Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 78-minute commentary, Khensur Rinpoche opens with Nāgārjuna’s verse linking misconception of the aggregates to the misconception of a truly existent “I” — the root of karma and cyclic existence. He distinguishes “I” from “mine” as two forms of self-grasping, then maps three ways of conceiving the self: as truly existent (ignorance), as qualified by non-true existence (wisdom realizing emptiness), and as a bare conventional reference (ordinary valid cognition). The core of the session is a guided search for the object of negation — the self-established I — analyzed methodically through each of the five aggregates. A still pond undisturbed by a small swimming fish illustrates the ideal meditative posture: mind clear and unagitated while wisdom examines. The rope mistaken for a snake and a magician’s mantra-conjured horses clarify what “merely imputed” means. Suited to practitioners already engaged in Mahāmudrā study.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 17 MM 1997 03 18.mp3
UUID: 78a22cb3-5a96-41aa-8b53-cd4b025eeb1b
Teacher: Khensur Rinpoche
Collection: Mahāmudrā 1996-97 (Khensur Rinpoche)
Date: 1997-03-18
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 78.0 minutes
Words: ~4,161
Beginning with a quotation from Nāgārjuna where he says, As long as the aggregates are misconceived, there is the misconception of I. When there is misconception of I, as long as the aggregates are misconceived, there is a misconception of I. So, as long as the aggregates are misconceived, this is to say that the aggregates are the basis of imputation or the basis of labeling of the person. The five aggregates being form, feelings, discriminations, compositional factors, and consciousnesses. When these aggregates, when the misconception, that is to say when these are conceived to be truly existent, this is a case of the conception of the self of phenomena.
As long as there exists this misconception, there in turn exist the misconception of the self of person. And he goes on to say that as long as there is this misconception, that is the misconception conceiving of the true existence of the I, then one will go on to accumulate karma and in the process of accumulating karma one will continue to circle with cyclic existence. So there is mainly the conception of the true existence of I, but as an auxiliary to that, there is also the misconception which conceives of the true existence of mine. For example, we say my hand or my head. This “my,” the mine, M-I-N-E, can also be conceived as truly existent.
There are the two, mainly the misconception conceiving of the true existence of I, but additionally there is the misconception of truly existent mine. These two are what is called the view of the transitory collection as being a truly existing I or mind. This acts as the motivating force behind the accumulation of karma. So we should understand the distinction between these two, those of I and mine. When we observe the basis upon which we generate such thoughts as I I am going or I am staying or I understand.
The basis upon which those thoughts are generated is the I. On the other hand, when we observe such objects as our hand or our leg, our head or our body, upon observing such objects as these, there does not arise the thought that this is I. But on the contrary, it does arise a thought that this is mine. Such thoughts, that such objects exist as a basis for the arising of such thoughts as my hand or my leg or my body or my head. So we think of these objects as mine and conceive of them as being truly existently mine, but we do not think of them as being I.
When we do reflect upon the eye, we can think of the eye in terms of three categories. We can think of the eye in three ways. There are three ways that we can conceive of the eye. The first of these is when we conceive of the I, which is in fact imputed to the five aggregates but is thought on the contrary, or not thought, is conceived of to exist from its own side. Though eye is in fact imputed or labeled to the five aggregates, this way of viewing the eye conceives of the eye to exist from its own side objectively.
So there is this misconception grasping at the existence of the eye from its own side. So the conception of eye as existing as established from its own side is one type. So that’s the first type of awareness in which we a way of conceiving of the eye. Then the second way that we can see we can conceive of the eye, another category or way that we can conceive of the eye is when the eye is, upon having analyzed the nature of the eye and seeing that it is merely imputed to the basis of the five aggregates, that it exists by way of terms and conceptuality, one conceives of the eye as qualified by non true existence. One conceives of the I qualified by non true existence.
That’s the second way that we can conceive of the I. So the eye which is qualified by non true existence is the second way that we can conceive of the eye. So the first of these was the way that we can conceive of the I is that the I is qualified by being truly existent. The second one, we conceive of the I where the I is qualified by being non true existence. And here at this third way in which we conceive of the I is to think of it in a way which it’s qualified by being neither truly existent or non truly existent.
We do not think of the I as being independently existing nor dependently existing terms of in dependence upon being labeled. We’re simply thinking of the I in an ordinary way without any particular qualification when we think of the I in such statements as I go or I work or I understand or I meditate. So here the I is being conceived as being qualified by neither being truly existent nor non truly existent. So this third way of conceiving of the I, when we just are normally talking about the I, saying I meditate or I talk, here the I is being properly understood. That awareness which is understanding the I is a valid cognition, is actually concordant.
It’s true consciousness which understands simply understands bare eye. So this latter type of conception of I is common to us all. So we’ve listed three, haven’t we? So this third conception way of conceiving the eye is valid. It’s a perfectly good way to think of the eye.
It’s actually concordant. In the case of the second way of conceiving of the eye, the eye is being conceived of as being merely imputed by onto the aggregates by means of conception. So the eye is thought to be merely imputed onto the aggregates by conception. The eye is thought to not truly exist. Such a way of conceiving the I only arises for someone who has understood emptiness.
So an I which is qualified by non true existence is only conceived of by someone who has already understood emptiness. Now as to the first way of conceiving the eye, here the I which in reality is merely imputed to the aggregates is conceived of to not rely upon the aggregates, to not to be merely imputed, but on the contrary, is conceived to exist from its own side, independent of the aggregates. This way of conceiving of the I is ignorance and it is the ignorance misconceiving of an I or true existence. This is the ignorance conceiving of a truly existent I or self. So this latter consciousness is a wrong consciousness.
That is the conception, conceiving of a truly existent I. In fact, the I, this is the conception of a truly existent self. Self does not truly exist, but this conception conceives of it to truly exist. Therefore, it is a distorted or wrong conception. So what is the object being observed by this conception of the true existence of the self, the person?
The object which is being observed is the I. So what we’ve just mentioned now the the object of observation is the eye. What is the aspect? So this is what is being is being the object of observation of the conception of the self of persons is the mere eye. What is its aspect?
Now the eye is in fact merely imputed to the five aggregates, But the eye appears to exist from its own side without being merely imputed to the aggregates as if it didn’t depend upon the aggregates, as if it was self established, as if it were objectively existent. Aspect. So this is what the aspect of the conception of the true existence of persons, of the self of persons. The aspect is this. So this aspect is the self of persons.
This aspect is the object which is to be negated in the selflessness of persons. The non existence of this aspect is the selflessness of persons. Unless we are able to negate this aspect, then we cannot realize the selfless of persons. If we do not realize the selfless of persons, then we cannot abandon the misconception as to the selfless of persons. So we have to understand what this aspect is if we are to negate it and thereby abandon the conception of the self of persons.
So we have to cause the object of negation to appear to ourselves, but we have to go on and make effort and analysis of the way this self is appearing. Upon realizing its non existence of the aspect which is appearing, then we realize selflessness. We must must be able to identify the object object negation. If if we cannot identify the object negation, then we then we cannot refute it. The most important point is to identify the object negation so that we can go on to refute it.
Therefore, it is extremely beneficial if we are able to identify the qualities of this of the object which is to be negated. At this point, the author of our text, Lobsang Chökyi Gyaltsen, goes on to explain the way in which we can identify this objectification in a very clear fashion from his own experience. Previously, we explained that we can proceed in coming to this understanding either in two ways. When we were explaining, when we were talking about the cultivation of calm abiding and the view, we said that one could develop, that there was the first means by developing meditation on the basis of the view, or developing the view on the basis of meditation. We took this latter course by which we first developed the meditation, that is to say that we developed calm abiding, and on the basis of calm abiding, we will go on to develop the view, that is, say, the understanding of selflessness.
So having developed calm abiding, one places the mind in unwavering single pointed fashion upon the object of negation, that is to say the eye. And without allowing the mind to stray to external objects, one begins to examine the nature of this eye which one is observing. So when we said that in describing the way in which this examination is to proceed, there is here presented an image to help us to gain understanding of how the mind should be examining the object. Here, there’s a small pond. I don’t know what a pond is.
Pond. I think that you call it dam. But it’s extremely clear water, and there’s no wind ruffling the surface of the water. The surface of the water is completely flat, and in this pond is a very small fish swimming here and swimming there, swimming here and here, but it doesn’t in the least disturb the water. The water is undisturbed by the movement of this little fish.
So that’s the image or the analogy. So having presented the analogy, did go on to explain what we mean by this analogy. The mind is single pointedly placed upon the object, in this case the eye, And it should not stray from this eye, and it should perform an examination, but in a manner which does not disturb the mind itself, as the fish can swim thereabout in the water without disturbing the water. Our mind should remain undisturbed, the surface of the water remains unruffled, Our mind in the course of this analysis should remain unruffled. So, and just as in this analogy that the water was extremely clear, likewise, minds should be clear in the sense that they should be free from various faults, such faults as the afflictive emotions of attachment, etcetera.
So we said that this little fish is swimming in this water and it’s able to move about without disturbing the water. And likewise, observing the eye, a part of our mind, a factor of wisdom, is to examine the object of observation, that is, say, the eye or the person, and is likewise to examine it in such a fashion that the mind remains unagitated. So how are we to proceed in our meditation? We are meditating upon the I. There is a factor of wisdom which is going to examine the observed but we want to question how does the eye appear to ourselves?
Now we know that the eye is merely labeled to the basis of the five aggregates. It’s labeled by means of terms and conceptuality. That is the way the I in fact exists, but it doesn’t appear that way to ourselves to exist that way. On the contrary, it appears to exist from its own side. It appears to us to not depend upon the aggregates for its existence.
It appears to be self established or objectively existent. So that’s the way the eye appears and we see to that appearance and we then go on to grasp that is in fact the way the eye exists. So the eye appears to exist from its own side and we think, ah, that’s the way it exists. And we see to that and go on to grasp as if that were in fact the way the eye exists. So we, that is the eye that we have to go on to examine.
This is the object of negation. We want to go on, does the eye, where is this eye which appears this way, where is it? How does it exist? That’s the object of negation. So the eye is in fact merely imputed or labeled in dependence upon the five aggregates.
But the eye doesn’t appear to us to exist that way. It appears to exist independently of the five aggregates. It appears to not merely be labeled by means of terms and conceptuality. So this I as it appears to ourselves, this independently existent I, this self established objectively existent I, is the object of negation. This is the I that we’re searching for, that we’re going to analyze.
We want to say, well where is this I that appears this way? Is it the head? Is it the arms? Is it the hands? Is it the body?
Is it any of the internal organs? Is it the intestines? Is it the blood? Is it the energies? Is it the liquids in the body?
Going through all the various parts of the body, is this the eye as it appears to ourselves? So if the eye exists as it appears to ourselves, then as we go on to investigate its existence should become clearer and clearer and clearer. It should become more and more obvious to ourselves as we go on to examine, as we go on to search for it. As we proceed in our search, we should eventually be able to find it. We should be able to grab hold of it and say this is the eye, this is what I- and identify it, this is- and take hold of it.
But as we proceed through our search and not being able to find it, we come to understand that in fact this eye doesn’t exist. So by way of analogy, and if we had there was some article in House and we could and we wanted to find that article, we could search for it and we could find it. If there was illumination in the room, we could simply search about for it and find it. If it no matter how much we may search, if the article in fact does not exist, we’re never going to find it. So this in searching for this what appears to the eye as it appears to ourselves, upon a thorough examination, we come to a point where we come to a conclusion, Ah, it doesn’t exist.
If it exists, when we search, we should be able to find it. When we look and look and look and look, we don’t find it. Then finally we conclude, that self as it appears does not exist and we come to understand that there is a non existence of the self that is to say selflessness and this would be very good. So we proceed through a reasoned examination, a reasoned analysis, searching for this ‘I’ as it appears to ourselves. But upon investigation we find that this ‘I’ as it appears to ourselves does not exist at all.
That in fact it is non existent. This non existence is the selflessness of persons. Upon realizing the selflessness of persons, we generate a valid cognition which is realizing the selflessness of persons. So we talked, we’ve previously mentioned that there are two types of meditation. There’s analytic meditation and stabilizing meditation.
And here this method of analytic meditation is extremely powerful, is tremendously beneficial. On the other hand, calm abiding which merely thinks that there is no self, but because it’s merely a stabilizing meditation, doesn’t analyze. It simply remains with the thought there is no self, does not realize selflessness. If merely stay with the thought, I’m going to eat food, we never end up eating food. On the other hand, if having thought to eat food, we go on to think, well, where is the food?
What kind of food do I want? Is this good food or not food? And we actually take hold of food that we’re going to actually eat. In the same way, if we proceed in meditation without performing any analysis, simply thinking, sitting there, staying with the thought, I don’t have a self, I don’t have a self, just thinking that and holding on to that thought, one will never realize selflessness. So special insight is extremely important, isn’t it?
So if we’re going to meditate, we have to proceed in this fashion. So there’s tremendous benefit. There’s great results to be derived from such a way of proceeding in our meditation. This is a great blessing that we’re able, by means of this analysis, to abandon the afflictive emotions, that we’re able bring about all the causes of complete happiness and abandon the causes of suffering. So we have to analyze well.
We how this analyze well in terms of the aggregates for this eye as it is appearing to ourselves. We work through the five aggregates. For example, beginning with the aggregate of forms, the various parts of the body, the hands, the head, working through each of these various parts and trying to identify the eye as it is appearing to ourselves as being the hand or the head, etc. And having in searching through the body, not finding it there, we then proceed through the other aggregates, the aggregate of feelings. Searching through the various types of feelings, then searching through the aggregate of discriminations, searching through the aggregate of compositional factors, and finding the aggregate of consciousnesses.
And we know that we exist. I mean, I go and I eat. I do all these various things. This I exists. When we search, we’re not finding this I.
The I as it is appearing to ourselves. So it begins to dawn on ourselves that this, that in fact the I is not that we’re searching for which appears to exist independently does not exist that way. That the eye exists as in dependence upon the aggregates, upon merely being imputed by means of terms and conceptions. When we understand that the eye is merely imputed, then we will be able to understand that the eye which is not merely imputed does not exist. We will come to understand the eye as was set out in this second way of conceiving the eye, the eye which was qualified by being not truly existent.
We will understand that the eye is merely imputed. Merely being computed by conception is difficult to understand. So to help us understand, we can make use of an analogy. And the situation is such that it’s growing dark. It’s not light, it’s not clear out.
And you see what is in fact a striped rope, but you see it as a snake. You say, Oh, there’s a snake. There’s a snake. On the basis of that striped rope, you are imputing snake. So there’s nothing snake, there’s nothing, there’s no snakeness with regard to any part of that rope.
The shape of the rope is not a snake, the color of the rope is not a snake, the coil of the rope is not a snake. There’s no part of that rope which is a snake. The snake is merely being imputed to that. Or in the case of a magician’s illusions, where a magician is able to conjure up horses and elephants to the audience. They think, ah, there’s a horse or there’s an elephant.
In fact, there’s no horse or elephant there. It’s merely being imputed upon a basis that there was a horse and elephant there. So we’ve given two analogies to try to get across the idea of what is meant by merely being imputed or merely being designated or merely being labeled. We use the two analogies of a snake being merely imputed to a rope, or the case where a magician is able to conjure up horses and elephants and the audience merely imputes or merely labels an object as being a horse or an elephant. So these analogies are only trying to get across the idea of what we mean by merely being imputed.
We can’t take these analogies too far. That is to say, when we talk about the eye being merely imputed, the eye in fact does exist. In these cases, the snake does not exist. The horse and elephant do not exist. But they all are being imputed in the same ways.
So the eye does exist merely being imputed to the aggregates. These two analogies are presented only to help get an understanding of what we mean by merely being imputed. But other than that, the examples are unalike. They’re not alike. But in the case the objects exist, the object exists in terms of the eye, the snake and the horse and elephant do not exist.
So, you know, if we can through our meditation emptiness realizing realize emptiness, of course this is tremendous. But even through thinking about emptiness, we can implant very deep latencies which are able to begin to weaken the ignorance conceiving of true existence and this will soon bring about our liberation from cyclic existence. So this is the essential practice of Pänchen Lama Chökyi Gyaltsen; it is extremely valuable what he is presenting. Okay. So if you have some questions, we’ll take five minutes.
The magician is using the power of mantra and to emanate horse and elephant and the basis is a pebble and a stick. That’s the basis of imputation. So the magician makes use of the power of a mantra and due to the effect of the mantra, the members of the audience can see of a horse and elephant where in fact there is only a stick and a pebble. So the third is a valid So the awareness which is observing the I in the thought I go, I stay, etc. A conventional valid cognition.
In the second case it was a realization of the non true existence of the eye. In order one is observing the eye as qualified by the eye as qualified as being non true existence. In order for in order for that to arise one must have previously realized the non true existence of the eye. So the eye, So, the third one is the object of observation is the mere eye. And the second, the object of observation is the eye qualified by non true existence.
So the second is a wisdom and it’s realizing the emptiness of the object negation. That the eye is merely imputed and that it is empty of being independently existent. So one has refuted the object negation that one is realizing the emptiness of the object to be negated. It’s wisdom. The third is merely a nominal valid cognition or conventional cognition which is not analyzing or searching the nature of the eye.
A non analytic conventional valid cognition which is not examining the nature of the eye. Okay. Last week I didn’t translate a verse very well from the King of Meditative Stabilization Sūtra. I’d like to retranslate those lines for you.
It just said, Just as you have known the discrimination of the self, apply this mentally to all phenomena. So just as you have known the discrimination of the self, that is to say the self as the person, then you are to go on to apply this to all phenomena. Good night. Good night. Yeah.