Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 29-minute teaching, Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen shows how selflessness is understood progressively across Buddhist philosophical schools, from lower schools to Prāsaṇgika. He explains gross and subtle selflessness of both the person and phenomena, clarifying why realizing the person lacks inherent existence is easier to achieve than grasping that all phenomena do. The central point: ignorance grasps at true existence and generates saṃsāra; directly seeing the lack of inherent existence destroys that ignorance at the root. Each lower school, he explains, serves as a stepping stone preparing the ground for subtler understanding above, with Prāsaṇgika presenting the ultimate correct view. The teaching closes with how consciousness is self-sufficient and substanceless. Suited to practitioners with background in Buddhist philosophy.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 08 Lo Rig.mp3
UUID: f60f5f05-e033-4a94-b6de-113819f807ad
Teacher: Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen
Collection: Nature of the Mind (Geshe Dhawa Gyaltsen)
Date: 1995 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 29.2 minutes
Words: ~1,226
So the Yogacharya Sautantrika Mādhyamika, the presentation of the selflessness of the person — that about the gross, the subtle level are similar to that of the lower schools. And their presentation of the selflessness of phenomena are different. So the Yogacharyas or Sautantrika Mādhyamika, like their subtle — no. Their gross selflessness of phenomena are that of the similar — that of the Cittamātra, which the Cittamātra’s subtle selflessness of phenomena, the gross selflessness of phenomena in this Yogacharya. So then for the subtle selflessness of phenomena, so for the subtle selflessness of phenomena that is the non-truly-existing phenomena. So in this way, like, the explanations of selflessness within these different schools, like, the upper ones becomes more subtle.
So probably one may find difficult to understand, but just hearing it, it keeps lots of imprints. So in the teachings of the Three Principal Paths, they explain that even though you have the true form of practice that is like the renunciation and bodhicitta, that practice actually doesn’t become a real antidote towards saṃsāra. So that is because there isn’t the right view. So to have actual realization of the right view or emptiness is not easy but just having rough understanding or listening to this topic, they said it can also cut the root of saṃsāra. As it says by the Buddha, you also keep great imprints within you.
So when we look at how we take birth in saṃsāra, it is out of our karma and delusions. And both of these are produced through ignorance — self-grasping. So if one is to meditate on this topic of selflessness, then it destroys the root of saṃsāra. That is the ignorance of grasping. So this grasping at true existence is what needs to be destroyed.
This grasping at true existence is what we need to destroy. And if one is to destroy that, or if one is able to harm that, then all other delusions like that of the three poisons and so on all get harmed. So if one just uses antidotes towards one delusion, like attachment, then the antidote that you use towards attachment doesn’t actually get rid of your attachment but not like the other delusions like anger and so on. So that’s why in the teaching it says that if you don’t understand the right view or emptiness, then you will never cut the root of saṃsāra. So we go back to the topic.
So Geshe-la thought maybe you need some explanation here, otherwise everyone looks tired. So now within the Sautantrika Mādhyamika, there are two — that is like Sautantrika Mādhyamika, and that of Yogachara. They also have the explanation of selflessness of a person similar to that of the lower ones, lower schools. So like the Sautantrika Mādhyamika, the proponent of that is like the master Bhāvaviveka. And the subtle selflessness of a person is similar to that of which is a non-truly-existent person. So for the gross selflessness of phenomena, that is the non-existence of a gross form that comes into existence through the collections of these particles.
So they assert external phenomena because the entities of subject and object that they assert are different. So they say that there are different entities because they say the object and subject — perceiver — are like cause and effect. Depending on the form, the object, the eye consciousness produces depending on the form. You first see a form and then out of that the eye consciousness. So first, we have the form, and then from that, the second moment of that, second moment of the existing of the form, you have the consciousness perceiving the form.
So then we go next to the Prāsaṇgika school. And in the Prāsaṇgika school, subtle — the subtle — or let’s say, selflessness of the person, which are explained in the lower schools — are the gross selflessness of the person in the lower schools. So then the subtle selflessness is that the non-inherently-existing person. The non-inherently-existing person as a subtle selflessness of the person. And then the selflessness — what is it?
The gross — the subtle selflessness of phenomena is also non-inherently existing of things. So the gross selflessness of phenomena in the Prāsaṇgika school is that of — so the gross form which is the collections of the particles, and the consciousness apprehending that. These two having different entities.
Like these two, the understanding of these two having different entities as a different entities is the gross selflessness of phenomena in the Prāsaṇgika. So the selflessness of the person and the difference between the selflessness of the person — sorry, the subtle selflessness of the person and the subtle selflessness of phenomena — is not because of the object of negation. So the difference is only because of the object, the emptiness within the objects. That is like — what do you say? — selflessness of the person and another is selflessness of phenomena. So these are like the two different — yeah — like two different selflessnesses. These two selflessnesses: the selflessness is because of the person, one selflessness. It is — one is the selflessness of the person and another is the selflessness of phenomena.
So that’s one difference. So then on top of that, the subtle selflessness of a person is easier to realize and the subtle selflessness of phenomena is harder to realize. So then the ultimate view should be like the view of a Prāsaṇgika. So that’s like the ultimate view is the view of Prāsaṇgika. Sorry.
And the lower views are explained — lower schools are explained by Buddha because it is taught in order to gain the understanding of the upper views. So that’s the reason that Buddha gave all this, presented these different views. So we do this much for today and if you have questions, yeah, we can ask. So generally speaking, both selflessnesses are difficult to realize but then there’s also the explanation that the selflessness of the person is easier to be realized because it is dependent on the collections of the aggregates that we label as a self. So we label as a self or I.
So because of that it’s easier to realize — like it’s said it’s easier to realize selflessness of a person. So to the person, the person is labeled to the collections of the five aggregates. And so because to the collections of the five aggregates, a person has been labeled. So because of that, the selflessness of a person is easier to realize this. Yeah. Oh, yeah.
You called it. So it’s all the same within all the schools. That the consciousness being like a self-sufficient and substanceless — yeah. That the consciousness being like self-sufficient and substanceless. So because it is said that for consciousness to realize or have the understanding of the nature of consciousness.
For consciousness to have the realization or to have the understanding of the consciousness itself, it doesn’t have to depend on others. So it’s self-sufficient. So like, as in terms of — there are two kinds — that is like imputedly existing and substantially existing. So like the consciousness is of that category which is like substantially existing.
And the person is like imputed. Yeah. So the next session is much easier than this. Yeah.