Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Opening with a verse from Candrakīrti, Khensur Rinpoche traces the chain of suffering in this 40-minute session: the arising of “I” generates “other,” which generates attachment and aversion, which produces karma and dissatisfaction. He identifies ignorance as the root — a consciousness that mistakes the self for something permanent and independently existent. After rejecting lesser-vehicle accounts of what the self actually is, he explains dependent arising through concrete examples: a flower is none of its petals yet is designated onto their collection; a bell and stick produce a sound neither object contains alone. Emptiness, he explains, is simply the non-existence of anything not dependent on name and imputation. The session closes by introducing a four-step analytical method for meditating on the absence of an inherently existent self, ending with a ten-minute guided meditation.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 05 GM 1989 09 03 Topic Unknown.mp3
UUID: 5b771eb9-4f43-4fdb-9386-263a9d9483eb
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Guided Meditations 1988-1992 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1989-09-03
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 40.3 minutes
Words: ~2,560
Do you want to stand up for a minute or two? Stretch your legs. In a verse from Candrakīrti, he’s talking about the various types of beings in the world that no matter who they might be, whether they’re great or small, whether they’re in happy migrations or unhappy, undesirable migrations, that they are all exactly the same and wanting happiness and not wanting to suffer. So everyone is in very much the same position. We’re all very much alike.
We’re all experiencing some degree of dissatisfaction. Some beings experience a greater degree, some less, but no one is without some type of dissatisfaction, without some type of suffering. So the question must arise since we all want happiness and we don’t want to suffer. Is in fact there a method to eliminate our sufferings? And we have to begin to analyze how does our suffering in fact arise.
We have to reflect upon this and we see that dissatisfaction does not arise haphazardly nor does it arise through no cause, but in fact it has a cause. So if we were able to eliminate that cause from its very root, then we would be able to eliminate suffering and find some type of ultimate happiness. We must begin to investigate how our suffering arises, the very source of the root of our dissatisfaction. We begin to see that the source of our dissatisfaction are the various afflictive emotions. And upon examining these, we see that amongst the various afflictive emotions, the very basic cause is ignorance.
And continuing with the quotation from Candrakīrti, in which he states that, In dependence upon I, self arises. In dependence upon I, other arises. We have this, every sentient being, no matter who, no matter what, has this sense of I, this self, this I, I, I, self, me, me, and we place a great deal of emphasis on this aspect. In dependence upon the rising of I, then we, in dependence upon that, then other comes into existence. I and other, self and other are mutually dependent, and in dependence upon the existence of I, then other comes into existence.
Due to the, this arising of I and other, then there arises attachment to I, self, and aversion to other. So when self and other arise, attachment and aversion arise. So I, self and other are mutually dependent. Upon the arising of the existence of self, other arises, and in dependence upon the existence of self and other, then attachment and aversion arise. And it depends upon these factors of attachment and aversion, then all the various secondary afflictive emotions begin to arise. The various jealousies, various spite, we come into conflict and cause one another harm.
And therefore we engage in all types of various actions creating various types of karma both negative and positive. And through the creation of various types of karma we undergo the results of this karma which is dissatisfaction. Therefore, this is the way of tracing back the root cause to our problems. Upon investigation, we will find that the root of all our suffering is the conception of a naturally existent self, an inherently existent I. That is the ignorance which conceives of, which grasps that ego or self.
So the ignorance which grasps that ego, ego grasping is the root of all the afflictive emotions and therefore the root of all our suffering, our dissatisfaction. Therefore it’s extremely important that we seek, that we gain understanding what actually ignorance is, what its nature is. Is ignorance for example an awareness? Is it a consciousness? Where is it observed?
Where can we find it? Ignorance is a consciousness, it is an awareness. It is the place where it is observed is at the person or the I. Here we say that person, I, being, self are synonymous terms. This is where the place where we see ignorance is within the person or the I.
So we want to know what is the object that ignorance is observing. By way of example, the eye consciousness observes the flower. The object of observation of the eye consciousness is the flower. We think, Oh, what a nice flower. It’s a beautiful flower.
So the object which the eye consciousness is observing is the flower. In the case of ignorance, which is a type of consciousness, it has an object of observation. It’s looking at something. What it’s looking at is the I, is the self, and it sees the I or the self as being naturally existent, as being truly existent, as being objectively existent. How does the I appear to the ignorance conceiving of self, or the ignorance grasping the ego?
How does the I, the being observed by this ignorance, appear? What is the object of observation? How does it appear? It appears to be unchanging.
It appears to be permanent. It appears to not arise from causes. It appears to bear no results. But this ignorance which is the root of suffering, observing the self or the I, holding it to exist permanently, unchangingly. But when we look at the situation, if in fact the self were permanent, that is to say unchanging, then there would be no birth, no death to the self, but in fact this is not the case.
So this is mistaken, in that the self actually does not exist permanently, though ignorance conceives of it to exist permanently. Within Buddhism, there are the two vehicles of the lesser vehicle and the greater vehicle. Now According to the lesser vehicle interpretation as to the nature of the actual self, the actual I, that is the object of which ignorance is observing, then some schools within the lesser vehicle say that each of the five aggregates is the self, is the I. For example, they are the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, thought constructions, and consciousness. Some hold that each of these is the self.
Others say the collection of these five aggregates is the self. Others hold that the mind only just the mind, the mind is the self. From the point of view of the great vehicle, all of these are refuted. All of these are not in fact the case. In a text by Nāgārjuna called Precious Garland, he points out that the collection of the elements which make up the body, such as the earth, water, fire, air, space elements, are not the self.
That the collection of the five aggregates are not the self. If in fact we examine the body, we see that none of these elements — the earth element, fire element, the water element, the air energy element, nor the space element — can each by itself be seen as an I or a self. So the collection of these five aggregates is not the self, it’s not the being. And there is no being other than the five aggregates. There is no being which is separate from the five aggregates.
The five aggregates, the collection, is not the self, and there is no being which is other than the five aggregates. So the thought may arise, well, person doesn’t even exist, the I doesn’t exist. This doubt may arise. But the I, the self, the person does exist. If we take the example of Jampa, now the collection of the aggregates of Jampa’s aggregates are not Jampa.
The elements within Jampa are not Jampa. There’s nothing other than these elements and aggregates which we can see as Jampa. But what happens when we say, hello Jampa, and Jampa says hello? He answers. There’s someone who answers that this is a sign that Jampa exists.
If Jampa didn’t exist, then there would be no one to answer to acknowledge what you said. So this applies to all of us. We’re all exactly the same in this respect that the elements of, for example, Robin or Jay, none of them are Robin or Jay. Their aggregates are not Robin or Jay. But when we call out to Robin and Jay, someone answers us.
That Robin answers us, Jay answers us, and this is a sign that in fact they exist. So all of these individuals exist, but we say, well in what way do they exist? How do they exist? They exist as merely an imputation to their aggregates, their collection of their parts. If we, that is by imputation a designation, labeling to their parts.
If we take the example of a flower, the flower exists. But when we examine, we see that all the various parts of the flower, none of them are the flower, That the petals, the stems, the leaves, the stalk, none of these are the flower, none of them by themselves. But this collection of all these parts, we designate, we project, we label a flower upon that. And in dependence upon that, a flower arises. So if there appears a flower to us where the flower actually exists.
So from this we can understand that the flower exists by being designated with a name, and dependence upon the projecting of a name upon its collection of a part, a flower comes into existence. That in fact all phenomena exist in this exact same way, whether it’s the images on the altar, whether it’s our clothes, whether it’s people, everything exists as a mere imputation by name. How does this operate, this imputing? An object arises in dependence. It’s all phenomena are dependently rising, dependent upon relationship.
The relationship, the objects arise in dependence upon a basis of imputation and a name, and being given a name. For example, the flower. The flower has a basis of imputation, and we give that basis of imputation a name. When this combination, these two things coming together, then the object arises. So things come to things arise in dependence upon combinations of coming together.
If we take an example of the bell, there is the stick which you strike the bell with and then there is the bell itself. Now there is no in dependence upon the coming together of the stick and the bell and it’s coming together there rises a ding, a sound arises. And two things coming together, something else arises, ding, the sound arises. The stick is not a sound. The bell is not a sound, neither one of them are a sound.
When they’re coming together and there arises a sound, a third phenomena comes into existence. All things from the point of view of the highest school of Buddhism, the Consequentialist Middle Way school, are said to be dependent arising. This is the view of Buddhism that all things are dependent on coming together of relationships causes phenomena to arise. All phenomena arise dependent upon the combination being imputed by name and coming together with a basis of imputation. Being given a name upon a basis of imputation, this combination causes phenomena to arise.
They are all dependent upon this combination of factors. When we say, but if we hold that things are in fact not imputed, that things exist, they are not being imputed, they don’t depend upon name but they exist from their own side independently, then this is what we mean by truly existent. This is what we mean by naturally existent, inherently existent. Not dependent upon being given name, but existing from their own side independently. So everyone is dependent upon each of their individual names to come into existence.
For example, in dependence upon a basis of imputation and being given the name Jampa, then Jampa comes into existence. There is no Jampa which existed before being given that name. When we hold that in fact there was a Jampa who existed independently of being given that name, when we see that such a type could not exist, then that non-existence of a Jampa who doesn’t depend upon name is what we mean by emptiness. The non existence of an object not dependent upon name is emptiness. So this type of object which does not depend upon being imputed, being given a name, is the object of negation, the object which we are seeking to refute.
Within the system of technique for developing this understanding we make use of the four essentials. The four, first essential is the essential of ascertaining the object of negation. The second is the essential of ascertaining the, pervasion. The third is the essential of ascertaining the lack of oneness. And the fourth is the essential of ascertaining the lack of difference.
So this first point, the ascertaining the object of negation: the object that which is to be negated is a type of object, or in this case the self or the I, which is not being imputed by name. But if we look to see if in fact such a type of I did exist then this I would have to be either one of two things. It would have to be either identical with the five aggregates or different than the five aggregates. And this is the second essential, the ascertainment of the pervasion, that it must be either one of these. It must be, if this I exists, it must be either the same as the aggregates or it must be different than the aggregates, this determination.
So what is the necessity for making this determination with respect to the ascertaining the pervasion? That just in general, we can see that if a phenomena exists, if something exists, then there’s only two possibilities. It must be either identical, the same exactly in all ways with the aggregate, and if it’s not, it must be different. It must be either the same, it is pervasive that it must be the same or different. It’s necessarily the same or different.
There is no third possibility. That’s the general statement. If something exists, it must be either the same or different than the five aggregates. Now in the case of the self, or the I, which is not being imputed by name, if in fact it exists, it must also be either the same or different than the five aggregates. We are using this reasoning to establish the pervasion, the necessity to come to a determination using reasoning.
So in the actual In the actual meditation, we want to, you know, we want to begin to recognize, to ascertain that there is no I which is in dependence upon being imputed by name. We want to see that if in fact there were an I, a self, a person who you are, your own individual I, your own self I, self, if it existed independently of being given a name, if it existed like that, independent of being given that imputed by name, then this I, this self, must be either the same as the five aggregates — form, that set of physical and mental aggregates or it must be different than the five aggregates. And when you look, you don’t see it as different or you don’t see it as the same and there arises a thought: this non-imputed I in fact doesn’t exist. And this is the meditation on emptiness of such a type of I. And we’ll meditate in this way for ten minutes. The pervasion is the second essential.