Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 98-minute talk, Khensur Rinpoche sets aside lojong slogans to focus almost entirely on emptiness, working through the Middle Way four-point analysis of the selflessness of persons. After brief verses from Candrakīrti and Śāntideva, he identifies the object of negation — the I that appears to exist from its own side, independent of the aggregates — then examines whether it could be identical to the aggregates, exposing the absurdities: if identical, five aggregates would collapse to one, or there would be five selves. A conjured-woman analogy runs throughout. The session ends with sharp Q&A: a student invokes wave-particle duality to challenge the same/different dichotomy, and another presses what appears to the mind once the object of negation is refuted, drawing out the answer that only emptiness appears — a non-affirming negation. Best suited to practitioners with some Madhyamaka background.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 21 LMT 1997 09 30.mp3
UUID: 417bd70d-d91e-40d6-9f33-1b4822fa9949
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Lojong Mind Training (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1997-09-30
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 98.0 minutes
Words: ~5,700
So we’ll begin by adjusting our motivation, developing as a motivation for listening to the present teaching, that of the awakened heart. So all of us present here have attained many conducive conditions, supportive conditions, whereby to carry on our practice. That we as human beings have intelligence, moreover that we are studying, that we are training, that we have come to understand what is to be adopted, what is to be rejected. We have some ability in identifying what are the causes of our suffering, what are the causes of our happiness. Taking this all together, this is the way through our practice we can make our life meaningful.
How can we ensure having all these supportive conditions that our life is meaningful each day of our lives? The way that we can go about this is upon waking in the morning, that we should set a motivation, an extremely positive motivation, that I have an altruism which wishes to benefit others over the course of the day, developing love and compassion for others as our motivation, and setting the intention not to allow our three doors our body, speech and mind to come under the influence of dysfunctional patterns of mind, but on the contrary, to try to develop healthy states of mind throughout the day. Mainly Buddhism is concerned with the mind. The practice of Buddhism is engaged in, in terms of the mind. So we want to assure that we develop healthy states of mind, especially those of love and compassion and cultivating the awakened heart, and seek to express those by benefiting others over the course of our life, and to, as a minimum, abandon harming others.
If we act in such a way, we can be assured that our life will go well, that we will be happy, and our future lives will in turn go well. So in the cultivation of the awakened heart it is necessary that it be preceded by the development of love and compassion. Compassion expressed in the following thoughts: It would be wonderful if myself and all living beings were free of suffering and the causes of suffering. May myself and all living beings be free of suffering and the causes of suffering. I myself will free all living beings from suffering and the causes of suffering.
And likewise, with regard to the development of love, which is expressed in the following thoughts, it would be wonderful if myself and all living beings had happiness in the causes of happiness. May they have happiness in the causes of happiness. I will bring them happiness in the causes of happiness. In order to actually lead all sentient beings to such a state where they experience freedom from suffering, it’s necessary that oneself initially achieve that state, and this is achieved by eliminating all our various faults and bringing to consummation all our excellent qualities. And in order to achieve that in developing the intention that I am going to listen well to this present teaching on the universal vehicle mind training, that of the seven point training of the mind, which teaches the various subjects such as emptiness.
Having listened to it, I will reflect upon it. Having reflected upon it, I will meditate on it and practice it well. So, quoting from a verse by Candrakīrti where he enumerates, where he states that though the phenomena are numerous, their emptiness and their emptinesses are also, they can be subsumed or condensed into two the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of phenomena. He goes on to say that in order to liberate oneself from cyclic existence, in order to pacify oneself, it is necessary to cultivate an understanding of these two selflessnesses. And in terms of their sequence of meditation, one begins by meditating on first the selflessness of persons and subsequently meditates on the selflessness of phenomena.
So when we say person here, it should be understood that we are speaking of all types of sentient beings, all types of living beings. And in that regard, all living beings have a thought with regard to themselves as I. All animals conceive of themselves as I, I, I do, I go, I stay. Applies to not only humans, but horses, dogs, cats, insects, etcetera. When we use the term phenomena, we are speaking of all existences other than beings. So all existences other than beings are what are meant here by phenomena.
So this would include, for example, the various the body, the five aggregates, the aggregates of form, for example, feelings, perceptions, compositional factors, and consciousnesses are all examples of phenomena. The person is imputed in dependence upon their aggregates. Phenomena, for example, taking an example a chariot, a cart, is imputed to the collection of their parts. For example, the wheel, the axle, the various parts of the cart. Dependence upon that, the chariot or the cart is imputed.
This holds true for all phenomena, like a cup. A cup besides the interior portion, the handle of the cup. And dependence upon all those parts, we impute cup. So in terms of this example of the cart, the cart is imputed or designated or labeled, just using different terms for the same word, is being labeled to the collection of its parts, and none of those parts are the cart. The wheel is not the cart, the axle is not the cart, the frame is not the cart.
So none of those parts are the cart, and dependence upon that collection of parts, the cart is imputed or designated, labeled. If any of the parts of the collection were the cart itself, then if we were to destroy the cart, then we would still find the cart amongst one of those parts, or we would find it amongst the mere collection, other parts. But when we dismantle the cart, we don’t find the cart. But this also holds to equally for the person. That the basis from which the person is being labeled, that is, the various aggregates such as the body is not the person, aggregate of feelings that which experiences suffering and happiness is not the person, the discriminative aggregate, the aggregate of perception which discriminates this is red, this is yellow, that’s not the person nor are the compositional factors nor are the consciousness.
None of the five aggregates are separately the person. So the person comes into existence through being imputed, in dependence upon their aggregates, that the person is merely designated or labeled to their aggregates by means of a name and terms. For example, Jampa is merely labeled to the aggregates of Jampa. Dale is merely labeled to the aggregates of Dale. That through being labeled by means of a name, by merely being labeled by the name, the person comes into existence.
So the person is merely imputed by means of names. That the person does not exist without being merely imputed by names. The person does not exist by not being merely imputed by names. But it appears that the person exists not merely being imputed by names. That’s the way it appears, that they are established from their own side, that they’re not established by being merely imputed by names, but they appear to be established from their own side without depending upon being merely imputed.
That’s the way it appears. And then there is a grasping at the appearance. And this grasping at the appearance is what causes us to circle within cyclic existence. That which is grasping at this appearance to be true is self grasping ignorance. So though the person is merely imputed by way of names, the person appears to exist from their own side without depending upon this imputing process.
There is an awareness which grasps at this appearance of the person to exist from their own side. This awareness which is grasping at this appearance to be true is the root of cyclic existence. It is the root of all suffering. It must be put a stop to. Generally it is generated very powerfully.
So when we say put a stop to this grasping, we mean to cause it not to be generated again. In order to stop this awareness, we must, as has been explained previously, negate the object of this awareness. The object of this awareness is a person who is not merely imputed, in dependence upon their aggregates. On the contrary, the person appears to exist from their own side. That’s the way it appears.
So in order to stop grasping at the appearance as true, we must negate that object. Without negating that object as being true, we will not cease the awareness which is grasping at it as true. So we have to, what we mean by stopping this type of awareness is to, the means by which we stop this awareness is by negating its object. So Dharmakīrti says without repudiating this object, one is unable to eliminate ignorance. So what he is saying here, without the object which is to be repudiated is that in this context the person existing from their own side without being merely imputed.
Without repudiating that object, then we cannot eliminate the grasping which conceives of it to be true. So how are we to proceed in negating the object? According to the Middle Way, the method which we can make use of is a system of reasoning called the four point analysis, or sometimes called the four essentials. And this four essentials is coming to an understanding of the lack of being the same or different. So these four essentials are the means of coming to an understanding of a lack of being the same or different.
So these negating reason are really wonderful. And what are these four essentials by which we negate the object to be refuted. The first is the essential of determining the object of negation. The essential of determining the object of negation. The second is the essential of determining the pervasion.
The essential of determining the pervasion. The third is the essential of determining the lack of sameness. Determining the lack of sameness or identity. And the fourth is the essential of determining the lack of difference or plurality. With regard to this first essential, is the essential of determining the object of negation, Śāntideva stated without ascertaining the imagined, its nonexistence is not apprehended.
Without ascertaining the imagined, its nonexistence is not apprehended. Therefore we have to ascertain and determine the object of negation. So how are we to go about refuting the object of negation? We have to take oneself in the course of our meditation on emptiness. And there will there is the appearance of I.
There’s an I I. Now the I is the basis of, it is the person. And this I exists in dependence upon the aggregates. So the I or the person exists in terms of the aggregates. It is imputed by means of terms and conceptualities to the aggregates.
But it doesn’t appear that way. It appears as if it’s not imputed, but on the contrary, appears to be established from its own side without being imputed to the aggregates, without relying on the aggregates. That that eye which appears that way is the main object to be negated. The eye which is appearing to exist from its own side without relying upon the aggregates is the main object to be negated. That awareness which grasps at that appearance to be true is also an object of negation.
But the main object of negation is the I which appears not to rely upon the aggregates, but to be established from its own side. So we can make use of the analogy that we have touched upon previously, and that was of a magician who conjures up a beautiful woman. And those who are not aware that this beautiful woman is merely the result of the conjuring of the magician will develop a tremendous attachment toward this woman. So there has arisen in this unknowing audience the desirous attachment toward this beautiful woman, and how we to reverse that attachment. That is to say, how are we to eliminate, or in other words, how are we to negate that awareness.
Desirous attachment is a type of awareness, and how are we going to negate it? Without the audience understanding that it’s merely an illusory woman, there’s no way that we can negate it. As long as they hold that woman to be true, they will retain attachment. So with that they have to understand that it’s an illusory woman. That is to say the object is an illusory woman.
So what is the method that we can use to negate this awareness, this desirous attachment toward this beautiful woman. If the Buddhas or the Bodhisattvas were to emanate a similarly beautiful, a similar beautiful woman. And now there were these two beautiful women. There would be, the audience would develop desirous attachment toward both. But having done that, then they were to go on and transform the emanated beautiful woman into an ugly old hag, with sores and really nasty looking.
This would instantly, the desirous attachment for that particular beautiful woman would be negated. So she was repulsive, very bad complexion, a huge nose and big eyes. And if the conjurer was to announce that this other woman present, though she appears to be beautiful, is likewise just simply an emanation. That just as this woman could be transformed since she is merely an emanation, what appears to be a real beautiful woman is in fact really has been conjured up. They think to themselves, Oh, if that’s the case, then it’s not really a beautiful woman, isn’t it?
And immediately that desirous attachment toward that beautiful woman would be negated. If the magician himself were to transform the conjured beautiful woman into what you might see on the television, for example, monster from an alien from outer space with a huge mouth and big stomach, immediately the audience’s desirous attachment for that beautiful woman would be negated. So if we negate the object of that awareness, then it follows that we have negated the awareness which is conceiving of that object. So in order to negate the grasping at true existence, that this is ignorance which causes us to be reborn continually within cyclic existence. In order to negate that ignorance, if we understand that the object, that is to say the person established from their own side without being merely imputed, does not exist, then that which grasps at it, at that object, ignorance, is also negated.
Having negated that the person existing from their own side without being imputed to the aggregates does not exist. Having negated that object of a person who exists from their own side and not dependent upon the aggregates, having negated that, then the ignorance which grasps at that object to exist as true will be negated. Just as in the case of shooting an arrow, if we want to ensure that we hit the target, we have to identify the target correctly. Or if we want to catch a thief, we have to identify the thief well in order to ensure that we’re catching the right person. We have to likewise identify well the object of negation.
So this is what Śāntideva was getting at when he said that it’s necessary to identify the imagined, that is the object which is to be negated. And it’s necessary that we identify it within our own individual experience. That we have to come to identify within our own experience how the eye is appearing. Initially, what will appear to ourselves is the eye which is merely labeled through the aggregates. But if someone were to, at that time, call us, say, you’re a thief, and you would think, I’m not a thief, then that eye would no longer appear to be imputed to the aggregates.
On the contrary, the eye would appear to be very solid. There would be a strong sense that the eye existed from its own side without depending upon the aggregates. That I as it appears that way is the object of negation which we are to identify. How are we to negate that I which is appearing to ourselves at such a time? Really just say, I don’t like you, please don’t come anymore, going to be enough.
We have to apply a method of correct reasoning. We have to examine this eye to see, does it exist or doesn’t And if it does exist, then there are certain faults which accrue, which follow on from holding that it does exist. And coming to some decisive conclusion about if it exists or not by means of correct reasoning is the method of negating the object. Then having, in this first essential, determine the object of negation that is, having identified well what it is that we are going to set out to negate then what is the reason that we apply in the course of negating it? Well, is the way that we should reflect in the course of our meditation.
If we were to take as a subject the the I which exists in dependence upon the aggregates, that it does not exist from its own side without being merely imputed to the aggregates. Why? Because if it did exist without being merely imputed to the aggregates, then it would have to be either the same as the aggregates or different than the aggregates. But it’s not either, therefore it does not exist. So the subject is the eye which depends upon the aggregates.
It does not exist in dependence upon its It does not exist from its own side without being moving imputed to the aggregates. And the reason that we give because if it did, then it would have to be either the same as the aggregates or different the aggregates and it is neither. In general, if something exists, it must be either it must exist either in two categories. It must be the same or it must be different. Now there are different ways to translate this term.
It must be same or different, or in other words for same, it must be a singularity or identity, or on the other hand, it must be different. In other words, it must be a plurality or it must be many. If something exists, it must be one or many, must be same or different, singular plurality. For example, each of our cells is identical, is an identity, is the same, is a singularity. But if we had a friend, then you and your friend would be different.
A plurality. You would be many. So at this essential, determining the pervasion, we must come to conclusion that if something exists, it must be either the same or different. It must be one or many. And the way this is going to be applied is that the object of negation if the object to be negated exists, if it exists.
That is, the object of negation is the eye which exists from its own side without being merely imputed to the aggregates. If that eye exists, then if it exists, it must be either the same as the aggregates or it must be different than the aggregates. If exists, it must exist in one of these two ways. It must be either the same as the aggregate or different than the aggregate. There’s no other way that possible way for it to exist.
So the second essential is determining the pervasion, that if something exists, it necessarily must be either the same or different. Here what we are determining is whether the object of negation, that is to say the to exist, the eye which exists from its own side without being merely imputed, if that eye exists then it must be either the same as the aggregates or it must be different than the aggregates. We have to come to a firm conclusion that it must be one or the other. There’s no other possibility it’s such that it could still exist. It must be either one of these two.
So that’s the second essential. So we’ve determined in the second essential that if the eye which from its own, the eye which appears to exist from its own side without depending upon the aggregates, if it exists, then it must be either the same or it must be different than the aggregates. And then the third essential, determining the lack of being the same. We must then go on to understand that this I, which is the object of negation, which appears to exist from its own side without depending upon the aggregates, if it were the same as the aggregates, then would certain faults would necessarily follow. If this eye were the same as aggregates, then certain faults would follow.
So what we have to understand is that there are certain faults which will accrue if this eye were the same as the I gets. We’ve seen that these faults do accrue, that there are these inconsistencies, then we will understand, oh, it must not be the case. This I is not the same as aggregates. So at this third essential, we want to investigate as to whether the I you know, this I, this I which appears to ourselves not to exist from its own side without depending upon the aggregates we want to investigate whether it’s the same as the aggregates, as the five aggregates. And by same it means identical.
Exactly. That it must, if it is the same, it must be inseparably one with the aggregates. That they are completely identical, this I and the aggregates. Just like a flower in Tibetan language, it’s called metok. The metok and flower are inseparably one, identical.
Likewise, it’s like pouring milk into water. They become inseparably one. Likewise, this I, which exists from its own side without depending upon the aggregates, in this third essential, we are investigating to see whether it is the same as the aggregates. That is the inseparably one identical with no difference whatsoever. So there are in this investigation, there are two parts that were in terms of the characteristic of how this eye is appearing.
The eye appears not to depend upon the aggregates. So the eye in fact, in reality, it is dependent upon the aggregates. It’s imputed to the aggregates, but the eye appears not to be imputed in dependence upon the aggregates. And there is the and also this eye appears to exist from its own side. So what we want to try to investigate and come to an understanding of is, is this eye inseparably one with the aggregates?
If it is, there are many faults which necessarily follow if this eye were to be inseparably one identical with the aggregates. Okay, what are some of the faults that necessarily follow? When we try to investigate to see whether this eye, whether it is established as existing from its own side without depending upon the aggregates. If it is inherently the same as aggregates, inherently identical to the aggregates, if this eye is inherently identical, then because there are five aggregates, aren’t there? Now if this I is inseparably one with those aggregates, then it would necessarily follow that since the I only appears to be one I, if this eye is identical to the aggregates, then the five aggregates must be only one.
If the eye is identical to the aggregates, then because there is only one eye, there must be only one aggregate. So that’s one fold. Now on the other hand, if the eye and the aggregates are exactly identical, then because there are five aggregates, would have to be five eyes. But there aren’t five eyes, there’s only one eye. So there are these two faults which immediately follow upon investigation as to whether the eye existing from its own side, not depending upon the aggregates, is inherently the same as the aggregates.
The first being that because there is only one I, and if the I is exactly the same as the aggregates, there can only be one aggregate. So the five aggregates would be reduced to one. Or on the other hand, because there are five aggregates and the I is identical with the aggregates, then there must be five eyes. But there are not five eyes, there is only one I. Therefore, one should understand how these faults immediately follow upon trying to investigate as to whether these two are the same.
So now another fault which follows on is that the five aggregates are that which are taken in the course of rebirth. That is, they use the word the five aggregates are appropriated. The taking of rebirth is expressed in the taking of aggregates one appropriates or takes up new aggregates. It is the I which does the taking of those aggregates. When we say that the I takes rebirth, what we mean is that the I takes upon itself a new set of aggregates.
Now, if eye and the aggregates were the same, then that which is taking rebirth the person or the eye and that which is taken in the course of taking rebirth, the aggregates would necessarily be the same. Now how could that which is the taker and the taken be the same? They must be different. So this would be analogous to the person who is the eater of food and the food which is the eaten being the same. The eater and the eaten would necessarily be the same if they are in fact identical.
But in this case, the taker of the aggregates, the appropriator of the aggregates, and that which is appropriated or that which is taken would have to be the same also. Likewise, the goer and the gone on would have to be the same. For example, the person is that which goes and that which has gone on is the road. So the person and the road would have to be the same. So we have to see the absurd consequences of holding that the self, in this case the I which exists from its own side and the aggregates as being the same.
That there are these absurd consequences which follow if we try to hold that position. That if the aggregates and the person were inherently the same, then all of these many faults would necessarily follow on. For example, the five aggregates would necessarily have to be one since the I is only one. Or on the other hand, there would have to be five eyes because there are five aggregates. Or in these analogies that the eater would have to be the same as the eaten or the goer would have to be the same as the gone on.
That because of all of these mistakes which naturally follow from trying to hold the position of this I and the aggregates being the same, we come to a firm, decisive conclusion that the I existing from its own side without depending upon the aggregates, is not the same as the aggregates. You have to come to that firm conclusion. So this is the way that we should proceed in our meditation, that the eye which is in fact merely imputed, When it is being grasped at, it appears not to be merely imputed but to exist from its own side. When we look to see whether that eye is inseparably one with the aggregates, then these various faults necessarily follow. We come to a firm conclusion that this eye is not inherently the same, identical to the aggregates.
And if we proceed in this fashion, a very strong valid cognition of the lack of identity or sameness will arise in our mind. So since we all like to meditate so much, we should meditate we should meditate in this way. Okay. We’re gonna stop there for today. I want you to write in the [kamong mah jowie].
Takes five minutes if you have some questions. Does to say that the object of negation is neither the same nor different, and that it can’t be anything else, on what basis is that assertive? I mean, why couldn’t it be neither and both? I mean, same and different — to say that it has to be one or the other just says that we have to deal with the imperfections of our language and our conceptuality in conceiving particular things, doesn’t it? Forget the last part.
So we’re taking this example of a flower, if we’re talking about some object, then we can speak of it as being either the same or different than the flower. It must be it necessarily is identical or distinct from the flower. If you can think of another way other than those two, then we’ll all follow you, Buddha we’ll set aside the Buddha Dharma and the Sangha, and we’ll follow you. Particles, light. Light is made of particles, okay, that western scientists say.
It’s both a wave and a particle. It’s neither one nor the other and it is both of them. This is something I mean, how do you reconcile that? Go ahead, James. Take a deep breath.
Oh, I don’t know. So there’s these they’re explaining in terms of the way these objects are appearing to them, and they probably haven’t come to a fundamental understanding of the nature of the object. In what we’re explaining here as to whether something must be necessarily either the same or different, then through reasoning we can come to a fundamental understanding that it must be both. It must be I mean, not both must be either. We can understand that through reasoning.
It must be either. So if if in case of these scientists, if they were merely to hold it, if one of them were if one scientist were to hold that it was a particle and the other were to hold is not a particle, then this would be internally inconsistent, this would be internally contradictory. So, if light is formed, it is composed of particles. Extremely subtle particles. So if something were identical with it, there is only one thing which is identical with the flower, the flower, it is only that.
Everything else is different. So if something is identical with Champa, the same as Champa, it must be Champa. There is nothing, there is only one thing which is identical with Champa and that is Champa. Everything other than Champa is necessarily different than Champa. So we have to identify the object of negation, and we have to do that within our own experience, Without meditating and identifying the object of negation, we will not be able to, we will not understand the mind, the awareness which is grasping at that object of negation to actually exist the way it appears.
When the eye appears to exist from its own side, not to be dependent upon the aggregates, That eye existing in that way is the object of negation. It appears to exist independently. Now when somebody calls us a thief, then this eye appears very vividly and there is a grasping at it to exist as true, that it is established that way. It appears that way and it’s grasping at it existing to be established that way. We can come to that understanding that this is occurring through our own experience.
But in order to come to that understanding, we have to identify the other negation. Otherwise, you won’t understand what you’re experiencing. So if you meditate a lot, you will develop the experience. Yeah. Okay.
Okay. It seems to me that when trying to recognize the object of obligation, about having applied a reasoning Okay. Who who went in? What were the two objects? I’m sorry.
Ask the question. No. That’s fine. Okay. So the reasoning: the self is merely labeled onto the aggregates, therefore it has no substantial existence.
Feeling being merely labeled. So then what what is then there can be kind of nothing appearing to the mind. Okay? Because you there’s like a the object of negation is, you know, you’ve refuted negative is never nothing. I’ll ask, what appears to the mind when you negate the object of negation?
When you refute the object of negation? I’ll ask that, okay? We’ll go from there. So the emptiness of the object of negation, which is an emptiness. Emptiness appears.
Okay, so following that line of reasoning, there is also the understanding of what is left over, which is the merely labeled. What do you mean what’s merely left over? To when? At that moment? That’s what I’m asking.
Does it? Remember, Jason, the emptiness of the object of negation appears upon refuting the object of negation. At the same time, does the Does the eye appear? What seems to be that? You should go to debate. So the Śākyamūni Buddha said, not seeing is seen.
And what he meant by that is, when you investigate the object of negation and you refute it, you no longer see the object of negation. So what is not seen is the object of negation. One sees only emptiness. So at that time, the eye does not appear, the person does not appear, only emptiness appears. So when one examines the inherently existent I, the I which is the object of negation, one sees only emptiness.
When one refutes that object of negation, one sees only emptiness. If one saw the ‘I’, then there would be many absurd consequences that would necessarily follow. I know. Emptiness is a non affirming negation, or let us say an absolute negation. If upon negating the object to be refuted, if one saw an eye, then emptiness would be an affirming negation.
It would only be a relative negation. Okay. Thank you.