis like setting up a bodhicitta motivation and we do short meditation. Here. So generally speaking, there are many logical reasoning analysis which is taught to negate self which is to be refuted but then the easiest analysis or the reason which is given is logical reasoning or the analysis which is taught yesterday. That is the analysis which is another one or many. That is the reasoning or logical reasoning which is known as the easiest one.
So if one is to understand well all logical analysis which is explained here of this not being one or many, these logical explanations. Then the rest explanations too becomes easier to understand. So yesterday, I guess I’ll explain the first point that is ascertaining the object that is to be refuted and now the second point is understanding the pervasion or also the possibilities. So as this has been explained yesterday, the object which is to be refuted, the self which is to be refuted that having a mental image of that self, having a clear mental image of that self and to that one should apply the following analysis. So, innate self the self, the innate self, the self which is known as the innate self.
So the innate self which is to be refuted. So so the the innate self or the self that is grasped, a self that which is crypt or grasped, that innate self, I want to say, appears something solid within the collections of aggregates and the term person and the consciousness. So we holding into that self, that solid self and grasping it grasping it to be inherently existent or existing from its own side that I would say or that grasping to the self is what causes all the discomfort or the problems. So if that self which is to be refuted, if that self is to exist inherently or or truly. So so when you when we do this analysis, we should we shouldn’t like use as example of other self.
One should use the self, the innate self that is within one as example and point to that and analyze. If one is to point the self of others, the innate self of others then it won’t have much benefit. Benefit. So if this innate self within one, if that is to exist truly or inherently then it should either be one the aggregate or should be like separate or different from the aggregate. Separate or different from the aggregate.
So, generally speaking, long as it is, I want to say, the object of knowledge or as long as it exists it should either be one or many. It should fall as long as it is an object of knowledge it should fall into these two, one or many. So that is what generally accepted which is it is generally accepted that if it exists then it should exist whether one or many. So then that applies same with particular object like if it exists truly then it should exist truly one with or truly many or different with the basis or the aggregate. So this innate self, as long as it exists inherently or as long as it exists from its own side, it should it should either exist, I want to say, either exist one with the aggregates or it should exist different from the aggregate.
So, yeah, it should exist in these two ways. So then if this innate self is to exist then it should exist either one or different from the aggregates. Then if it doesn’t exist then if it isn’t neither of these two then I want you to come to the conclusion that it doesn’t exist at all. That itself doesn’t exist at all. So that is the second pervasion or the second point on the pervasion or the possibility.
And now going to third one that is which being free of inherently one, that is the third point, being free from let’s say, free from being inherently one. So this self and the aggregate, they inherently one from its own nature. So if it is how to say, if it’s one or from its nature, then shouldn’t appear it should not appear it shouldn’t appear different to our mind. So it not appear differently to our mind and it should be like it should be one in every aspect where there’s no difference between these two. So so so so it should appear one to our mind that self and aggregates being one and it shouldn’t, what do you say, you shouldn’t, the appearance of these two and what the appearance of these two and what it really is should should should appear the same.
So if it appears different, if these two, the appearance and what it really is, if these two appear different then it is as a matter of conventional truth. So so this the self if it’s to if the self if it is to truly exist then its appearance and what it actually is should appear same, shouldn’t should appear same, shouldn’t appear different. So, these two, the self and the aggregates are truly same then it should appear being same and it should be same also the way how it is. Both should be the same the way how it is. It should be the same also.
So so if it have if it is one or or truly one itself and aggregate, then the yeah. Assertion that asserting that person and aggregate self and aggregate like asserting these in different way becomes, I would say, pointless. So this for us the innate self that the eye that is inherently existing self that and the aggregate appears to be same. So that is how it appears to us but then on the other hand we speak self being different from the aggregate. So, the self is one, inherently one with the aggregate, then the self which we are so different from the aggregate becomes pointless, dependent, becomes meaningless or pointless.
So it becomes pointless because when when we say that my aggregates for my body, it becomes like saying the aggregate aggregate. It becomes like that. And similarly, because the self is one with aggregate, when we say aggregates self or the but the aggregate self when we say that it should it also becomes the same thing like saying self self. So, like if it is one, inherently one, then like my body saying self’s body, self’s aggregate saying like pointing in two different way seems to be pointless or without any meaning. So the person is known as the one who takes the rebirth and the aggregate is what is been, what is it, what is been taking.
So then, if that is right, then the person who takes birth and the aggregate becomes one. So, this our body is known as the contaminated body. So our body is known as the contaminated body and the self or the the mere self is what what which takes over that body or takes that body. So if the self and the aggregates are same, then it becomes the person who takes that aggregate body, the person and the body that which he or she takes comes to be one. So, is one downfalls which is explained in the root of wisdom.
In that text, it explains that it explains this, what do say, this being a mistake, Right? Oh. So so similar to that, also it is explained in the way that in the Mādhyamika text saying that person is one who the So the the aggregate is what is what is been taken and the person is who takes the aggregate. So then also saying that the other explanation which says that the aggregate is known as the body and the self is known as the person. So so then